Peter Dale Scott Does Not Endorse the Pentagon Flyover Theory (and Neither Do I) – Erik Larson

Hyperlinks here:
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/peter-dale-scott-does-not-endorse-the-pentagon-flyover-theory-and-neither-do-i-...

Dr. Peter Dale Scott, researcher, author and UC Berkeley Professor Emeritus, recently praised the latest video from CIT, ‘National Security Alert’. However, due to receiving many emails critical of CIT’s work, he issued a qualifying statement, which I asked for and received permission to post publicly. CIT’s film presents witnesses whose statements indicate, or seem to indicate, that American Airlines Flight 77 did not fly the path that we have been told knocked down light poles and caused the damage at the Pentagon, as well as the testimony of an apparent eyewitness to a plane that flew over the building. The film also contends that it is “conclusive” that AA 77 did not hit the Pentagon, that instead it flew over the building. However, in his qualifying statement, Dr. Scott says, “I do not personally believe it.” He explains, “All I endorsed was their assemblage of witnesses…. I do not draw the conclusions from their testimony that CIT does.”

This is Dr. Scott’s statement at CIT’s website:

Citizen Investigation Team has produced an important documentary video that, using numerous independent witness accounts, successfully rebuts the official account of Flight 77’s flight path on 9/11 as it approached the Pentagon. It constitutes a further compelling reason for this country to investigate properly, for the first time, the full story of what happened on that day.

- Dr. Peter Dale Scott

citizeninvestigationteam.com/praise.html

At the above url, there is a link to the film, National Security Alert.

This is Dr. Scott’s statement of qualification, in full:

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.

Sincerely,

Peter Dale Scott

In his message giving me permission to post, Dr. Scott also said, “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.” In my email to him, I had included a link to the CIT forum thread titled “Face to the Name”, where they post names and photos, and insult and attack those who question their methods, conclusions and behavior:

z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=508

My name and photo are on page 4; CIT co-founder Aldo ‘Investigangsta’ Marquis claims I have made “accusations of being disinfo" against CIT. This is not correct; I have criticized CIT’s evidence, claims and behavior, but I have not accused them of ‘disinformation’, i.e. intentionally misleading the public.

Lessons from Dr. Scott’s message:

1) Labeling people or questioning their motives instead of critiquing their evidence and arguments is not persuasive to people skilled in research and debate, and may even be offensive. Facts are facts, and offensive behavior does not change the truth, but civil discussion promotes greater understanding. Personal attacks can cloud the issues and cause bad feeling and suspicion among 9/11 researchers and Truth activists. The FBI employed such techniques effectively during their COINTELPRO operation, as a means of disrupting and distracting activists. Dr. Scott wisely asks that those seeking truth “not discredit the truth movement by wanton attacks on each other.”

And as 9/11 researcher Arabesque has observed:

About the issue of "disinformation" and "agents" and all of that. I think it is best to reject labels altogether and just give the information. Particularly since there are disinformation enablers who will use these kinds of characterizations and attacks to defend CIT and their endorsements of CIT. I have seen time and time again how this is used as a straw-man to deflect attention away from the bad information and behavior. Instead of addressing these issues, enablers of disinfo/misinfo will point to the "attacks" and accusations of "disinfo" and simply ignore the information.

2) CIT claims their collection of witnesses conclusively proves that AA 77 did not hit the Pentagon, instead flying over the building. In his qualifying statement, Dr. Scott endorsed the assemblage of witnesses, and said, “I believe that the testimony needs to be seriously considered by those trying to find out what actually happened.” He also said, “I have not endorsed the flyover theory for Flight 77, and I do not personally believe it.”

I’ve watched Pentacon and National Security Alert, and have read numerous articles and comments both endorsing and critiquing CIT’s work. While I find both CIT and the witness statements interesting, I personally do not believe the flyover theory either. The witness statements used by CIT are inconclusive, as they are in some cases inconsistent with undisputed facts, with CIT’s interpretation, and with other witness statements.

Arabesque’s review of Pentacon highlights many of these issues:

A Critical Review of ‘The PentaCon - Smoking Gun Version’

Caustic Logic/Adam Larson (no relation) collected statements of 13 witnesses from the public record that support a south-of-Citgo path- including statements by 2 of CIT’s witnesses, Terry Morin and Ed Paik:

THE SOUTH PATH IMPACT: DOCUMENTED

Arabesque has also collected the statements of close to 100 first hand accounts of the plane impacting the Pentagon, as reported by media in the time period shortly after 9/11:

9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Witnesses Described

National Security Alert contains much of the same material from Pentacon, but is updated with Roosevelt Roberts, the alleged ‘flyover’ witness, a partial quote from Erik Dihle, and new video with cabdriver Lloyde England, among other things.

I’m not sure what to make of Roberts’ testimony; he says that at 9:11 or 9:12 am (the Pentagon was struck around 9:37 am) he went outside the building after the “impact” and saw a “silver” “commercial aircraft” fly from over the top of the Pentagon to the southwest. Caustic Logic has written a number of articles examining the Roberts account- some of his statements indicate he saw AA 77 approach.

Erik Dihle gave an account to the Center for Military History shortly after 9/11. He had been in his office at Arlington National Cemetery, going outside after the fact. CIT only reports that he said, “The first few seconds it was very confusing, we couldn't even tell… some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going”. However, the mp3, which is available on CIT’s website, shows that Dihle completes the last sentence by saying, “somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building.”

thepentacon.com/neit426.mp3

So far, in the nearly 8 years after 9/11, these are the only first and second hand witness accounts that possibly indicate a ‘flyover’. This is strange if the flyover is a fact, considering that the area around the Pentagon is highly populated and crossed by many roads. A View Shed analysis of a 2 mile radius around the Pentagon gives an idea of how much opportunity there was for a flyover to be witnessed.

Furthermore, 3 video cameras aimed at the Pentagon did not capture a flyover; the Pentagon and Doubletree Hotel security cameras were rolling prior to and during impact, and video was shot by a passing motorist within seconds after the impact (the camera was turned on before the smoke reached the top of the frame, and the Pentagon is in clear view).

Cab driver Lloyde England figures heavily in CIT’s latest film, due to his famous account of AA 77 going right overhead and knocking a lamp post through his windshield. There are photos of his cab stopped on a bridge directly in the official flight path of AA 77, along with a street lamp post. As England was on the official flight path and states the plane flew over him, he’s a witness that contradicts CIT’s theory. In 2007, they put out a video short about him titled “The First Known Accomplice?” National Security Alert features new footage with England. In the film, England is shown photos of his cab on the bridge and driven past the location, and he denies that’s where he was. Instead, England claims he was further east- approximately in the area where CIT claims all their witness saw the plane actually flying. While it appears that England is confused- he seems to think there was another bridge in the area (there isn’t)- CIT claims, “This proves that Lloyde was deliberately changing his position on the highway for the interview, to match up with where all of the witnesses saw the plane.” Why would England contradict the official 9/11 story, if he’s an “accomplice”? CIT does not examine this issue. At one point during the driving segment, CIT claims England is unaware he’s being recorded; for them to make this statement, it would seem they intentionally deceived him, and told him the camera was off- otherwise, why would they think he would assume that? During this segment England refers to 9/11 as having been “planned”, that 9/11 is “a world thing” and it’s for the “people who have money”, that he’s “not supposed to be involved in this”, but they “came across the highway together”, and now he’s “in it”. CIT interprets this to mean, “Lloyd in essence admitted his involvement in the 9/11 black operation, but he was cautious to not outright confess.” In my view, a more plausible explanation is that England understands, as tens of millions of Americans do, that 9/11 was planned by people with money, and given that he happened to be driving by when the plane flew over and knocked a lamp post through his windshield, he became famous and of interest to CIT, so now he’s “in it.”

While the film is an interesting artifact, I don’t find it compelling- let alone “conclusive”- evidence that 9/11 was, in the words of CIT, “a false flag ‘black operation’ involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception.” While I don’t accept the official explanations for 9/11, and it’s fair to say ‘9/11’ was and is a ‘deception’, no other information is presented that the official story is false, other than what CIT believes supports the theory that the plane didn’t hit the Pentagon. Furthermore, the only other ‘9/11 Truth’ organization featured in the film is Pilots for 9/11 Truth, which also focuses almost entirely on information that implies AA77 didn’t hit the Pentagon.

In addition to the questionable evidence and claims, CIT has developed a reputation for abusing people who disagree with them, and have been banned from participating in many popular online forums as a result. Lloyde England, who they’ve called “the Devil” and “a demon” is one, but they have also made accusations against other witnesses whose testimony contradicts their claims, and attacked anyone who contradicts their claims, both 9/11 researchers and Truth activists, and so-called ‘debunkers’.

For more info on CIT’s bad behavior, see their own ‘Face to the Name’ forum thread:

z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=508

And the following articles document still more bad behavior, plus other problems with their evidence and claims:

CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy – Arabesque

Arabesque has written a number of articles on CIT, and been the target of numerous attacks; this is a link to all CIT articles by Arabesque

To Con A Movement – Victoria Ashley

Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce - Jim Hoffman

For more info on evidence that a 757/AA 77 did hit the Pentagon, see these articles:

Pentagon Attack Errors - Jim Hoffman

The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows - Jim Hoffman

9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Eyewitnesses Described – Arabesque

For more info on compelling reasons to doubt the official 9/11 story and demand a full investigation, see these websites:

The Complete 9/11 Timeline – HistoryCommons.org

Journal of 9/11 Studies and Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice

911Research.WTC7.net and 911Review.COM

Arabesque 9/11 Truth

And these books:

The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America by Peter Dale Scott

The war on truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of Terrorism by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed

The Terror Timeline by Paul Thompson and the Center for Cooperative Research

And these films:

9/11: Press for Truth

Everybody’s Gotta Learn Sometime

9/11 Revisited: Scientific and Ethical Questions

Improbable Collapse: the Demolition of Our Republic

9/11: Blueprint for Truth

Loose Change, Final Cut

For more info on 9/11 Truth news and activism, see these websites:

911Blogger.com

911Truth.org

TruthAction.org

TruthMove.org

Visibility911.com

YourBBSucks.com

That makes three of us

Plus the long list of credible people above.

Peter's statement was directed at those who were harassing him

The way I read Peter Dale Scott's statement, he was primarily directing his concerns at those who apparently "showered" him with letters full of "ad hominem" attacks trying desperately to get Scott do take back his endorsement, which he apparently refused to do.

Critical quotes from Scott's statement are:

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 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.
[...]
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.


I think those who are so intent on policing the movement and trying to force people to stop researching/questioning the OCT of the AA77 crash at the Pentagon have some self reflecting to do regarding their desperate tactics they have been using and how they treat other researchers and activists in the movement.

This blog entry is one giant red herring.

Actually you beat me to it, eleusus.

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. - Peter Dale Scott

Mr. Scott, of course they haven't. They're engaging in a desperate smear job against the messengers, and you by extension.

The simple fact is that there has been a coordinated campaign by the anti-CIT crowd to get the endorsers to retract their endorsements. I am in personal contact with DRG on a regular basis re other avenues of 9/11 truth, but I asked him if pressure was being put on him to retract his endorsement; he says several people have, but he is not retracting.

No one ever tried to state that PDS or anyone else "endorsed the flyover." The statements of prominent movement intellectuals were printed in full and were laid out for all to see. They said they endorsed CIT's body of evidence, i.e. the number of witnesses interviewed on camera, which call into doubt the official flight path.

It's important for all to see how disappointed Mr. Scott is with those who have e-mailed him, given the focus those people have on trying to discredit Craig and Aldo as people.

Faked path = flyover

As I argue elsewhere:

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 likely 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.

Maybe,

just maybe, Rumsfeld and crew, for whatever reason, didn't want to deal with the cleanup, extent of damage, and other logistical problems entailed with a real 757 crash into the building.

Remember, unlike the WTC, there was no plan to totally demolish the Pentagon, so there was no need for millions of people to actually witness a plane crashing in.

I'm not Peter Dale Scott, and I DO endorse the flyover hypothesis. It seems to be the most logical inference given everything we know at this point. If indeed there was a large plane approaching the Pentagon, which clearly there was, and it didn't hit, then what are the logical conclusions?

(1) It flew over, and away.

(2) When it began to fly over the roof, it hit a Star Trek - like force field and disintegrated into anti-matter.

Those are the only two I can think of.

Show "It would be harder to" by BreezyinVA

good points, Vesa

I've made that point a number of times, but forgot to put in my article; I updated it at my blog below the Lloyde England section and fixed some broken links, I'm gonna leave it the way it is at 911blogger.

I've got to sleep, but I've said my piece in this article and many times before anyway. The reason I wrote this is cuz I recently learned of Scott's endorsement- which I quoted IN FULL- along with his qualification of it- IN FULL. And the fact that CIT put me on their 'enemies' list.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Lagasse's credibility

I just got a link to the following pre-CIT interview statements of Lagasse from 2003. In them, he says he SAW the light poles being struck by the plane AND a taxi cab being struck by a pole.

Dick Eastman's questions:

2. You did not say whether you saw the poles being struck down. Am I right
in assuming that you did? Did you see how high on any of the poles contact was made?

3. Can you recall seeing what part of the plane struck any of the poles?

* * *
Lagasse's answers:

Question #2.... near the top....yes I saw the plane hit them..granted at the
speed it was traveling I cant be 100% sure of exactly where on the
poles...but I did remember a black and orange cab that was struck by one of
them

Question #3 Wings....there was composite material from the wings in the
area around the poles that had been struck..the fuse could have struck one
of the poles as well.

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/6-27-03/discussion.cgi.58.html

So, before CIT's interviews, he clearly says he saw the plane hit the light poles.

Lagasse admitted in subsequent interviews that he deduced...

the light poles being struck. He also never said he saw the light pole hit the cab. He said he remembers seeing a "black and orange cat that was struck by one of them". He did not see the cab being struck, he saw the cab afterwords after it had apparently been struck. (are you going to pretend to believe the blatantly ridiculous story about the cab with the magical forcefield that kept the light pole from touching the hood, even after being struck by a plane going 500mph?)

Vesa, all this has been discussed at length in other threads. Lagasse's statements, including all of his statements, not just the cherry-picked statements that people of your ilk love to pull out over and over again, have been discussed and elaborated at length and it is clear that he was deducing. Why are you rehashing it here?

Well, all I knew was that in 2003 he said...

... "near the top [of the poles]....yes I saw the plane hit them" [the poles].

The pole crashed through Lloyd's windshield and pierced through the back seat, as shown by CIT photos. There is a dent in the right place at/near the very top of the hood, as shown by a photo, matching the pole. It is quite possible that the seat-piercing part of the pole was stuck under some metal frame in the car's chassis behind the back seat, keeping the pole from falling onto the hood.

That does not sound so very impossible to me. Faking everything and/or flying a plane over the Pentagon without anyone noticing does sound much more impossible to me.

Faking everything and/or

Faking everything and/or flying a plane over the Pentagon without anyone noticing does sound much more impossible to me.

We could use this same incredulity about the wiring of the WTC with explosives.

Not only that, but when I've occasionally presented ae911truth.org to hard core skeptics, they talk of how the 700+ a's and e's who have signed the petition are maybe 0.001% of the number of people registered with the ASCE.

They also say: "If it was this obvious, why only several years later have these ragtag architects and engineers been coming out? Why didn't the ENTIRE engineering community cry foul from DAY ONE? Why hasn't the ENTIRE FDNY raised their voice in protest, and why didn't they do so from DAY ONE, if it's all so obvious to you guys?"

I don't think I've ever typed the word incredulity so much in one day. :D

You might want to try to familiarize yourself...

with the source material that you are attacking, rather than just relying on Arabesque's misleading cherry-picked quotes and other deceptive tactics.

The fact that you admitted you were relying on Lagesse's media-mined quotes from 2003 shows that you haven't bothered to review CIT's interviews with the witnesses and, therefore, are making uninformed statements.

There is a reason why media-mined snippets of quotes are a really poor source of evidence. Reporters have been found to misquote, deduce, distort, and cherry-pick actual witness statements. This is why CIT uses verification and first person interviews to obtain much more reliable and higher quality witnesses, whereas people like Arabesque continue to rely solely on ancient media-mined snippets that portray a different picture, while refusing to verify or follow up on any witness statements - it's almost as if Arabesque, et al, have an agenda...

Vesa, I recommend that you become more familiar with CIT's materials - i.e. the most recent and updated witness interviews - before you continue attacking them.

Flyover

I've never endorsed flyover, and I've never said a plane did not hit the Pentagon. Perhaps I should repeat this very frequently. I'm interested in the witness statements, which are to be taken seriously imho, if corroborated and topographically possible and after removal of deductive and embellished statements. ALL witness statements.

I believe I understand PDS' position very well. He's hit the nail on the head.

This thread...

Should be locked. We have enough "CIT is great/CIT is crap" threads going on around here.

Truth be told, I spoke with Dr. Scott to get his explanation for his "endorsement" within minutes of the endorsement being posted. He told me then and there that he didn't support the flyover theory. Long before he received the amount of emails he did.


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?

Clarification

I don't know from whom my above post "Faked path = flyover" is getting negative votes, but I think the REASONS offered for a faked flight path are not credible. To me, flyover would be the only rationale for faking a different path, but a lot of people would have noticed the flyover, as Hoffman points out here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentacon/overflight.html

At least one can say that arguing for a faked flight path IS highly conducive to supporting a flyover theory.

We have now seen that not even the most famous north flight path witness is credible (see the quotations above).

This thread...

Should be locked. We have enough "CIT is great/CIT is crap" threads going on around here.


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 have freedom, Jon.

Which includes freedom to leave a discussion you don't want to be a part of. No need for you to try to play discussion police.

Just hit "back" on your browser and expend your energies on another 9/11 truth topic. :-)

Censorship

So...Let me get this straight. Erik writes a blog, you react to it, after which you call for the thread to be locked...twice?

These kinds of intimidating censorship appeals belong on Fox News, Alternet or maybe the Daily Kos, but not here.

Debate with arguments, not with threats.

I have...

Several 1000 times. With several 1000 people. There are more important things we should be focusing on. More positive courses of action people can be participating in (like promoting NYCCAN... I just got a call from the Village Voice... I have no idea whether or not a story is going to be printed... or promoting H.R. 847... or promoting the "eleventh of every month" or doing ANYTHING but sitting on the computer arguing back and forth for hours on end). And it's not a "threat." Pick a thread, and argue until your heart's content, but 911blogger.com should not be CIT argument central. In my humble opinion.


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?

Show "Well, perhaps if Erik hadn't started with a red herring..." by Eleusus

typical JREFer tactics

You're still trying to nitpick and discredit a single witness, but there are 13 WITNESSES THAT INDEPENDENTLY CONFIRM A NOC FLIGHT PATH. That is why people like Peter Dale Scott, DRG, Richard Gage, etc., DO NOT DISMISS ALL THOSE WITNESSES THAT PROVE A DECEPTION AT THE PENTAGON.

Vesa, your tactics are so warn out and transparent by now, why continue to lose face repeating them ad-nauseum?

Well...

... first, we Finns are generally not so afraid of "losing face". :-) That's something for people in more "sensitive" cultures.

You are again using an argument from authority (Scott, DRG, Gage). If that were a valid argument, we might as well believe the official story.

I've argued why I don't find CIT's theories credible, and why promoting a slightly different flight path from the official one is incomprehensible to the man on the street. It is highly conducive to the flyover explanation. It is very likely to make the Truth Movement look absurd in a lot of eyes - just as the movement started to do good progress on the WTC hard evidence front.

It's interesting how the word "detractor" is used by some CIT supporters. Everyone who criticizes or doesn't believe CIT's views is referred to as "their detractor".

Vesa,

People who already have a psychological predisposition to believing 9/11 truthers are nuts will think the same thing about CD of the towers as they will about a faked damage path at the Pentagon.

We in the movement, who realize how backed with science the demolition scenario is, see that issue as a "sane and sober" idea. Whereas the faking of lamp poles sounds "nutty."

Anyone with "even just a 30% open mind" (words of Peter Dale Scott I believe, quoted in DRG's NPH) will look at both scenarios with an open mind.

Then there will be the hard core contingent of American who can not distinguish between "God and Country" nor between country and its govt. It will not matter how much scientific evidence is presented to them. An extremely sad case of this can be found here, where we have a 10 page thread, over 200 posts, with almost all of them showering hate on Firefighters for 9/11 Truth.

So don't worry about how nutty we might look to the rest of the world. Just search for truth, appearance be damned.

Authority

is currently the subject of discussion. Therefore discussing authority is relevant. I have problems with CIT's arguments also, but I don't attempt to discredit their witnesses using rather weak distortions and distractions (E.g. what is continuously attempted on Ed Paik). There are plenty of valid ways to criticize their work without resorting to JREF-esque distortions and focusing on the messenger...constantly.

Are you saying...

... that pointing out what Lagasse wrote in 2003 and that it contrasts with his later statements is JREF-esque?

In my mind, the difference (whatever his later explanations for what he wrote at the time) does decrease his credibility.

It's interesting that someone (not you, but Eleusus) who has been a 911Blogger member for a whopping 2 days accuses someone (me) who has been a member for 2 years 36 weeks of acting like JREFers.

Nope, not saying :-)

It depends on the subject. I was referring e.g. to Ed Paik and the attempts to distort his testimony. (JREF, 911myths).

However, Paik's testimony is quite unequivocal in its totality. Lagasse is criticized about the light poles, because he assumed they were knocked down where he saw the plane fly (deduction). Deduction, as we've established is a very common thing in witness testimony. Virtually all witnesses said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon, and the media repeated this. However, if you go out and actually ask the witnesses, it appears that only very few of them actually saw the plane enter the building facade. To me, this doesn't mean a plane didn't hit the building. It means that deduction is a commonality amongst witness statements.

I don't endorse flyover, but I am interested in the fact that 14 corroborating witnesses reveal flight path anomalies. Other witnesses support the OCT flight path and I'm interested in resolving the contradictions (even though the Pentagon represents only one of the four hijackings on 9/11). It's been somewhat of a mystery because we lack video recordings of the impact. It's a good thing the truth movement now largely recognizes there was a commercial airplane there. CIT also helped cement that in, mind you, unfortunately introducing premature and poorly supported flyover theory instead. I might mistrust some of the physical evidence, but I won't throw it all out the window. I see no reason why I should. Faking an aircraft impact in the manner suggested is quite absurd, and next to impossible. Just to reiterate my POV.

I wish we had more of the "bulldog style" investigative reporting CIT has shown, with less unnecessary and unfounded theorizing on the part of the investigators. (flyover)

It's ok to theorize...

But I personally can't see any rationale for faking everything if the plane flew into the building anyway, just following a slightly different flight path than officially claimed.

What I don't think is ok is to use such theories as the hard evidence proving that 9/11 was an inside job. That could seriously harm the movement.

but a lot of people would

but a lot of people would have noticed the flyover

This is logical fallacy of argument from incredulity.

CIT started out with 4 north side witnesses and are now up to 13. During the early days of those original 4, detractors tried to nitpick at the credibility of those four. But CIT's eyewitness evidence kept getting stronger and stronger to the point of conclusiveness.

We do have ONE person, Roosevelt Roberts, who CLEARLY describes a "commercial aircraft" flying away over the S parking lot, just above light poles, "ten seconds tops" after the explosion in the building. He did not describe a C-130, which did not appear for another couple minutes anyway, and was hundreds of feet in the air.

What if, over the course of time, more flyover witnesses emerge, including people who were outside the building and saw the whole thing? How will the detractors try and discredit THEM?

Probably by asserting that they are ALL WRONG, just as they do with the current north path witnesses.

>>>>but a lot of people

>>>>but a lot of people would have noticed the flyover
>>This is logical fallacy of argument from incredulity.

Actually it's common sense. That you are still arguing in favor of the flyover speaks for itself.

.

.

Show "Heh, people are voting down this post..." by Eleusus

Eleusus,

Don't forget, I'm the one who originally broke the story about the endorsements. It appears I've made some permanent enemies for that. Jon Gold even un-friended me on facebook for supporting this avenue of investigation. The fact that the anti-CIT crowd would vote down a deleted post (my image gif failed to upload correctly), for no other imaginable reason than spite, shows how shallow they can be and confirms what Mr. Scott says about them.

Incidentally, in the blog entry about the demolition in China, you'll notice I have a comment at the top about how the explosive streams go up and outward like banana peels. Though the comment does currently have 8 positives, I know it's also received at least three negatives. Why?, I wonder. Clearly there are people there who will vote me down now simply because I came up to the plate to bat for CIT, regardless of the content of my post or even regardless of the topic of the blog entry.

Very sad.

Voting it down

>>even when it is blank!

It wouldn't be blank for long . . . one doesn't have to have a crystal ball to see what will soon fill it.

Show "So, that is your lame rationale for voting it down?" by Eleusus

Another emotional reaction,

Another emotional reaction, wanting to take the toys and go home.

You don't have to explain that PDS was already not endorsing flyover before all the harrassment. I sure hope so. I sure hope he doesn't let harrassment change his mind.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Hey Guys

..... What do you think PDS wanted to convey here?

." 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.

Sincerely,

Peter Dale Scott

Thx Wisdom, this quote and comment is worth addressing

"the substance of what happened on 9/11"

PDS thinks the witness testimony needs to be considered, and that is some of what's going on on these threads, although it seems like, as Chris Sarns said, that sometimes people are talking past each other and not reading considering the points made in opposition.

"not discredit the truth movement by wanton attacks on each other."

Civil discussion is best and there's no reason for anything less, though I don't mind people making fun if i say something dumb.

If anyone feels I'm attacking them, please quote me and show us how I've wronged you.

I agree, the meaning of the witness statements needs to be considered. However, I'm considering the NoC-implied statements in this context;

There are also 13 (minimum) SofC witnesses (including observations made by Paik and Morin
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/08/south-path-impact-documente...

As well as nearly 100 on record accounts of the plane hitting the Pentagon.
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.ht...

And the physical damage path outside and inside the Pentagon
http://911research.com/essays/pentagon/index.html

Breezy and Snowcrash- I've watched NSA and read most of your comments, considering what it and you are saying; have you read these articles? Honestly wondering.

Snowcrash, I don't need JREF to 'cherry pick' evidence for me and I didn't even mention 911myths, so why do you say these things?

I also don't need CIT to omit consideration of a drawing by PAIK- that's ED PAIK, which I wasn't aware of until i stumbled across it on Google- if it was in NSA i blinked and missed it- certainly it was not acknowledged that he drew a line right to the Pentagon, over the Navy Annex- kind of like omitting the end of Dihle's sentence; “somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building.”

I believe you were one of those who acknowledged that perspective can alter perception and may explain why these witness who were primarily North of the plane believe they saw the path they did.

If the North side path is a fact that means England's cab-pole crash scene was staged- either the N side witnesses are mistaken (some may be lying- i don't know; do you?) or England was out there in broad daylight staging the scene on the highway- which possibility do you find more plausible, or is there another option?

And did you read these articles documenting how Lagasse's and Brook's stories have changed, and they got significant details wrong? Can you say for sure they know what they're talking about?

LAGASSE'S EYES: WHICH SIDE OF HIS HEAD?
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/10/lagasses-eyes-which-side-of...

CHAD BROOKS, 2001: LEFT? BEHIND?
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/02/chad-brooks-2001-left-behin...

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Show "I don't have much time right now, so..." by Adam Syed

One more substantial question

What plane parts are you

What plane parts are you seeing? Have you even looked at the building before the collapse?

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Perhaps there was already some wreckage

in the building, from another American Airlines crash? Or a portion of a fuselage to be taken out of commission anyway? And then when the explosives in the building went off, the airplane debris was blown out of the building? It's speculating, I know, but there's no sin in this.

I'm sorry, there's just WAY TOO LITTLE debris for there to have been a real plane crash. If it completely pulverized upon hitting the building, there should be TONS more "confetti" outside the building. And despite the engine parts which are shown by AA77 crash defenders, there otherwise seems to be extremely minimal wreckage inside the building as well as outside. If I were Donald Rumsfeld, it would not be difficult for me to organize a way in which this whole thing was faked. Especially with his evil cunning.

The entire 9/11 operation is one big fake. One big piece of visual and emotional theater, from start to finish. A "natural collapse" of the WTC was faked, the "let's roll" story was all fake, Barbara Olson's phone call was fake, the light poles and damage path at the Pentagon were faked, and yes, the extremely small amounts of plane wreckage on the scene were planted, either as a result of the explosion or by hand afterwards.

What exactly were those agents in suits and ties (but not wearing gloves as would be required in an investigation) doing there anyway? And why were they carrying wreckage away with their bare hands?

Fake

"The entire 9/11 operation is one big fake. One big piece of visual and emotional theater, from start to finish. A "natural collapse" of the WTC was faked, the "let's roll" story was all fake, Barbara Olson's phone call was fake, the light poles and damage path at the Pentagon were faked, and yes, the extremely small amounts of plane wreckage on the scene were planted, either as a result of the explosion or by hand afterwards."

Spoken like the typical No Planer, that you are. What is also fake, is you pretending to care about the truth.

Show "And this coming from somebody who purports to" by Eleusus

I dont Slander people who were almost killed on 9/11

"believe Lloyd England's demonstrably ridiculous and physically impossible fairy tale of the magic light pole that never touched the hood of Lloyd's car but defied the law of gravity, etc."

What is physically impossible is for a hood to be damaged when nothing hits it. The dash, windshield, and inside, were damaged consistant with the pole, or perhaps you think he did that with a hammer? No laws of gravity were defied, only logic and reason when you post on the subject.

"jim, I'd say you should deal with your own credibility issue before accusing another fellow truther of "pretending to care about the truth." You can't pretend to believe the ridiculous cab car light pole fairy tale and still expect to be taken seriously, at least by most honest and reasonable people."

The cabbie was without work and later filed for bankruptcy, but according to you he just likes killing people and you are going to give me a lecture on being honest and reasonable? LOL.

"EDIT: And trying to paint Adam, yet again, as a "no planer" is such a transparent and warn out tactic that it completely gives away your disingenuous agenda. If I were you, jim, I would re-read Peter Dale Scott's letter at the top of this thread regarding the use of ad hominems. My hunch is that you were one of the ones that flooded PDS with letters filled with ad hominems, demanding that he withdraw his endorsement."

You are batting 1000 with your "hunches" (wrong yet again) I've never had any type of contact with PDS in my life!! And No Plane impact at the pentagon is where the No PLane BS started. No PLane = No Planer The pentagon is where the BS started and some folks want to keep that garbage going at any cost. First it was a missile, now it's a silly flyover. No one saw a missile, no one saw a flyover, what they saw was a passenger jet fly into the building. Some thought it was United(Brooks) more thought it was American Airlines (M Walter W Lagasse, K Wheelhouse) some thought it was flying this direction some thought it was flying from that direction, all typical witness variations, but they agree it was a jet and slammed into the building. The rescue workers agree as well, and the physical evidence confirms it.
On 9/11 planes flew into buildings and the witnesses North, South, East, or West, at the pentagon agree. Your No Plane Garbage is old and debunked.

Trying to equate this to WTC

Trying to equate this to WTC is weak. They have NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER. It doesn't reflect well on you at all. Like watching faux news.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Show "straw men, ad hominems, bait and switch, etc." by Eleusus

Shoddy research to back up irrational arguments

"Tell me, jim, did the pole suspend itself in midair immediately when first piercing the windshield, with the bulk of the weight of the pole - at least 35 feet of it - somehow staying up in the air and not touching the hood or top of the car as the car spun and came ot a stop sideways? How does this work - gravitationally? Help me out here, jim. I'm having trouble with the physics of this."

It's already been done....
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/11/see-saw-analogy-moot.html

This claim of the "pole suspended in mid air" and other nonsense is simply irrational garbage you made up in order to make outrageous accusations against victims of the attacks. And your posting history shows that is why you signed up for this site a few days ago.

"Oh yea, and the reason he fell down was because of the explosion from the plane hitting the Pentagon?"

No, you made that up too. As will be shown...

"Tell me, jim, how was it possible within the approximately 2 seconds that it took for the plane that struck the pole to reach the pentagon, for this elderly cab driver to already have gotten out of the car and the mysterious stranger to have already stopped his car and gotten out of his car and already helping Lloyd lift the pole out of the car, all within that 2 seconds?"

So you signed up for this site just to tell lies in order to accuse victims? Was that part of your marching orders from CIT or come up with that on your own?.....
"Please Vote Us Up At 911blogger"- Title of Thread post by CIT
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/2047129/1/

The explosion he heard was one of the secondary explosions. And shows you either are incapable of even the most simple research or you have no interest in the truth but simply want to promote nonsense destructive to the credibility of the truth movement.......
See...

"Those fleeing the building heard a loud secondary explosion about 10 min. after the initial impact."
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html

This witness (who also saw the plane fly into the building)and this reporter both heard and discuss the secondary explosions at the 1:30 to 1:50 mark in this video....
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ihc1_pentagon-eyewitness-isabel-james...

"Oh, so therefore that proves that Lloyd's ridiculous story was true and the laws of physics can be broken?"

No, it proves you make outrageous accusations in the name of "9/11 truth" against people who were almost killed financially and literally. Not something I would be proud of, and certainly nothing helpfull for the truth movement.

"jim, you should re-read that statement perhaps another 10 times."

No matter how many times I read it the No Plane at the pentagon garbage and trying to pin 9/11 on innocent working class Americans who gained nothing remain, outrageous as smears on the credibility of the truth movment.

Just as I thought, you refuse to answer the question...

about how Lloyd's ridiculous story could be physically possible. Like I said, jim, until you can sketch out just how his story can be possible without violating the laws of physics or reasonable human capabilities I call BS on the whole fairy tale. Your nonsense above does not even begin to address the problems with the BS story of the 40 foot light pole that never touched the cab car hood or top, and how an elderly man can lift such a heavy long object with only one other person. Try again, without using bait and switch. See if you can sketch it out without making a fool out of yourself. I don't think you can.

You're not fooling anyone

While you were busy accusing me of attacking PDS (who I have never had any contact with in my life)......

"Eleusus
Member for
3 days 20 hours"
http://www.911blogger.com/user/5448

"Please Vote Us Up At 911blogger"- Title of Thread post by CIT
"If you have an account there or don't, please sign up and vote us up."
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/2047129/1/

"Oh yea, and the reason he fell down was because of the explosion from the plane hitting the Pentagon" - Eleusus

"Those fleeing the building heard a loud secondary explosion about 10 min. after the initial impact."
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ihc1_pentagon-eyewitness-isabel-james...

"jim, perhaps you should re-read Peter Dale Scott's letter above. I think he was surely directing it at people like you." - Eleusus

"See if you can sketch it out without making a fool out of yourself. I don't think you can." - Eleusus

It's clear why you're here and your "agenda". You discredit yourself.

"Eleusus
Member for
3 days 20 hours"
http://www.911blogger.com/user/5448

I don't know who Eleusus is

I don't know who Eleusus is (searched the name and it may be Greek) but I hardly think Eleusus is just here to vote. Eleusus is making a large contribution to the information. I find it interesting that a "secondary" explosion was strong enough to make Lloyd England fall down. What were those explosions.

So from what you are reporting, Eleusus has no right to be here. A corn ball group of control freaks. I've said it before and here is another example.

If the jims and the jons had their way, no one would be allowed to play here who didn't use the approved sites for proof. The investigation is still growing. Those approved sites have already concluded what happened. !! We need more investigating.

Eleusus, I appreciate the effort you are putting into communicating here.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Still waiting for you to answer the question...

You are just exposing yourself, jim. You can't answer the question without making a fool of yourself, so you wont. Instead you will continue using bait and switch, such as bringing up irrelevant points about how long I've been a member, etc., and using ad hominems. You are exactly the type of person that Peter Dale Scott was referring to.

Secondary explosion?

Secondary explosion? Doesn't that seem strange? One of the secondary explosions (plural)? Doesn't that seem really strange? How many times does a plane crash, go kaput, be completely destroyed, vaporized apparently,and have "secondary explosions" going off? Could those be incendaries that were supposed to detonate but didn't. And then you have the building collapsing when the support structures were still in place.

I smell cordite.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

It's called collecting evidence

"What exactly were those agents in suits and ties (but not wearing gloves as would be required in an investigation) doing there anyway? And why were they carrying wreckage away with their bare hands?"

It's called collecting evidence. What do you think they're doing?

" And why were they carrying wreckage away with their bare hands?"

Why do their bare hands look like gloves?

http://debris.0catch.com/_webimages/11.fbi.search.pentagon.JPG

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/docs/lawn_scrap2.jpg

http://911review.com/coverup/imgs/lawn4.jpg

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/oct2007/research/2007_10_figure11...

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/debris.jpg/debris-large.jpg

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_Pentagon_Debris_171.jpg

Where is that evidence.

Where is that evidence. Those plane parts were never identified. Did that collection of "evidence" satisfy you?

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Just Wondering

"Where is that evidence. Those plane parts were never identified. Did that collection of "evidence" satisfy you?"

No, the witnesses saying they watched a passenger jet fly into the building and the rescue workers confirming the grisly scene inside did it for me, along with about 50 other reasons. I was just wondering why these people's hands looked just like gloves.

On 9/11 planes flew into buildings. It's been 8 years now, why not admit it and move on from there?

Embarrassing911 Truth Ends

Embarrassing

And of course it was grissly inside. A lot of workers were killed.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Yup, I agree

It is embarrassing to accuse people collecting evidence, Old Cabbies, Reporters, and funeral mourners, and countless others who gained nothing of "being in on it" just to keep a no plane myth alive. I guess you can add Sgt Williams to your list as well.......

"WASHINGTON — On Tuesday, Army Staff Sgt. Mark Williams witnessed a combat zone for the first time in his 11 years of service.

When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him.

"It was the worst thing you can imagine," said Williams, whose squad from Fort Belvoir, Va., entered the building, less than four hours after the terrorist attack. "I wanted to cry from the minute I walked in. But I have soldiers under me and I had to put my feelings aside."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/sept01/2001-09-14-pentagon-usat.htm

If you think 9/11 truth depends on No PLane theories or it's dead you have it backwards. It depends on being truthfull, and I'm not going along with any "big tent" philosophy where any wacko theory is welcomed with open arms. IMO, That's harmfull, not helpfull.

Show "Yep, Faux Noise. How" by BreezyinVA

April Gallop walked through

April Gallop walked through that space before the building collapsed and she was carrying her baby. It wasn't raging with fire and there were no seats, no bodies strapped to seats, no plane debris. She escaped through the hole in the first floor. Then the building collapsed.

Where are the pictures? By the way, there was a plane at the Pentagon. Stop the no plane lies. I've asked you before to stop doing that. This is not about holograms.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

additional thoughts

I put this together as a response to SnowCrash and my post of JREF links on the Wolsey/Hoffman Interview thread, but it works here too. I'll be back to take a look at the comments at some point, but might not comment myself. I hope those lurking are edified and enlightened by seeing the discussion. Good luck to everyone.

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

The following 2 images are from JREF (see links in Hoffman thread)- 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:

LAGASSE'S EYES: WHICH SIDE OF HIS HEAD?
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/10/lagasses-eyes-which-side-of...

CHAD BROOKS, 2001: LEFT? BEHIND?
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/02/chad-brooks-2001-left-behin...

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

THE SOUTH PATH IMPACT: DOCUMENTED
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/08/south-path-impact-documente...

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):
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.ht...

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.
http://911research.com/essays/pentagon/index.html

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
http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Journal of 9/11 Studies
http://www.journalof911studies.com/

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Edified, and you bring up no

Edified, and you bring up no planes at WTC too.

Loose talk.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

In that case (additional additional thought)

I'll post my reply in two places too, as you do. My reply consists of one image, showing what Paik was actually saying in NSA.

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

And anyone who has been here

And anyone who has been here knows that the direction he is pointing is directly over the Navy Annex. And non-interviewed and unnamed witnesses from the Annex also say the plane flew over them (at least two that I know of). Pretty clearly blows a hole in the OCT.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Where Paik is repeatedly pointing and gesturing (overhead view)

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

This looks similar to his overhead drawing, although Paik's heading levels out as it leaves the Navy Annex, leaving AA 77 "on top of" Citgo, I believe..:

Photobucket

Just to drive this point home, clearly. I think this should do it, anyone who has further questions should look up and see Paik's testimony in NSA themselves.

I really don't need 911myths or JREF to cherry pick images for me. Besides, whether you use their images or mine, both are completely out of sync with the official flight path.

I should reiterate again that I do not endorse flyover and am not saying no plane hit the Pentagon. However, from Paik's words, body language and gesturing, it should be abundantly obvious and completely undeniable that he points diagonally over the Navy Annex. Could end up north of the Citgo, could end up south, I could care less, because I do not believe in flyover and therefore do not specifically need it to be on either side (So that I can say it didn't hit the light poles or something)

People need to judge for themselves, I guess. What was the true flight path of flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon? To me, it remains an interesting question.

Let's look at this scientifically.

Lets look at this scientifically.

The question is whether or not the plane was north or south of the Citgo.

In order to answer that question the best possible evidence would be firsthand on location interviews with witnesses who were on the gas station's property.

Nobody else could possibly be in as good of a position to tell because perspective error is an undeniable issue that increases significantly the further the witness is from the gas station.

Since CIT has interviewed all known witnesses who were on the gas station's property the accusations of "cherry picking" when considering this question are wholly unfounded.

To refute this evidence (and all evidence) it is necessary to provide evidence to the contrary of greater strength. This is a factual generalization that objective scientists can not deny.

So the only way to effectively refute the already existing evidence for a north side approach would be to provide 4 firsthand accounts of people who were on the gas station property and 100% emphatically support a south side approach as strongly and certainly as Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios support a north side approach.

To accept anything less would expose a confirmation bias in favor of the official flight path and impact narrative. A clear confirmation bias exposes a non-scientific approach to this information.

There is no way that any amount of out-of-context 2nd hand media quotes from people who were not on the gas station's property (and who don't mention the flight path in relation to the gas station at all) can be fairly considered strong enough evidence to refute the unanimous and independent credible witnesses at the gas station.

This is why the Citgo gas station witnesses alone are "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" of a north side approach but the fact that CIT has gone further out and everyone else in the closest areas to the gas station (i.e. Arlington Cemetery) STILL emphatically supports the north side approach solidifies this further.

If you appreciate science and objectivity, you MUST demand evidence of greater strength to refute a north side approach. This simply can not be done with unconfirmed 2nd hand media quotes (i.e. Albert Hemphill, the first of Adam Larson's "south side witnesses") from people who weren't at the gas station EVEN IF they specifically placed the plane south of the citgo (which none of them do).

Are you Craig's parrot?

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=677&st=0

Craig: "To refute this evidence it is necessary to provide evidence to the contrary of greater strength."

Adam: "To refute this evidence (and all evidence) it is necessary to provide evidence to the contrary of greater strength."
----------------
Craig: "The only way to refute the north side would be to provide 4 first hand accounts of people who were on the gas station property and 100% emphatically support a south side approach as strongly and certainly as Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios support a north side approach."

Adam: "So the only way to effectively refute the already existing evidence for a north side approach would be to provide 4 firsthand accounts of people who were on the gas station property and 100% emphatically support a south side approach as strongly and certainly as Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios support a north side approach."
----------------
Craig: "To accept anything less would expose a confirmation bias in favor of the official story."

Adam: "To accept anything less would expose a confirmation bias in favor of the official flight path and impact narrative."

.

"Let's look at this scientifically"... Parroting somebody else's words is not very scientific, you know.

This website has published

This website has published this blog entry (and many others) regarding the work of CIT, yet Craig and Aldo are themselves banned and thus can not directly respond. I know Craig in person and consulted with him, and yes he has directed me to certain posts and articles on their site clarifying their claims and positions. Yes, I have used their language and direct claims when discussing the information. That should be considered a good thing because you know I am representing their postion accurately in this discussion. Obviously you and 911blogger WANT to discuss their positions since you are posting here and blogger has allowed this thread to be published.

Show "We are not writing poetry" by BreezyinVA

Wow

new endorsement for CIT

And this man is a certified FAA pilot with the aviation expertise to make such a claim. And there are dozens of pilots supportive of his 9/11 organization. What does he say about the north of citgo approach?

"A conventional fixed wing aircraft, 757 or otherwise, cannot maneuver from north of the former Citgo gas station to cause the physical damage to the light poles, generator trailer, or the Pentagon without structural failure of the airframe itself. The maneuver would require G forces exceeding aircraft capabilities and that of the human body. Physics and math do not lie. If you accept the placement of the plane as independently and unanimously reported by the witnesses presented in CIT's video National Security Alert, science proves that it did not cause the physical damage at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001."

Robert Balsamo, FAA Certified Pilot
Founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth

citizeninvestigationteam.com/praise.html