Support 911Blogger


Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Dr. Frank Legge, PhD

whathitpentagonThis episode of Visibility 9-11 welcomes Dr. Frank Legge, PhD to the program. Dr. Legge is a chemist and serves as a co-editor at the Journal of 9-11 Studies. He has contributed many essays and papers on the topic of September 11th, including his role in the peer reviewed article titled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9-11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.

This interview focuses on Dr. Legge's new essay is titled What Hit the Pentagon? and is published in it's latest version (v.5) at the Journal of 9-11 Studies. This essay's leading hypothesis states that:

The major hypothesis is that various groups within the 9/11 truth movement are strongly asserting contradictory views and hence weakening the credibility of the movement as a whole. The damage is exacerbated if the supporters of these views not only disagree but also attack one another.

Dr. Legge also includes a minor hypothesis which says:

The minor hypothesis of the paper is that there is no scientific proof that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon.

Both hypotheses are examined as well as the idea that the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory is a booby trap for the entire movement. This idea states that if members of the 9-11 movement continue to promote this "no plane" theory as fact, that as our efforts become increasingly mainstream, we run the risk of the government producing a video of AA 77 actually hitting the Pentagon. We know the government has many videos which they have deliberately withheld from the public. What little information we have been given through official channels has only fueled the "no plane" argument. If a video were released tomorrow, it is suggested that this would thrust the entire movement into disarray as well as be used in the media to discredit us and irrevocably damage our credibility.

Also of importance in Dr. Legge's essay is the section on The Precautionary Principle. We at Visibility 9-11 endorse this approach and caution listeners and visitors to do your homework and only present to the public that information which is solidly documented or backed up by scientific research.

Lastly, is a brief mention of the fine work of John Bursill in hosting 4 events in Australia and New Zealand during the month of November. The Hard Evidence Tour Down Under 2009 will feature my guest Dr. Legge as well as other solid and reputable members of the movement, and providing to the public only the best evidence we have. Thanks to John Bursill for pulling together such a fine line-up and for setting a great example for everyone to follow when it comes to bringing to the public only that information which can be solidly proven. If you want to help with the costs associated with these conferences, which are largely being funded by John himself, please send an email to johnbursill@gmail.com.

Direct download: visibility911_dr_legge.mp3


Show "Is this really a scientific hypothesis?" by Adam Syed
Show "I'd like to have" by Adam Syed

The objection is that the argument itself is unnecessary...

Leave the Pentagon as it as - a mystery with important, nagging questions. The evidence in NY is much more clear-cut and difficult to spin. So you concentrate on it.

The problem with the Pentagon is that it is so arguable, which is why the 911 truth movement itself is arguing about it. The evidence in NY is less arguable; the evidence is much more clear-cut.

It's not necessary to argue about the Pentagon. The argument isn't contributing anything.

Show "Then why the flurry of blog entries" by Adam Syed

Agreed

I agree with the general points you've made. In fact, wholeheartedly. Just ignore the voting. I'm on a quest for truth, and nobody will tell me to "look the other way".

Legge's Maj Hypothesis, + S Side Eyewitnesses in CIT interviews

CIT interviewed Wheelhouse, McGraw, Zakhem, England (any others on public record?) and they confirmed the S side path, but CIT attacked them and dismissed their testimony. Lagasse and Brooks have contradicted themselves and known facts in their testimony; this calls into question their credibility as witnesses.
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/02/chad-brooks-2001-left-behin...
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/10/lagasses-eyes-which-side-of...

13 eyewitnesses- some of these directly support the S side path- others, aspects of their testimony may support the S side path, including some CIT witnesses such as Paik and Morin
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/08/south-path-impact-documente...

How can a jury decide a matter based on conflicting eyewitness accounts? A matter based on the testimony of eyewitnesses who contradict themselves?

Sure- investigate what happened at the Pentagon, and advocate for the release of the suppressed evidence.

There are hundreds of well-established facts that contradict and disprove the OCT. The claim that AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon isn't supported by the available evidence- I can understand people withholding judgment on what hit, and believing it's inconclusive; but claiming AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon is irresponsible- this is why the issue has caused so much controversy in the 9/11 Truth Movement. It's a fact the issue has been divisive, and that the '757 didn't hit' claims are used by the MSM to mock and discredit 9/11 inquiry. This is the major hypothesis of the paper, and Legge has supported it well.

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

Well said...


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

Please don't pretend we haven't gone over this.

I realize when I posted this many times in the summer you guys simply voted me down with no explanation, but since this is now on the front page and not in the blogs:

Keith Wheelhouse is not qualified to say whether the plane was north of south of Citgo. He could not even see the Citgo, let alone the point of alleged impact.

Look. This is Wheelhouse's vantage point:

He clearly was not in a position to see the impact:

He marked his exact alleged location with an X so because we know for a fact that he would not have had a view of the Citgo or the official flight path from this location due to the topography and landscape, Keith can not fairly be considered a legitimate witness who saw the plane fly south of the former Citgo gas station. You can't be considered a witness to something you couldn't have seen.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

...

A Good Theory, and the 2008 Declaration: Standards and Strategies for 9/11 Truth


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

Nice non-rebuttal to the

Nice non-rebuttal to the facts I presented in my above post, Jon.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Syed: "Please don't pretend we haven't gone over this."

Notice how in the CIT Wheelhouse gif Adam posted there's a view of the Pentagon and gaps in the trees on the way to it, even with the trees being several years taller than 2001. There's a clear view of the airspace over the Pentagon. Wheelhouse described and drew the S path.

Re: McGraw, Zakhem and Wheelhouse Adam comments about whether or not they could see the Pentagon and Citgo- the issue i was raising is that their testimony puts the plane on the S path.

Adam apparently believes CIT's 'theory' that England is straight up lying and was part of staging a downed lamp pole and cab damage on a highway in broad daylight just after 9:30 am in the DC Metro area- according to England's account, as well as the rest of the damage path outside and inside the Pentagon, the 757 flew right over top of him.

Roosevelt Roberts - what did he see?
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/search/label/Roberts%20R

Many of the differences in what eyewitnesses believe they saw can be explained by the differences in perspective from their vantage points and the fact that the whole thing was over in seconds. There are contradictory eyewitness accounts of the flight path; it is not 'conclusive' that AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon- claiming it's a fact that it didn't doesn't disprove the OCT.

What eyewitnesses described- close to 100 say they saw the plane hit- NOTHING should have hit the Pentagon
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html

Arabesque's articles on CIT
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/search/label/CIT

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

giggle

its like trying to catch a greased pig - isn't it?

Stefan just had the nerve to claim:

"Remind me of all these cogent explanations. They seem to be of a mysterious nature whereby you can see them everywhere and yet they can't be found with search engines."

you see - it doesn't MATTER how compelling your logic or facts are Loose Nuke. they simply will pretend to be looking in the other direction. its 9/11 wack-a-mole. literally. get it? wack-a-mole? get it?

lol

but i digress. i find this whole situation to be eerily similar to the no-planes circa 2006 debate. the theory itself is not as crazy (although close) - but the endless campaign and abuse of witnesses and 'professional wrestling' approach to the facts is the same.

"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA

not unlike greased whack-a-mole pigs

but i post comments and links primarily for the benefit of those lurking here (hi, ya'll), who have open minds and are trying to sort these things out for themselves- I'm not trying to convince people who, for whatever reason, are obsessively promoting inconclusive evidence and speculation as facts and proof.

It may not be clear that AA77 hit the Pentagon, and it's certainly not clear that it didn't, but it's clear NOTHING should have hit.

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

Amen

Here Here.. can't we just agree upon that instead of 180+ message threads.. just let it go. No one is going to get convinced either way until new evidence comes forth. (like the tapes)

Its obvious we all have our own differing ideas about the pentagon. But, lets just work on common ground. We all KNOW;

- The pentagon should have never been hit in the first place. How embarrassing to have that happen on your watch.
- The maneuvers made by the plane (as given in the 9/11 report) are highly suspicious and very unlikely to have been made by an amateur terrorist/pilot.
- That AA77 was somehow taken over (as was the other 3 planes) without a sound or apparent struggle, even though the pilot was a trained combat pilot.
- The only record of any contact with AA77 (during and after its takeover) was with Barbara Olsen. The wife of Ted Olsen who represented Candidate Bush before the supreme court to stop the recount. (again even though the pilot was a trained combat pilot)
- Not a single piece of evidence at the Pentagon can be claimed to AA77
- 85 videos are still being withheld.
- Donald Rumsfeld is seen assisting emergency personnel for some reason. Shouldn't he have something more important to do? There are people there more than half his age to do that job.
- There was a line of people on the pentagon lawn just after the strike picking up evidence. Why?

This all should be more than enough for us all agree on. Whether you think a 757 hit the pentagon or not should be irrelevant to the common cause. A new investigation.

Peace all

dtg
=================================================================
No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.
Francois De La Rochefoucauld

>>- Not a single piece of

>>- Not a single piece of evidence at the Pentagon can be claimed to AA77

This suggests the plane was swapped, since the parts are those of a Boeing, and most on here who support Legge's paper will not agree with this.

You are so right John, It

You are so right John, It doesn't MATTER how compelling your logic or facts are. All that needs to be agreed on is that we haven't been given the truth. Why wasn't the building evacuated despite the fact that officials were aware there was a suspected hijacked plane headed Pentagon direction? That's insane. Surely evacuation would be the first priority, considering two hijacked planes had just hit the WTCs!?

Very Clever...

Very clever of you to put your comment about me way back here at the beggining of the thread, from looking at the time stamp it was around the time you were refusing to answer my question at the other end of the thread.

Let me share something with you that will save us a lot of time and hassle:

www.screwloosechange.com

See, look there are people making arguments against everything we say, surely now we can walk away and get back to our lives now that "all this has been debunked"?

No of course we don't because it isn't as simple as just making an argument, the argument has to stand up to counterpoints and this is where you fail.

Note that Adam Sayed has answered Erics points repeatedly (and for the record I don't agree with everything he's said) to no counter-response?

This is what debunkers do too.

Just keep turfing out the same debunked debunking over and over again and make theatrical appeals to their audience "see look! troofers don't listen!"

Yes, we listen, and we digest, and we analyse and we research and we make up our minds based on what claims fit the evidence.

You think Lloyde, who now says his taxi was on the north flight path (or near it) and not where he was photographed with it is a reliable witness to a SoC path? Or that "Wheelhouse said the plane flew South" is a reason to reject the 14 people who said it flew north?

Really?

Really really?

Even though he couldn't even see the plane and the 14 who could said something completely different to him which corroborated each other? Even though they all drew completely non-suspicious lines which varied and he drew one which was a carbon copy for the official flight path?

Even if I BELIEVED in the official flight path that is seriously dodgy!

The plane would have been behind the trees the entire way from where he was, how excatly, using depth perception alone, manage to get the path 100% "correct"?

You really will buy anything you think supports your view won't you?

yet

,,, the community here appears to reject your conclusions.

why is that? tell us why you THINK some of this movement's most respected and long-standing members are rejecting your research.

it does appear that you are not to popular here. why?

"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA

Fallacies and McCarthyism

You're all over this thread using Glenn Beck and Fox News tactics to make your point. Do you have anything interesting to say? Or do you always argue your point with McCarthyist demagoguery? Should I make a list?

Nice going, maybe you'll hit the jackpot. Remember that the same fallacious tactics are used against the truth movement by skilled media propaganda assets. (And by this, I mean: we are better than them, I hope? We should try to be.)

Look, it can't be this hard to come up with better arguments, especially not w.r.t. the physical evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon, but these smear tactics are uncalled for.

sure sure sure

anyone who rejects your research is akin to Glen Beck.

sure

the plane flew over the pentagon

sure

"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA

You think?

It appears to me there are a small number of people arguing for and small number arguing against, I don't see how that can be represented as a rejection of "my" conclusions from the "community".

Wow, Larson.

That is the encyclopedia definition of "spin."

Please enlighten me as to where you see the Citgo station in this image. Maybe I'm dense but I just don't see it.

And you have the "nerve" to try and tell me that this guy's testimony is a strong counter weight to the 4 people ON the gas station property? Or the other 9 witnesses who WERE in a position to see the station?

Have you ever heard of spatial perspective?

Wow, Larson.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Larson, I'm waiting!!!

Please show me the Citgo Station in that animated gif. Come out and play.

Syed- "That is the encyclopedia definition of "spin.""

Unless i missed something, whether Wheelhouse could see the Citgo has no bearing on whether he could see a plane up in the sky, which is the relevant subject.

Also notice that Adam isn't dealing with the fact that there's a view of the Pentagon (partially obscured, but by trees, which aren't solid- and Wheelhouse would've had a clearer view thru them than might be apparent from a gif), and a much clearer view of the airspace over it- no report of a flyover from Wheelhouse)

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

Wow, dude.

whether Wheelhouse could see the Citgo has no bearing on whether he could see a plane up in the sky

Are you TRYING to suck up my time?

If he could not see the gas station he is hardly qualified to say whether the plane was north or south of it.

You originally cited Wheelhouse in this "discussion" as having confirmed a south of citgo approach.

Now you're saying that the fact that he couldn't see the gas station is irrelevant?! WTF?!?!?!?!?

And the plane wasn't "up in the sky." It was flying low.

Why are you spinning this into a "no plane" argument?

All CIT's witnesses saw a large plane approaching the Pentagon, "up in the sky" as you say, lol.

The fact that you would cite someone like him as being a more credible witness with regard to the flight path than the people on the gas station property is quite telling. You are married to a point of view (AA77 hit the Pentagon after following the official flight path) and will use the flimsiest of arguments to defend it.

Whatever. A UPS truck just came and delivered my copy of DRG's new WTC7 book from Amazon. I'm about to open it and read it. Vote me down all you want, the quest for truth will not be suppressed.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

plane in the sky, Citgo on the ground

Wheelhouse described and drew the flight path, and it was S of Citgo. The annex is up on a hill and the plane was above that, descending- in the sky. as it passed him, it would've been visible above or behind the trees, which aren't a dense wall- Wheelhouse could've seen it from his vantage point, as he said he did. CIT called him a liar, and Adam is also claiming he couldn't have seen it, although anyone who looks at the gif he posted can see he could've seen it. Adam's 'Wheelhouse couldn't see the Citgo' argument is the equivalent of a strawman.

Also notice that Adam is quick to try and discredit any witness that contradicts CIT's claims, but he's fine with promoting Lagasse and Brooks, the 2 cops at the Citgo who've gotten significant details wrong and contradicted themselves:
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/02/chad-brooks-2001-left-behin...
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/10/lagasses-eyes-which-side-of...

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

Wrong again

Wheelhouse could not see the Citgo, therefore he is not qualified to determine whether the plane was north or south of it. Simple as that. The fact that you actually believe his vantage point is a superior one to the people who were AT the gas station is very intellectually dishonest and frankly very telling.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Wheelhouse

I don't how on earth anybody could defend Wheelhouse. He drew the OCT flight path almost identical to the official path from a place where he couldn't relate the position of the plane to the Navy Annex, the VDOT, the CITGO or hardly even the Pentagon.

Yet he drew the flight path almost EXACTLY. There are MUCH better arguments for a plane hitting the Pentagon. This stubborn insistence that Keith Wheelhouse could actually describe any flight path at all from that viewpoint... do you realize people will believe CIT and not you? His account even disagrees with the C-130 pilot, didn't it?

Defending KW at this point is beyond stubborn. It borders on delusional. Come on people, he looked it up before CIT came by. Isn't there one shred of impartiality left in this discussion?

Does that question need answering?

Does that question need answering? No, there is not a shred of impartiality in this debate, I realised this when I was "on the other side" and it became even more obvious when I fully researched the issue and agreed with CIT.

The sitution the CIT-detractors find themselves in is unwinnable. They have no remotely sane sounding explanation for the corroboration of the north side witnesses, and so in desperation, anything will do!

It doesn't matter if the witness is verefiably not telling the truth (Lloyde) or was in no position to see what he claims he saw (Wheelhouse), if they feel it supports the conclusion they want people to come to it's fair game. They need everything they can get.

In the same manner Arabesque still includes people on his "people who saw the plane hit the Pentagon" lists who have publicly verefied they were not even at the Pentagon, despite being told over and over again of this fact.

Every argument used is desperate - like contriving to show Lagasse is an "unreliable" witness. I could debate that one all day but why bother?

If they get their way and we strike Lagasse from the record (and there is no need to) then the question changes from:

How can you explain 14 witnesses corroborating a NoC path

-to-

How can you explain 13 witnesses corroborating a NoC path

And that is about the greatest victory they could win for their cause! :-D

You've got to laugh...

"intellectually dishonest" "borders on delusional"

Adam and SnowCrash are apparently representing that they believe Wheelhouse is lying; despite the fact that the gif (see Adam's hidden comments above) shows a clear view of the Annex at the top of the hill and the airspace over it, and as the camera sweeps to the left past the trees to the Pentagon, it's obvious he could've seen- and heard- a 757 flying past, though it may have been partially obscured at some points. He didn't need to be able to see the Citgo to draw the path; he saw the plane's path, he knew his location, and the Annex, cemetery, trees and Pentagon on the overhead map would've given him the landmarks to draw the path he saw. He did not report seeing the plane on the North/CIT path, so CIT attacked him, calling him a liar.

Snowcrash and Adam are insisting that Wheelhouse couldn't have seen the plane or drawn the path, but they have no problem accepting Paik's overhead path, even though (from the video) it's not apparent he could even see the Annex from that vantage point. Also note that they're discounting the fact that Paik drew a path on a different photo that shows the plane going OVER the Annex AND hitting the Pentagon.

Morin says he saw the plane for several seconds- but he was between 2 Annex walls- the CIT video even shows the plane as visible to him for about a second or less- if he was seeing a S path, then it would've been visible for a longer time. And details of his story have changed- and now he's claiming the plane was traveling at only a few hundred miles an hour.

Zakhem said the plane was right over top of her house (she described it as 'inches'- obviously not true, but it may have felt/looked that way for the seconds it was there. Her testimony puts it on the S path- irrelevant if she could see the Citgo.

England- now claims he was not in the location where photographs document him, the bridge, the light pole and his damaged cab; on the drive with the hidden camera he insisted he was near the location CIT claims the plane flew, and says there's a bridge there (there's no bridge there). Is he blowing the cover off the psyop that CIT accused him of participating in, calling him a 'demon'? Is he messing with them? Is he going senile? In any case, the photos place him on the S path, and while he may now think he was in a different location, he still says the plane flew over and knocked the pole thru his windshield, by far the most memorable part of the morning. To discount his testimony that the plane flew over him and knocked a lamp pole thru his windshield requires believing that he was out there on a DC metro area highway just after 9:30 am staging the scene. This is absurd.

McGraw- another person who said the plane crossed directly overhead- OK, he inferred some things from things he heard later, but a plane passing over head would be pretty memorable- not the strongest witness- kind of like Brooks and Lagasse, who've changed their stories and gotten significant details wrong- see the links in my comment above.

Erik Dihle- the 2nd hand flyover witness- CIT eliminates from NSA the part of the recording where he said other people said the plane crashed into the building- if CIT has selectively edited like this, what else have they done that's deceptive and dishonest? Check out Arabesque and Frustrating Fraud's blogs (links in my comment above) for a whole host of documented incidents.

Roosevelt Roberts, the single flyover witness, describes a flight path showing the plane going SW- an extremely sharp turn for a 757, maybe not even possible. He's also sure he saw this happen well before the actual crash at the Pentagon.

CIT's Arlington Cemetery witnesses were north of the plane- this vantage point would have created an illusion of perspective that the plane was closer to them in respect to its actual location over the ground- this may account for their belief about the path it was on. Lagasse and Brooks, despite the flaws in their testimony, are sure the plane crossed N of the Citgo. Turcios also says that's where it flew. It's true there's conflicting eyewitness accounts. However, Adam and SnowCrash have applied different standards to judging the value of the various accounts, to suit their N path theory.

Close to 100 eyewitnesses to Pentagon plane impact in reports from the time by different media, 757 parts inside and outside the Pentagon, a damage path inside and outside the Pentagon, autopsy reports, personal effects recovered- does this prove AA77 that hit? No, it doesn't- but it seems a lot more likely that this part of the official version of events is accurate, than CIT's 'theory' that England is a 'demon' and so are the other S path witnesses, and there was a mass hallucination/magic show that fooled hundreds of people.

Sure, research should continue, but in the meantime it's clear Hanjour couldn't have flown the plane and that there was no DCANG air cover over DC shortly after the 2nd WTC attack when it was thought as many as 11-20 planes were hijacked implies the air defense was sabotaged. No air cover until 10:38 am, according to the Commission, and they mention that in passing, as if it's not highly significant and evidence of mis or malfeasance, even treason. Also, it's mighty convenient for the war on terror that the pentagon was hit in its only recently reinforced section, opposite the top brass and mostly empty except for civilian contractors and defense accountants.

I'm done here, but i'll probably be back at some point to take a look.

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

I'm preparing a response to this comment

but I'll put it at the end of the thread where I'll have all the screen width.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

CITGO

"He didn't need to be able to see the Citgo to draw the path; he saw the plane's path, he knew his location, and the Annex, cemetery, trees and Pentagon on the overhead map would've given him the landmarks to draw the path he saw."

If he could not see the CITGO gas station from his angle of view, then how could Wheelhouse know which side of the CITGO station the plane flew? If he were in line with the CITGO station and the Pentagon, then we might be able to believe he would know without actually seeing the CITGO station, but he was way off in the distance to the side, with a line of trees between him and the CITGO, and he could not see the station. Put yourself on the jury. How much weight would you give his testimony?

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

Show "Sorry..." by Adam Syed

Father McGraw:

Not credible testimony; he says that after others jogged his memory and told him what they saw, he agreed with them: the plane cartwheeled off the lawn and bounced into the building. Obviously refuted by the photographic evidence.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Show "Erik" by SnowCrash

SC: "Your spinning of the testimony of Paik and Morin is unneces

How is it 'spin' to point out that one of the drawings obtained from Paik by CIT (not JREF)- a drawing which was on a photo closer to his actual vantage point- shows that he'd drawn a line over the annex and straight into the Pentagon?

Showing only the part of the vid where Paik points straight down Columbia Pike as opposed to the full clip where he's waving his arm around in the general direction is misleading- and the first gif you posted eliminates the part where he points straight down Columbia Pike! The frustrating fraud article i linked to shows Paik indicating a left bank- not a right bank, which the N side path requires. CIT misleads by omitting info that doesn't fit with the 'theory' they're promoting.

Morin's story has changed somewhat, and he's given details that may indicate a S side path.

Have you read Arabesque's and Frustrating Fraud's research on this issue?

There's contradictory eyewitness accounts- CIT spins and attacks the witnesses whose accounts differ from the 'theory' they're promoting.

NOTHING should have hit the Pentagon- that's clear.

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

Paik, Morin

the answer to these questions is in the comment you responded to. No need to go in circles. I explained why Paik's account is at odds with the official story. Somehow you prefer trying to twist these accounts into something else without having to actually dispute them. Why not just say you believe Paik and Morin are wrong, since a north of Columbia Pike path is at odds with the OFP?

I mean, what are you doing? "May have changed somewhat, may have indicated that".... Morin was quite clear: "No frickin' way" was the plane south of Columbia Pike.

Yes I read Arabesque's and Frustrating Fraud's research on this issue. Jon indicated he knows Arabesque's name. So do I. I found out. Arabesque is an individual who denounces "conspiracy theories" in public life but blogs about them in secret. Time for Arabesque to come clean and reveal his identity. He's a public figure already anyway. I could be wrong about his identity, we'll see.

As for nothing should have hit the Pentagon: I agree. Then what? We're not discussing NORAD, Cheney and Mineta here, although I'd be glad to...in another thread.

"I could be wrong about his identity"

But in the meantime you'll go right ahead and smear him anyway. How very decent and responsible of you...

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Have to agree

Someone's identity is irrelevant and we all have a right to privacy.

His argument's don't stand up and that is all that needs to be demonstrated, and it can be with ease.

It doesn't matter if he's the Dalai Llama or Dick Cheney.

>>Arabesque is an individual

>>Arabesque is an individual who denounces "conspiracy theories" in public life but blogs about them in secret.

I doubt it. Why make a claim like that if you aren't even sure you know who he is?

That's pretty much the basis of this whole thread -- claims being made without strong evidence to support them based on "hunches" and "gut feelings," that witnesses are lying, couldn't have seen what they saw, are mistaken, etc. And these guesses are then being blown up into "facts" and assertions with no real basis in reality, just a basis in people's opinions.

You made a decision -- you aren't going to be so overt as to expose his name on here openly, yet you are going to then make a claim about what you think he has said.

But these are really the same thing.

If he were denouncing CTs in public, I would imagine it would be to protect his identity. He has been directly threatened with "we're coming for you" and other such attacks from those who can't bear that he debunks their work. It seems like one way to basically keep his private life private, given that he's been threatened. His 9/11 work is solid.

One would think you'd have more concerns for people being threatened openly on this blog, then a choice someone makes -- who is doing excellent work -- to simply remain anonymous.

You are ignorant about what a public figure is

"Time for Arabesque to come clean and reveal his identity. He's a public figure already anyway. I could be wrong about his identity, we'll see."

A public figure is someone the public has a right to know because they serve the public. Politicians, police officers, teachers, doctors etc. Alternately, they are someone who has volunteered their personal information either by taking on public responsibilities or publishing it themselves as a personal choice.


A private person, otoh, has no obligation to publish their personal information and no one else has a right to publish it either. The test is simple: if you cannot find one instance where an individual has published or approved to have published their personal information, in connection to whatever activity you think they are involved in, the responsible thing to assume is they ARE NOT a public figure. If you know they have explicitly expresses no one has permission to publish their information, you respect that unless you have a legal case. Even in that event, you do not publish their information willy nilly on the Interwebs--you go to a bloody solicitor or police station.

This is nothing new. Both Eli Blair and Samuel Clemens chose to write under pseudonyms during their lifetimes precisely to protect their privacy.

Get this clear in your head before you volunteer yourself as the test case. Having a well know pseudonym DOES NOT make you a public figure. So, unless you can prove Arabesque has done something worthy of public scrutiny into his personal life(like committing a crime), good legal advice would tell you to shut up and back the hell off. Mind, they'd be nicer about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_privacy

Thanks to the actions of these tossers still active in 911truth, which include, but are not limited to, slander, email harassment and death threats:

http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/2009/02/lying-with-dogs-at-waterloo.html
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/2009/05/mark-humphrey-is-not-harley-g...

it is a perfectly reasonable and valid choice for people to insist on participating anonymously or using a pseudonym. Your cavalier attitude about someone else information is dead reckless and irresponsible.

In other words, its none of your sodding business who Arabesque(or anyone else) is until he decides to share or he's a threat to public safety.

______________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/
http://truthaction.org/forum/
http://www.911blacklist.org/

McGraw, Zakhem, England

1. McGraw specifically claims he didn't see the plane approach at all (from behind him) and therefore would not have seen where it was in relation to the citgo not to mention he claims he didn't even realize he was next to the Pentagon at all (despite admitting to be a former DoJ attorney)! Clearly he would not remember the citgo if there was a shred of truth to this. This is all IN ADDITION to the fact that he claimed the plane cartwheeled into the building.

2. Zakhem refused to go on record for her claims and never provided an interview at all even after promising. Her account is proven false by infinittely more credible witnesses Paik and Morin. Even still, like Wheelhouse, she could not see the citgo at all from her location. You can't be a witnesss to something you can not see.

3. England? Your kidding right? Are you really going to bury your head in the sand so deep when it comes to the implications of this account?

CIT didn't "attack" these witnesses and these witnesses do NOT support a south of the citgo approach. These are beyond dubious accounts and the notion that you could even suggest they refute the 13 credible north side witnesses with perfect vantage points and Roosevelt Roberts is rather silly based on sheer volume alone let alone the numerous and obvious questions in these accounts.

Is the official story of AA77 hitting the Pentagon really that important to you?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Madeline Zakhem

She could not see where the plane was relative to the Citgo, nor could she see the Pentagon. She is most certainly not an impact witness and she simply DEDUCED that the plane hit the building.

Edit: That image is facing away from the Pentagon. But here is her view facing the Pentagon (can't see gas station):

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

YES, exactly!

Stick with the strongest suit.
"The evidence in NY is much more clear-cut and difficult to spin. So you concentrate on it. "

If I were a judge in a courtroom

I would consider 13 independently corroborated north side witnesses an extremely strong suit.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

I disagree

The "truth movement" are arguing about it because of political decisions made years ago which some people can't put down.

The massive independent corroboration of a flight path different to the official one is unspinnable - which is why those fighting hard for the Pentagon to stay off limits fail so miserably to dismiss it.

I agree though that it is not neccesary to argue about it, but your complaint should be aimed at those spamming out blogs, articles, podcasts and apparently soon videos attacking CIT. What response other than an argument can this behaviour bring about?

If people don't want to deal with Pentagon evidence - then don't. Just leave those who do in peace.

Those who want to look into it can, those who don't do not have to.

Pretty simple really.

So long as the hit pieces keep flowing, others will keep defending. If you want this debate to stop then it should be obvious who you should be asking to moderate their behaviour.

It's faction-based

I am the king of negative faction-based voting having once gotten a minus14 with very few explanations. It happens. Keep posting.

..Re: Is this really a scientific hypothesis?

Adam: My impression is that Legge's first statement makes for a valid hypothesis in a social sciences setting -- as opposed to the physical sciences, where one can usually state things numerically and/or, in general, more precisely.

ooohhh here we go again!

Adam states as if a fact "So we must understand that the host of this interview has a very clear bias in favor of a 757 hitting the Pentagon." This is not what I've heard Michael saying at all?

Adam can you put your brain in gear and understand the point that we the ones that support Legge support is that, WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT HIT THE PENTAGON!!

Legge mentions CIT and he does not disregard their research! (edit) Yes their conclusion.

He has a valid argument that "we don't know" what the hell is wrong with that that you have continually attack him time and time again?

Write a paper and submit it to the the Journal or stop spamming the same argument...we know what YOUR OPINION is.

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au

Oh come on!

Michael has made it clear for at least 3 years that he considers anyone who argues against the OCT of AA77 having crashed at the pentagon as engaging in harmful disinfo, that they are illogical, or that they haven't done their homework (which he stated at the beginning of his latest radio interview). Have you even bothered to listen to it, John? Either you are not familiar with Michael's long standing position that "of course AA77 crashed at the Pentagon" (paraphrasing), or you are being disingenuous to claim that Michael does not have a clear bias in favor of a 757 hitting the Pentagon.

Legge does not appear to be very familiar with CIT's research based on his frequent inaccurate statements he has made. Legge is obviously a colleague and supporter of Jim Hoffman and shows that he takes a pretty one-sided position that matches identically with Hoffman's arguments, which is clearly biased in favor of the OCT of AA77 and very anti-CIT with frequent ad hominem attacks (which is nothing new for Hoffman as he has consistently attacked anybody who argues against an AA77 crash for the last 5 years, frequently accusing them of engaging in a "hoax", among other ad hominems.

Why do you accuse people like Adam who make valid criticisms of Legge's paper of "attacking" him or "spamming" the forum? This is a "discussion" forum, isn't it? What's with you? You don't want certain view points to be subject to debate or disagreement? I believe that Legge has offered his paper for peer review, so what is your problem with people critiquing it? You are over the top with your criticism of Adam. If you don't like reading Adam's critiques of Legge's paper, you are free to ignore the discussion, but you don't really have a valid justification to tell Adam he can't debate Legge and other people on this forum.

John, your comment is way out of line.

Remarks, also on previous "What hit Pentagon", 9/11 theories.

Prof Dr Legge,
thank you very much for your utmost important scientific work on issues 9/11, namely also on defining, game changing, "game over" Nanothermite Controlled Demolition Study of 2009.

Remarks on the considerably unclear "What hit Pentagon" issue.
1. As you say, many in the Movement believe "no plane hit Pentagon", and there really is no consensus at all, no hard evidence, or contradictory one, on what happened.
Well, there cannot be a consensus without knowing the facts - therefore without profound, unfettered new investigation.

2. We need to realize that we are trying to track, to recreate a fallacy, a fake theater scene operation - as nanothermite proves 9/11 is all staged controlled demolition.
This is different, and more difficult, tentative, guessing, than to investigate, to recreate a natural reality.

These two points, to me, are shifting the search for What happened at Pentagon to the sphere of little bit of an entertainment, speculation.

3. I think when referring to a "plane at Pentagon", we really need to be more specific. ..... What plane?
a) original hijacked 757 plane with hijackers, at the wheel .. -- by me, highly improbable, if not impossible - no -hard- evidence
b) original hijacked 757 plane with hijackers, remotely controlled .. -- plausible
c) switched out plane, either another 757 or smaller military one, remotely controlled, possibly other fake plane overfly .. -- plausible, and by me, this is what happened
d) a missile, possibly with conjunction with a smaller military plane .. -- plausible

4. We need to realize that
a) flight path -CIT Citizens Investigation Commission is bringing credible evidence via eye witnesses stating the plane flight path was not that offcial, Pentagon bound, therefore - an overflight
b) downed poles appear to be a flawed stage, as there is no damage to the ground around them
c) we have a lot of flat contradictory information and evidence, and by now, pool also must be getting tainted by intentionally misleading information
d) the round exit hole inside the Pentagon appears to be dug after the impact, as the sign "dig out" even says ... /? , therefore, unconnected to "what happened"

5. I am most troubled by the fact that years ago, analyses were stating that found airplane debris - rotors - are just "too small to be from 757". But lately I have read statements saying that they indeed can be from 757. ..Can you please comment on this?

6. Another flat troubling contradiction is a clean Pentagon lawn, indeed too small entry hole, seemingly no plane debris, the idea that unskilled pilot would land a plane where ground meets Pentagon wall .... yet, there are plane remains on pictures, suggesting they do come from AA 757.

7. I even do not want to mention earlier pictures of
a) open book at the 2. floor where plane hit, kerosine burned. Unburned, opened, paper book ?!! ... I be darned :/
b) wooden stool, unburned
c) a computer, a personal computer, from plastics, - unburned.
This would defy even any normal, factual reality. :] .... Would you please comment?

The point 7 might drive me to a contention that "everything is fake" at Pentagon, which it basically really is, as this all is, irrefutably, an inside, prepared operation, therefore to the contention of even "inside explosions", demolition of a roof line after the initial "aerial vehicle" impact.

Yes we can - yes we need - a new, independent, complete scientific investigation. Polygraph questioning for all involved official. As we all might be surprised who knew what, when, and who did not know, or knew partially. Who knew, but did not agree.
Very complex, and very serious issues.

Yes, that is us - 9/11 Truth Controlled Demolition Peace and Justice Great Patriotic Movement.

Let me forward one more thesis - we need to be aware, as this operation if by highest skilled, top professional level, therefore there undoubtedly will be parts of "intentional mistakes" - confusion, diversion, incredulity parts.

There also will be unintentional mistakes, as the operation is highly complex and yes, daring to carry out.
And further, there will be unintentional mistakes while carrying "intentional mistakes" parts of the whole operation. ....
I just want to illustrate, how utterly complex issues we are dealing with.

We need to keep all these facts in mind while trying to assess "what happened at Pentagon" before the real investigation starts.

And yes, I am sure US government is in possession of a number of clear photographs of all 9/11 attacks, from cameras and from satellites.
I think even foreign government must have detailed satellite footage of the scene. Down to reading a car license plates.

Am I correct?

Thank you,
Petr Buben
http://911UnitedWeInvestigate.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/911news - http://newsrecord.wordpress.com

Show "Photo expert disagrees" by marzi

Oh no

Show "Stubblebine by name.." by influence device

Eyewitness within

Why is April Gallup ignored on this blog? I've met her and heard her speak and she said she saw no evidence of any plane parts or people parts or luggage, etc. And she and her infant son crawled out of the smoking hole.

http://www.ask.com/bar?q=april+gallup&page=1&qsrc=0&ab=0&title=YouTube+-...

OR...Barbara Honegger's evidence about an explosion at 09:32

There is too much gatekeeping going on here. Barbara Honegger has assembled credible information, eye-ear-nose witnesses, including April Gallop, that have the first explosion having happened at the Pentagin at 09:30 or 09:32. Even one of the videos from a hotel shows the first explosion at 09:34...which could be off a few minutes either way.

By keeping the discussion between the north versus south paths...and a flyover versus flyinto, serious "discussion management" is happeneing here.

At least Woolsey is asking, as am I, that we back track and reevaluate all the evidence...most noteably all the eyewitnesses taking note of what they "could see" from their vantage points and compare it to what they "report" seeing.

Also, as noted before...the generator is telling us the identity of the airvehicle that hit the Pentagion IF one indeed did so. The four pieces of evidence that will establish this are:

1. The damage to the low cement wall to the left of the generator...presuming its from the left engine?

2. The circular damage to the upper left of the generator...presuming its from the right engine?

3. The SINGLE streaked damage to the right center top of the generator...presuming its from something extending below the right wing...

4. IF both pieces of evidence regarding the engine damage are accepted, then this means that the airvehicle? is indeed in a left bank...and this will be informative regarding the right center damage to the top of the generator that appears to have been created by some form of under-wing extension under the right wing.

If one relocates the generator into its original position, assesses the angle of approach from the streaked damage, and then measures the distances between the two engines and then between the right engine and the "below wing" structure that would have made the streaked damage, and does the calculations regarding the angle of approach to the wall, the generator and the Pentagon, there will be dimensions discovered that are specific enough to match only a very, very few airvehicles...most likely only ONE.
[Its very unlikely that either the engines or the below wing extensions would be relocated from an original airframe...]

So, instead of the back and forth quibbling about which "story" is right, lets just keep collecting evidence and information and then ADMIT that whatever is "concluded" from such evidence is in fact NOT a conclusion, but instead represents ONE of the theories that has been developed to explain what hit? the Pentagon.

I'm not really sure that Dr. Legge's appraoch of "reverse proving" is a very productive way to go.

I think that, although creating some interesting debate, and of course showing so very clearly that 9/11blogger is deeply compromised by its "point" system, this approach has muddied the water and has created the very problems with "public perceptions" that it was intended to eliminate. So, once again I ask that the entire name of the paper be changed relecting my next few comments.

In the end...nothing should have happened at the Pentagon...absolutely NOTHING!

No planes?...no missiles?...no explosions?...no overflights?....no deaths...NOTHING!!!!

And this is what is lost in the weeds of these discussions.

So, please lighten up...collect and present some evidence...accept that NOBODY knows what happened at the Pentagon with the possible exception of the HI PERPS...segregate out the various theories into stand-alone hypothesis...

...and keep the pressure on the guilty party to show us all the evidence...most noteably...the videos...and also most noteably...some serial numbers of the airvehicle parts collected at the scene.

And its high time for "leaders?" of the 9/11TM to put the "high horse" of "needing to protect" the 9/11TM from itself...back into the barn. What is being protected are "their hypothesis"...and that's about it. Please put the high horse away...its an offensive beast.

We ARE CREDIBLE...we ARE INQUISITIVE...we ARE COMPETENT...we ARE SEEKING TRUTH...because we have been lied to...

Anyone who thinks that they KNOW THE TRUTH about the Pentagon...is not well enough founded.

We have MUCH more work to do...more information to look at from differing perspectives...the Pentagon journey is about 5% underway...at best!

love, peace and progress

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

and...NOTHING SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED AT THE PENTAGON...period!

That it did means that the HI PERPS did it to themselves...with great deliberance...before-during and after the event. rdh

Robin

I think we see eye to eye here. You see the same things in the facade and the generator damage that I do. I can live with contradictions, to a certain extent. Curiosity is more important than being right.

By the way, I think the engine and/or the right wing were probably dismembered after contact with the generator.

Robin

"So, instead of the back and forth quibbling about which "story" is right, lets just keep collecting evidence and information and then ADMIT that whatever is "concluded" from such evidence is in fact NOT a conclusion, but instead represents ONE of the theories that has been developed to explain what hit? the Pentagon."

This is really the position we should all agree on and stop acting like any one of us has all the answers. Let's just keep collecting evidence. The investigation is happening right now.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

I understand the concern about Subblebine

but couldn't we then also dismiss Steven Jones' work, because he believes Jesus visited the Americas?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

In theory

we could dismiss anybody who thinks Jesus walked on water. We could dismiss many people based on many things, this is true. Fact is, that after studying the facade damage, I realized that Stubblebine was wrong. I don't need any "experts" to tell me what to think anymore. Ahh.. the smell of freedom.

On a side tangent

In theory we could dismiss anybody who thinks Jesus walked on water.

Yes, and millions upon millions of people are "standard" Christians and believe the official 9/11 story. Indeed, at Amazon, the most glowing (and highly voted) review for the Popular Mechanics book comes from a particular A. Daniels Jr. who, if you look at his website he is a right wing religious fundamentalist. Being sick and tired of hypocrisy, and after having had about 8 beers one day, I+really+went+off+on+him. Even though I was feeling nothing but disdain (dare I say hate) for him at the time I wrote it, I can't help but giggle myself silly over my "you probably sit in your pew in church, squinting your eyes as you pray" comment. :D :D: :D

Anyway, back to this "discussion."

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

several points

I think most of the issues raised have been covered in the paper "What hit the Pentagon?" and its references. If any remain, post again. I like your comment on "intentional mistakes" and even "unintentional mistakes" while producing "intentional mistakes". The complexity of the task does look a bit much without inside help.

Couldn't really hear Dr. Legge very well...

I was interested to hear this interview but couldn't make out what Legge was saying very well. Was he speaking on a cell phone? Seems like the phone connection could be better.

These, I think, are the important questions about Pentagon

How was anything able to hit the Pentagon 35 minutes after the second tower was hit, with Andrews Air Force base nearby?

Why was it not even evacuated, when a young man kept informing Cheney about the approaching plane?

How could Hani Hanjour have managed to execute the alleged maneuvre?

Exactly

Those are the kinds of questions that need to be asking regarding the Pentagon. All this discussion of what hit/didn't hit the Pentagon goes round in circles. Too much speculation involved. That's the sort of stuff that can be dug out in a real investigation - there's clearly not going to be a consesus until there's more information available, and I don't think it's sensible for anyone to be commiting to any one scenario, no matter how convincing it seems. We ought to be asking questions like the above, not arguing over which witness testimonies are accurate, or whether the hole was big enough, or whether the wreckage fits AA77...these can't be answered right now; leave the nitty-gritty out of it until we've dealt with the big ones. Has anyone ever attempted to answer any of Vesa's questions? If you want to be sensible about it, these are the questions to push with.

"Too much speculation involved."

It is not speculation that 13 (at least 2 more to be unveiled --- wait and see) independent eyewitnesses all point to a flight path very different than the official one.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

and also

it is not speculation that the number reported as seeing something hit the Pentagon has gone up from 89 to 104.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

....

Mark Roberts....we can do better...much better. Like gathering these witness statements ourselves...and possibly verifying them by phone. Can we do that instead of using Mark Roberts, the apologist for EPA lies? You know this guy will spin and distort absolutely anything to get his way. ("Paint chips" come to mind) This includes presenting witnesses that did not see a plane impact the Pentagon but only approach it. The real witnesses are those who saw it actually enter the building or hitting the fence/generator, like McGraw, Probst, etc., and not those who saw a plane approach, heard a bang, saw a fireball and then deduced a plane crash. These sorts of witnesses do not help when discussing flyover theory. They only serve to confirm the presence of a plane and debunk no plane theory.

Why not just quote Jim Hoffman instead?

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

We can do our own research and debate it....amongst ourselves. I repeat...Mark Roberts will lie about anything.

Also

have we forgotten this lie by Mark Roberts?

Somebody should make a list of his lies. I expect it will be loooong.

You're really revealing your

You're really revealing your true colors by citing Mark Roberts' website.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Yes, strange that. To try

Yes, strange that. To try and PROVE any point regarding the Pentagon requires speculation. There's no room for that, so let's get back to asking questions, rather than make the fatal mistake of coming up with answers.

Hmm...

...we run the risk of the government producing a video of AA 77 actually hitting the Pentagon.

While this was a reasonable fear early in the Movement, with each passing day, however, it becomes more and more out of place, imo. Two reasons:

1. Such revelation will hardly make a dent in the people who already are in the Movement. Why? Because every new face in it quickly learns about NUMEROUS discrepancies in official story. Any possible blowback related to one issue -- what hit the Pentagon -- therefore, will not serve as a reason for any truther to stop digging, become disillusioned and leave the Movement. The most this hypothetical video will do is to deter someone from joining the Movement. Perhaps even less than that -- postpone someone joining it, until he/she becomes aware of other numerous discrepancies in OCT.

2. Considering the above, what useful purpose would withholding the video serve in the presence of growing Truth Movement? What are they waiting for? Are they waiting for the Truth Movement to reach 50% of the population? Or 70%? Just like a wildfire, a grass-roots movement would be quashed most efficiently in the beginning, not when it has reached unsuppressable proportions, imo. By then, a small blowback by acknowledgeing one mistaken conclusion will not make any difference, whatsoever.

It seems quite far-fetched to belive that the videos have been withheld for the specific purpose of derailing the Truth Movement. The fact that quite a few bright minds in the Movement seem to seriously consider this dubious possibility is puzzling to me.

What useful purpose?

An answer to this question is suggested in the paper "What hit the Pentagon? under Precautionary Principle. If you were under threat of prosecution for treason and murder, would you not like to have a useful tool at your disposal?

One takes out an insurance policy after considering the probability of some event, together with the seriousness of the consequence of the event. There is no more serious consequence than being convicted of treason and murder. The fear of that consequence must have affected the planning of the perpetrators.

New title to paper??

How about: Why the Pentagon Should Not Have Been Attacked? That way the biased is eliminated by assuming something indeed did hit the Pentagon. Then you can approach each theory: Flight 77 did hit and wasn't stopped, A missile hit and somehow they faked all of the witnesses who saw a large passenger plane over the DC area prior to the attack, and finally Flight 77 or a doppelganger was viewed prior to the attack and flew over the building timed with the explosion. Then you can weigh the evidence for each and arrive at your conclusion. Interestingly enough the CIT witnesses including the Pentagon's own ATC, on film, verified and confirmed appear to support a) a passenger plane flying over D.C. prior to the explosion instead of a missile. Scratch the missile theory. And if their flight path is accurate and it certainly appears to be based upon verbal communication and their individual drawing, then whatever plane it was DID NOT cause the official damage path which means some explosive of some sort did and the plane performed a disappearing act.

Oh and please stop citing unverified and unconfirmed witnesses found at Hoffman's or Robert's site. Until they are verified and confirmed, they are meaningless. I showed you examples in another post where witnesses statements were outright wrong, embellished, and full of lies when republished in mainstream accounts.

Visit http://dotheordersstillstand.blogspot.com/ for analysis and commentary on 9/11.

This is exactly the problem...

... that this "insurance policy" provides less and less "coverage" as time goes by. If not totally obsolete already, it will become so very soon. I agree that it was a good argument five years ago, but not any more.

Thank you, exactly!

I totally agree. I can't believe people are still arguing that the govt is withholding the videos in oder to trick people into questioning the official account of AA77, only to eventually surprise conspiracy theorists with a video showing an AA77 impact. This has always been a weak speculative theory, and it makes less and less sense as the years go by.

This contingent of people in the movement who push the theory that evidence is being withheld only to purposely create mistrust and speculation violates basic logic, and is in complete contradiction with the government's behavior of trying to stamp out skepticism of the official 9/11 account and their constant effort at damage control and propaganda to push the official account. Completely contradictory. Dr. Frank Legge has chosen to push a convoluted explanation for why evidence is being withheld over a more simple and logical explanation. Legge claims that this is in keeping with the Precautionary Principle. But it violates Occum's Razor, which if applied in this case, strongly suggests that THE REASON THE GOVERNMENT IS WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE IS BECAUSE THEY ARE LYING. THEY ARE WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED AT THE PENTAGON IS NOT WHAT THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNT CLAIMS - THAT AA77 CRASHED AT THE PENTAGON. This is the simplest and most logical explanation. Why Dr. Frank Legge has chosen a convoluted and increasingly unlikely explanation over this more simple and logical one is a mystery to me. But this strange behavior is also exhibited by just about all those who are members of the Church of the Pentagram Boeing, where people seem to be so emotionally attached to a pre-determined position of the OCT of AA77 that they have lost their ability to stay logical and reasonable.

Yep...

...Occam's Razor applies. Also, consider the past experience -- we have never witnessed a clever alibi like that in action so far. If anything, the PTB seem to be in constant damage control mode since day one (as you have rightly noted). They don't seem to have thought very far ahead at all in the whole 911 thing -- so many loose ends. Yet, in case of Pentagon we should be afraid for some reason that they have. So far, as much as we can see, the evidence has been withheld/destroyed for the reason of not agreeing with the OCT.

Even if they possessed said video, it would only have a limited propaganda effect, if any at all, imo. It certainly would not offer any protection from "being convicted of treason and murder", unless they have about 100 or so other clever alibies to plug the numerous significant holes in the OCT.

The apparent lack of logic in this argument is what baffles me. Especially coming from highly intelligent and respected people in the Truth Movement. Why the need to lean on it?

Smoothie

Very well put. Let's not worry about the government conjouring up fake evidence. Besides, I look forward to seeing the government video of the plane bouncing off the lawn and smashing into the Pentagon then getting sucked in through that hole... engines, wings, tail fin and all.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

Credibility

is established and maintained by a constant search for fact based evidence done with an open mind. We dis-serve ourselves and the victims when we can not refrain from the disrespectful criticism of some of our researchers. Pilots (I am one) are taking much to much flack (and giving it too) in searching for fact based answers. Some great new areas are being explored and older ones ignored where they should be constantly repeated. Former-aircraft speed, controllability, maneuverability aspects that may be physically impossible as described by the government ; latter-the indestructible nature of the thousands of aircraft specific parts (including voice and data recorders) that the government is hiding. And the most disturbing to me, WHY NO INTERCEPTS? " Contempt prior to investigation will keep a man in everlasting ignorance." Herbert Spencer "Never stop questioning." Albert Einstein Let's keep on questioning, and turn our contemptors off.

An Open Letter To Michael Woolsey

Dear Michael,

After listening to your most recent podcast featuring Frank Legge I felt compelled to write to you to explain to you why I disagree with your take on the issue of the Pentagon attack. As you started your broadcast with a brief biographical anecdote on your history with the issue, so will I.

After I accepted that 9/11 was a false flag attack and before I discovered that there was a network of 9/11 activists in the UK, I very much fitted into the category of keyboard warrior. I spent an unhealthy amount of my free time (and I'm not proud to say a lot of my paid hours as well) debating the issue on a mainstream political forum. Despite being just one pro-9/11 Truth poster against a forum hostile to the idea, I destroyed the anti-9/11 truth contingent in debate on a daily basis for months on end and on every issue I managed to win someone over. Every issue except one. The one debate I can hold my hands up and admit I lost was on the issue of the Pentagon. I made the mistake of saying that it would be impossible for the damage to the Pentagon to be caused by a large Boeing and failed to conclusively demonstrate that to be true. Despite the extreme abnormality of both the damage to the building and the wreckage allegedly left from the plane there was no ‘smoking gun’ at my disposal. There was no “freefall speed” or “molten metal” or clear impossibility which you could force an opponent into a corner with. Eventually having failed to convince a single person that the damage was not caused by the plane I dropped the issue.

When I first turned up at a 9/11 Truth Campaign meeting I explained to the people there that I didn't think we should focus on the Pentagon as it was an argument we could potentially lose, while we could not lose the argument with WTC7 or the Twin Towers. It was an unpopular view to say the least but I stuck to my guns because I was right. With the evidence we had then there was no disproving that the plane hit the Pentagon, however much we suspected it did not.

Sadly, many people are not able to sit comfortably with a question mark hanging over their heads. When we know something is not right but do not know what it is some of us chose to indulge in guess work and speculative theories began to spring up. There were three of them, the first two were wild guesses and third read like the ranting of a mad man on a soap box:

1. A global hawk hit the Pentagon.
2. A missile hit the Pentagon
3. The powers that be are trying to make us think the plane didn't hit the Pentagon so they can then release a genuine video of the plane doing just that to make us look stupid for saying one didn't.

While the first two were supported by no evidence, they at least sought to deal with the source problem that lead us to question the Pentagon; that it appeared very unlikely for a Boeing to have caused the damage we saw. The third was and it still is a paranoid fantasy and an embarrassing example of the worst kind of “outrageous conspiracy-theorism” still rampant within the online 9/11 truth community. If you can imagine it; it could be true. If enough people are imagining it at the same time, it is worthy of basing our entire strategy around.

I’m sorry to be brash but wtf???

You can slap the label "the precautionary principle" on it if you like but please don’t expect us to accept that giving it a science-sounding name makes it anything other than a fairy tale. As far as I know the works of the brothers Grimm never underwent peer review and I doubt the "booby trap" theory is going to either.

These outrageous conspiracies, which I term to mean theories based on a speculative answer to an evidential anomaly, came because we didn't have the evidence to form plausible hypotheses at that point. My view at the time was not to support any theory of what happened at the Pentagon but to wait while others continued to research it in the hope that one day we would gather enough information to get a clearer picture. That is now happening but you appear to be stuck in 2006, or at least doggedly defending a position you took in 2006, unable to see the forest for the trees.

You turned back the hands of time near the beginning of the broadcast when you said you were going to put eye witness testimony aside, which of course wipes a huge body of post 2006 evidence away. As you didn't mention contradictions the various sets of data have with each other and with the official story and as you had also put aside the issues of velocity, g-force and the like (quite rightly in this case; neither of us have the knowledge to make judgements on that sort of thing as laymen) we were essentially back in 2006 wholesale. And there we sat for the rest of the show, you sharing photographs of the Pentagon with me I'd already seen and telling me something I already knew: That from these photographs alone we cannot disprove the plane hit the building. You appear to have convinced yourself over the years that it is actually a perfectly reasonable pattern of damage and debris to have come from the claimed collision, and I am accepting that it is remotely possible but more likely untrue, but we are essentially on the same page there.

But we aren't in 2006 anymore Michael and it is not these photographs alone that we have in our possession, so why is it we cannot move on into the present day? Why is it you feel we should “put aside” all the eye witness testimony? Why did we selectively remove all of the evidence which did not conform to your preferred conclusion before commencing to discuss the issue?

The reason you gave was that eye witness testimony is unreliable. Of course any one eye witness’s testimony is unreliable; in fact it is almost guaranteed that every eye witness account will get at least a detail if not several details incorrect. Where eye witness testimony is useful both the judicial process and to investigation is when you find in a diverse body of testimony key points that corroborate one another. Corroboration found in the body of eye witness testimony is not only something we cannot "put aside" it is responsible in many court cases for helping establishing a just outcome to a trial.

Corroborated eye witness testimony is evidence, and it cannot just be excluded if it causes a problem to our preferred theory. We need to look at this evidence openly and rationally and consider the conclusions it leads us to. We have no problem doing this with the cases in New York. Richard Gage continues to present corroborated testimony of molten metal found beneath the three buildings as evidence for its existence as of course he should. He also notes how many people attested to feeling and hearing explosions within the towers, another instance of a detail in an otherwise confusing body of testimony earning relevance through corroboration.

As you may know, there are 14 confirmed witnesses CIT have presented who presently place the plane to the North of what was then called the Citgo gas station. When we look for competing evidence for the south of Citgo flight path (which is absolutely vital to the conclusion that the plane hit the building) we find no such corroboration. Many of these witnesses confirm other details in each other’s testimony, such as a path from the south to north of Columbia Pike, from south to north over the Navy Annex building and a strong bank the plane was performing as it passed the Citgo station and headed towards the Pentagon. This banking of the plane (also fatal to the south of Citgo flight path which must be straight from the first light pole to the face of the Pentagon) is rampant throughout the media mined unconfirmed body of testimony as well as that of these confirmed witnesses. While no two proposed flight paths are identical, from the placement of the plane in relation to the local major landmarks, and in relation to the eye witness themselves, we see clear corroboration on a scale that cannot be ignored. It is pretty clear from looking properly into the entire body of eye witness testimony that within the reasonable margins of error expected of eye witnesses they are all describing the same flight path from different vantage points. I doubt a court in the land (yours or mine) would not conclude in favour a detail as broadly confirmed as the north of Citgo flight path.

It is impossible to rationally conclude that they in fact saw a plane on the flight path your theory requires, as it is absurd that they all independently got every important detail regarding its path wrong in exactly the same way so as to coincidentally corroborate one another.

Yet this is precisely the scenario you are asking me to accept. Can you understand why I and many others would have a problem doing so?

And Michael, I have “done my home work”.

I have read all of Arabesque's articles on the subject, as I am sure you have.

I have read all Jim Hoffmann has written on the topic as I am sure you have.

I have read what Frank Legge, Victoria Ashley and Frustrating Fraud have had to say, as I'm sure you have.

I have also watched all of CIT’s presentations and their written counter arguments to the above party’s criticisms. Can you honestly say you have?

I always look at every side of an argument before drawing an opinion. I always check the footnotes and links and fact-check the claims. When I read the “debunking” articles regarding CIT and followed their own footnotes and checked on their own sources I found them to be illogical, poorly researched and in some cases nakedly dishonest. When I looked at CIT’s own counter arguments they were detailed, comprehensive and the sources all checked out. When I look for the responses to those responses, which should be the next step in a rational debate I find nothing. I find a continual repeating of the same initial arguments and a refusal to recognise or respond to the answers CIT have provided. I also see a pattern of ad hominem and censorship meeting anyone who tries to point this out.

A lot of people seem desperate for me to look at Arabesque’s lists of media-mined witness “quotes” who say the plane hit the building or the light poles. And I have. But I came in for heavy criticism if rather than scan the lists and hastily agree with the conclusions I take the time to look into each account to see whether it is reliable.

Could they see the Pentagon from their vantage point (very few could, there are only a few very small pockets on all of the highways around the building which had a view of the “impact zone”)? Are they actually quotes (a large number are written in the third person)? Were they even there (several have been proven not to be, a fact Arabesque has repeatedly been made aware of yet they remain on his lists)? Are they actually describing seeing a plane hit a light pole or just saying it did because they’d heard it (as at least two people who appeared to be saying they saw the light poles clipped have admitted to)? None of these questions seem to be welcomed by the contingent who demands you reject CIT’s research and I find this worrying.

By “homework” do you mean for us to engage in research and analysis, or do you want us to simply accept what the people you admire have told you on face value and do away with even the most basic level of commitment to fact-checking? If you mean the former I can assure you I have done just that, if you mean the latter then I am afraid I must resolutely refuse.

Throughout all of this no one will answer my very simple question as to what the explanation there can be for the corroboration of the north of Citgo flight path. Are the witnesses all lying and “in on it” as Frustrating Fraud claims? Or do you really believe it is statistically possible for all of these people to have made the exact same mistakes? Is there another reasonable explanation?

I have been showered with plenty of unreasonable explanations and insulted and censored when I refused to cave in and agree with them. I have been asked to take mistakes in other parts of individual witnesses testimony as a justification for dismissing the corroborated details in the whole body of testimony, as though it were not completely expected for individual testimony to be wrong in places and as though it were not the whole point that it is only when these witnesses corroborate each other on a detail that it is worthy of submission. I have been told to consider that since 9/11 was several years ago their memories have faded, as though at some point between 9/11 and today every witness’s visual memories did a mirror-flip overnight and left became right. Or perhaps the claim is that their memories slowly “drifted” and if you were to speak to the exactly half way between when CIT spoke with them and 9/11 then they would all attest to the planes being directly above their heads? Both absurd notions are negated by the fact that many of these witnesses attested to exactly the same details weeks after 9/11 and CIT were simply verifying them. I have been told that the witnesses are in such a small minority that they might as well just be ignored indeed Jim Hoffmann claimed just this on your previous show, stating that far more witnesses testify to a south of Citgo path and you agreed. Yet there is no evidence to support this claim whatsoever and unless you can provide some it must be categorised as misinformation which you have unwittingly helped to spread.

People who oppose this research appear to think it adequate to simply state it is ‘weak’ or ‘debunked’ but are unable to make a coherent case as to why. The proponents of this view have clustered and insulated themselves from debate. If we surround ourselves only with people who share our views, our arguments become weak, our understanding of an issue diminishes until eventually we begin to sink into an intellectual swamp whereby “truth” becomes whatever your in-group says it is, and all those outside of that in-group are lazily designated as “the enemy” and disregarded a priori.

I am not your enemy Michael; I'm just another person looking for the truth. If you have an explanation for why I should dismiss CIT, then I will be more than happy to listen to it and discuss it with you. But I would ask that you approach the issue in the only intellectually valid fashion, with a mind open to the fact that you might just be wrong, and I promise to do the same. When I first came across 9/11 truth I argued against it, but when I researched the issue thoroughly I had to accept I was wrong. When I first encountered CIT I argued against them, but after honestly viewing their evidence I came to realise I had been in error and admitted so. I can assure you my track record backs up my claim that I am always open to changing my position on an issue if the evidence can be provided to justify doing so.

So where do we go from here? My advice is to embrace the journalistic principle of the right to reply. You have now run two consecutive shows lambasting CIT either explicitly or indirectly. The only decent thing to do is to have a representative of the group onto the show to present their response. The longer you continue to speak out against this work yet remain unwilling to allow your audiences to hear both sides of the story the weaker your position will appear to be. If you are certain, as you seem to be, that the research is “debunked”, that it is “weak evidence” and that if we do our “homework” it falls apart, surely you could demolish them in a debate and put an end to this once and for all?

I would look forward to hearing such a debate, as I am sure would many others.

Best regards,

Stefan S

Dear Stefan and Michael,

Wow, Stefan, great observations and suggestions for Michael. How about it Michael? A four way debate, you, Stefan, Rob Balsamo, and Jim Hoffman. Now that could really bring us all up to date, clear the air, and might prove we are all adults capable of serious discussion about serious issues.

Stefan

This is an amazing, well thought out, extremely well written comment for Micheal. Michael, why not have the CIT crew on for an interview?

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

I see nothing new here

Not all subjects deserve balanced objective debate.

We’ve been thru this before with the 'holocaust deniers' and ‘no-planers’ and 'space beamers' who endlessly bombarded forums with similar longwinded passionate speeches about ‘facts’ and ‘witnesses’ and ‘fairness’ and ‘censorship’ and ‘objectivity.’ seems like the same playbook.

(yawn.)

"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA

Nice handwave

using guilt by association.

just an observation

its the same playbook.

i mean - you just look at this thread and it is quite clear that the CIT theories are quite consistently being voted down and rejected. The reasons these theories are being rejected are very eloquently being laid out in the community's responses to you guy. Yet - you guys persist in making the same weak arguments.

all i'm saying is that i've see this pattern before.

go ahead - play the victim routine and accuse the collective 9/11 Truth community - some of our oldest and most respected activists - of treating you unfair. but - pretty much everyone here can see that you are INDEED being allowed to post here and voice your opinions. no one is censoring or surpressing your ideas. But - you are consistently being voted down and your ideas are consistently being rejected.

why?

so what do you do with that? play the victim routine? insult and accuse your critics? claim a superior intellect? lol

you can't say that your ideas are being rejected out of a lack of air-time! LOL!! entire threads have been devoted to your ideas - over and over and over again. you just ain't selling'm!! and this is the same nonsense we saw with the holocaust deniers and the no-planers and the space beamers.

its clear - your ideas are ROUNDLY being rejected. clear and simple. i don't know what you should do with that.

"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA

Truth in numbers

My ' ideas' are roundly rejected. What are my ideas again? I support flyover theory right? Oh...wait....

Proof nor truth in numbers counts John. Only in politics. This is not a popularity contest.

"Another unreliable method of determining truth is by determining the majority opinion of a popular vote."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_by_consensus

Note that Wikipedia lists itself as an example. Try to figure that one out.

and the reverse?

and the reverse is?

a lie is a lie is a lie - and no amount of tap dancing will make it the truth. no amount of persisent obnoxious spamming on no-planes and space beams will make it the truth. no amount of scholarly dissertation on holocaust denail will make it the truth. no scholastic pedigree and well-crafted debate coming from the 'birther' movement will make Obama an illegal alien.

you cannot LOBBY lies into the truth. and in THAT sense - yes - this community HAS spoken.

"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA

Yikes

"a lie is a lie is a lie - and no amount of tap dancing will make it the truth. no amount of persisent obnoxious spamming on no-planes and space beams will make it the truth. no amount of scholarly dissertation on holocaust denail will make it the truth. no scholastic pedigree and well-crafted debate coming from the 'birther' movement will make Obama an illegal alien."

Is this really coming from someone in the truth movement? 'holocaust denial' again? 'birther'?!

The truth is not a popularity contest. It does not matter which comments get any number of down votes (some of them are obvious truths, yet they still amass down votes). The voting system plays to childish antics.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

twisting my words

now you're twisting my words.

all i'm saying is i just see the same type of obstinate spamming of this movement that i saw coming from the holocaust deniers and no-planers.

Truth is not a popularlity contest. True enough.

but - i also think it is legitimate to point out that all of the endless tap dancing and spamming on this issue appears to be failing. this community cleary rejects your research. so lets call a spade a spade here. lol it appears that you research is not exactly welcome here. you had your shot and failed.

so... its a similar pattern. research that fails to convince - and the trolls that seem to push it endlessly.

so what's your next move? care to give us a reason why your research is failing? if you had to GUESS why your research is failing - what would it be?

"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA

so what's your next move? - continue to investigate

"so what's your next move? care to give us a reason why your research is failing? if you had to GUESS why your research is failing - what would it be?"

It's not my research, and it's not failing. I agree that the research is not complete, but CIT's witness testimony is very strong.

I got sucked into this Pentagon discussion because I saw real footwork getting real answers when I watched CIT's documentaries on the witnesses. Then I was informed that CIT was getting bashed and treated like disinfo. I slowly got into each consecutive discussion, and it's Hoffman's attacks that disturbed me the most, because when I looked at his Pentagon opinion page (it can't really be called anything more than his opinion) at 911Research I was shocked. How can this guy who really does not present much if any legitimate research on the Pentagon then go on the attack against somebody else who is actually going to DC and getting actual witness testimony as evidence on record? Even if someone disagrees with CIT's conclusions, the evidence stands and should not be dismissed, no matter whose feelings got hurt.

On the other hand, you can't even qualify Hoffman's presentation as research. He makes far far too many conclusions without doing any actual footwork. Legge does the same. The page that Hoffman presented as support for his opinion that large recognizable plane debris is rare at crash sites was shown to be 99% fail. For each example he gave of historical crash sites, he provided only one photograph to corroborate his claim. When I spent time researching each example, I found evidence of large plane parts at the crash sites. We are talking huge obvious parts like sometimes a wing, sometimes an engine, sometimes chunks of fuselage and usually the tail section in whole or parts. 100% of his examples where other photos or video was available, large plane debris was visible. The remaining handful of examples where only one photo is available can't be considered as evidence either way. Hoffman should correct this page in order to maintain his integrity, and not to be classified as disinfo.

One more thing John, in your sign off you say "We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans..."

How can you classify this notion that the government might someday show a video of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon as anything other than "conspiracy theories and slogans"? It's only conjecture, and it's being used here on 911blogger apparently in an attempt to ward off those in the 9-11 Truth Movement from investigating the Pentagon any further than Hoffman's opinion.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

P.S. You mentioned 'holocaust denial' once again almost like its your personal voodoo word to scare people away from asking questions.

Beautiful, Bruno.

How can this guy who really does not present much if any legitimate research on the Pentagon then go on the attack against somebody else who is actually going to DC and getting actual witness testimony as evidence on record?

Bingo.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Bruno

The page that Hoffman presented as support for his opinion that large recognizable plane debris is rare at crash sites was shown to be 99% fail. For each example he gave of historical crash sites, he provided only one photograph to corroborate his claim. When I spent time researching each example, I found evidence of large plane parts at the crash sites. We are talking huge obvious parts like sometimes a wing, sometimes an engine, sometimes chunks of fuselage and usually the tail section in whole or parts. 100% of his examples where other photos or video was available, large plane debris was visible. The remaining handful of examples where only one photo is available can't be considered as evidence either way.

Bruno, it would be extremely helpful to all of us if you shared this research with us. I've done similar research into JREF claims about molten steel in office/hydrocarbon fires, and understand where you're coming from. I hope you'll create a blog entry about this or so, in the interest of discussion and understanding.

Links to my research on Hoffman's crash site examples

The original post can be found at http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5687&start=135

I have no idea if this will work, but here is a Google Doc URL:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0Acpp9FzMZ6TEZGhuanRjZjRfMTNkYno0Y2tkdA...

Please let me know if it works.

Google Doc

If that works, then you are going to love this one.

Jim Hoffman wrote:
"Crashes of aircraft into buildings also typically leave little in the way of large debris, as the December 5, 2005 crash of a C-130 into an apartment building in Iran illustrates."

He gives an example of a plane hitting a building, then shows 4 aerial photos with the claim that no recognizable debris was seen. But look what I found in a matter of seconds:

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0Acpp9FzMZ6TEZGhuanRjZjRfMTRkYnpucjNmNA...

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

That google doc

Bruno,

I need "permission" to access that googledoc. The Truthaction thread was very telling though. You make a level headed reasonable post which rebutted a portion of Jim Hoffman's work, and you were howled down and shortly thereafter the thread was locked, with John Bursill saying "Time for this movement to close ranks once again!" Geez.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

close ranks once again? but we are just getting started!

"you were howled down and shortly thereafter the thread was locked, with John Bursill saying "Time for this movement to close ranks once again!" Geez."

I know. John Bursill had dropped out earlier in the discussion because I caught him changing his own 'facts', but then he threw a last 'punch' when he knew the thread was gonna be locked.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

Crashes of aircraft into buildings

The google docs apparently are not viewable by the public, so I 'published' it on google. Link is below.

Jim Hoffman wrote:
"Crashes of aircraft into buildings also typically leave little in the way of large debris, as the December 5, 2005 crash of a C-130 into an apartment building in Iran illustrates."

He gives an example of a plane hitting a building, then shows 4 aerial photos with the claim that no recognizable debris was seen. But look what I found in a matter of seconds:

http://docs.google.com/View?id=dhnjtcf4_14dbznr3f4

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

All that time to write such a huge loooooooooong letter

and you can't even get Michael's name right?

go figure

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Did I?

Did I?

Sorry I'm a bit dyslexic.

So why is me being mildly dyslexic woth -2 points

Last time I came here this comment was 1 point.

Now it's -2.

So who finds my condition disgusting?

Grow up.

Heh

I thought you found the voting to be funny? Don't lose your sense of humor now! My guess is that people might not believe you - on another current thread on this same topic we have Mr. Balsamo announcing that he's intentionally misspelling Jon Gold's name in order to irritate him and then a few months back another CIT-connected person was trying to tie Michael Wolsey to former CIA Director Woolsey... bizarre, no? Anyway I thought maybe you were doing it on purpose as well but I gave your dyslexia explanation a +1 just to be nice...

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

It was at first

But that felt a little personal.

I am mildly dyslexic, well that's what they told me at school anyway. Surely you noticed on your forum that I edited every post half a dozen times for spelling errors?

Whether my misspelling of Michael's surname was because of dyslexia or just a mistake I could not say, but through force of habit I always blame the dyslexia when poor spelling is noted.

Why should anyone suspect I was malicious? Was there anything remotely mallicious in the letter?

And if I had meant it as a slight, then why would I not own up to that? It's all very childish...

The truth is every single comment of people arguing for CIT has been voted down, and everyone against has been voted up - come on Cosmos - you aren't stupid it's pretty obvious what is going on, and unfortunately for them, it'll be just as obvious to the neutrals too. :-D

Who cares!

All you have to do is click the link to read a downvoted post. You CIT people act like someone cut off your grandma's hand. Stop whining or get a better pet theory that people won't vote down as much!

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

LOL

I'm not a "CIT person" for not rejecting the Arlington eye witnesses anymore than I'm a "Harritt Person" for thinking Nano Thermite was in the WTC.

I'm actually just a person.

Who cares about up-voting down-voting? No one really, unless it feels personal. It's interesting to note is all. It is a blatant example of organised propaganda. I'm not worried at all about it because as you say, anyone who wants to can click to read a down voted post, and when they do they work out pretty quickly what is going on.

John A accusing anyone who comes within a five mile radius of him being a disinfo agent? 7 points bravo!

Someone politely asking someone else a question? -7 votes booooo!

It does a lot more against the people doing this than it does for them.

The point is Cosmos, I'm not "whining" - I'm defending a postition which is being attacked.

It would appear to me that it is the people spending all their time making blogs, articles, podcasts and videos attacking CIT who crack out a fine vintage of whine whenever anyone dares to make counterpoints to their intellectually flacid arguments.

What would get me voted down less? Agreeing with the people childishly engaged in a co-ordinated "vote down every post of someone who disagrees with us" campaign. And since they have been proven to be completely wrong in their theory over and over again, I think I'll happily take the downvotes and be proud of them thanks mate! ;-)

Sure whatever you say

And I'm sure none of you CIT people voted down anyone else's comments... since that would be so hypocritical. Anyway it's great chatting wiff you again Stef but unlike some people I don't get paid to comment so I gotta bail on this thread. Have a good day!

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

You too

Good chatting with you again too Cosmos.

Take care,

Stef

out of curiosity

Who do you think is being paid to comment?

Integrity

An example of YT/Cosmos practicing his "decency" and "responsibility" he accused me of not having. The difference is, I can provide sources for my claims for all to verify. This is called "integrity", I believe.

Awww

Still hurting after I exposed your flagrant hypocrisy months ago? You're in too much of a hurry to "get me back" and in your rush you expose yourself. My remark about being paid to comment was in reference to Stefan saying he's often making his comments while on the clock at his job. It was a joke between myself and him and yet here you are - tripping all over yourself in yet another failed attempt to impugn my integrity. What a disgrace.

NOW - please provide the sources for the very serious accusations you've made against Arabesque.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Sources

And calling Adam Syed "Adam Syop" was really responsible. Really decent too. Keep spinning the paranoid innuendos with a double standard. Inside joke my ***.

I think Arabesque is Nikolas Schiller, a civil rights activist from Washington DC. This explains his interest in the Pentagon attack. Nikolas Schiller has created "arabesques" of the Pentagon and the WTC. I used Google looking for satellite imagery, got lucky and bumped into this by accident.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolas_Schiller
http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/tag/russia-today/
http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2009/09/07/4046/

Arabesque?

There is plenty of "positive" coverage of the 9/11 truth movement, but there are also these quotes:

As I predicted last week, Russia Today continued their somewhat unusual promotion of the 9/11 Truth Movement during the 8th anniversary of 9/11.

Does the Russian government believe in the conspiracy theory??

Russia Today Is Paying Google To Promote The 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

Was it that Russia Today wanted to press the angle that the official story of 9/11 wasn’t true? Or maybe was Russia Today attempting to show that Russian society, in general, has a genuine interest in conspiracy theories? Or was it simply the fact that no other news organization was willing to give this topic more coverage?

There, before my eyes, was visual proof that not only was Russia Today promoting conspiracy theories, but they were actually paying Google to promote their coverage dealing with this hotly debated issue.

Then, positive:

In light of what happened to Van Jones, I expect Russia Today to cover his resignation this week. Since his downfall is directly related to support for another investigation, it would make sense that Russia Today continue their coverage of this topic. However, I also expect Russia Today to do what every other news organization has not. That being, actually revisiting the questions that Van Jones signed his name to.

Then:

Over the years I’ve learned how disinformation can operate in political theater and, well, its not pretty. Instead of attacking the message, the messenger is attacked and becomes the scapegoat. Forget the questions that were posed in the document that he signed his name on, and focus on the person who signed the document. By ignoring the nature of his participation, the news organizations gloss over the pertinent questions that were originally asked; questions that remain unanswered.

Typical Arab-esque I would say. Then, lastly:

I myself have questions that remain unanswered. I’ve had them since that fateful day. They’ve manifested themselves in various degrees over the years- from internationally distributed artwork to actively following news reports about developments related to this unique issue. I prefer to keep a safe distance from being pigeonholed as a “conspiracy theorist,” a term which lends itself to being someone who is mentally unstable, an enemy of the state, and essentially, someone who is not be trusted. Its almost like a modern-day version of McCarthyism, where people who do not believe the official story are branded traitors and kicked to the curb.

In other words, Nikolas Schiller created "Arabesque" to cater to his conspiracy theory needs, so that his real identity would not be tarnished and pigeon-holed as a "conspiracy theorist".

The ball is now in your park, Cosmos. You demand sources, I give them. Am I correct? If I not, I will absolutely apologize.

Everybody can make mistakes, but I feel I've actually identified Arabesque here. I'm sure you understand, given the information, why I think I'm correct.

However, Cosmos, from now on, I expect you to provide SOURCES showing PAYMENTS before you ever "insinuate" or "joke" that ANYBODY is a PAID CIA agent AGAIN. Arabesque isn't one. Jon Gold isn't one. You aren't one. I ain't one. Stefan isn't one. And Adam isn't one. You don't fool me with these dubious passive aggressive attacks while implying you yourself are "decent" and "responsible". It's hypocritical behavior instigated by delusions of grandeur. Am I harsh? I will treat you like you treat me.

For now, this is my last post about CIT/Pentagon-related issues, because I made a promise to Craig Ranke we'd discuss it first. My position on the matter is well known.

ETA: Note that Photobucket tells me I am exceeding my bandwidth limits (due to 911blogger attention), so my photos will soon be blocked. The photo above is directly from Schiller's blog. BTW, if I am right about his identity, I expect an apology from YOU.

Wow

TOTAL FAIL

At this point I can only feel sorry for you.

But yeah, you are very wrong and you owe Arabesque a serious apology for your false accusations against him. You should probably also apologize to everyone else here for your willingness to spread around bad information in such an irresponsible manner. I'm going to ignore the rest of your garbage because it's so full of hypocrisy and ignorance it's just disgusting to witness and I really don't want to have anything to do with you at all. However I will continue to call you out on your bullshit when I see it. Tell Craig I said hi.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

In that case

I apologize to Arabesque for making false accusations.

I apologize to everyone else here for spreading around bad information. I would rather have had absolute proof it was him, but you demanded sources on the spot and I gave them.

I'll tell Craig you said hi.

And I hope...you can bring yourself to apologize to others for insinuating they are paid disinformationists. But I don't think so, because apologies require a spinal cord.

It sure is interesting

watching someone sink lower and lower all because of a hurt ego. I like how you weakly attempt to spin that your lack of proof is somehow due to me demanding that you back up your false accusations. That's cute. And for the reading comprehension-challenged, my comment to Stefan had nothing to do with "paid disinformationists". I know you wish that it did so you could get some tiny shred of satisfaction out of "busting" me but... it didn't.

And out of curiousity - do you do anything at all for 9/11 truth besides post thousands of words per day on the internet?

Now, what's this about a spinal cord?

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Keenan

You were banned from this site for good reason. I have no intention of dignifying your unwanted presence here.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Really?

What was the good reason? I've never heard any reason at all. What was the "good reason" why Craig and Aldo were banned? What was your "good reason" for banning Stefan from TruthAction? Care to share with us why? Let's see if you will actually give an honest response instead of just being dodgy as you typically are.

To be fair

It's possible you might be wrong; Sheila told me that via a phone call with reprehensor, she was told that Arabesque is a person who lives in Dubai, UAE.

Whatever. This is all speculation in the end. Snowcrash, even if you're correct, it's not like Arab and cohorts are going to admit it.

Here's the real deal though. And this has nothing to do with being a "paid agent" or not: Someone who uses an anonymous pseudonym should not consider themselves or their work to "speak for the movement." CIT's detractors list Arabesque's blog as an ultimate "debunking" source for everything CIT. Craig and Aldo are real people who make themselves visible, and totally vulnerable to the "we're coming for you" risk from whoever. Same with Richard Gage and DRG. By being visible, they are open to death threats. They have wives and children. And yet they carry on under their real identity. THEY are the kinds of folks who should and do speak for the movement, and I put CIT in the same category. Victronix' absurd claim that Arabesque remains anonymous because people in the movement who "can't bear" the fact that he "debunks" their work and is thus afraid of people within the movement "coming to get him" is lame on its face.

If "Arabesque" truly feels his blog should represent the consensus of the "responsible" wing of the movement, he needs to come clean with his identity.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Snowcrash,

Wow.

Whether you're correct or not, I've taken screenshots of your post so it's saved for posterity.

I hope the recorded conversation between you and Ranke occurs.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

That's how I read it.

I understood the joke Cosmos was making. I think some people on both sides of this discussion are a little too quick to assume the worst from someone they disagree with.

We're all human beings here and if we treated each other as such more often we'd have a much more productive discussion.

How many of those that you...

reference on Mark Robert's, aka JREF's own Gravy, have been independently confirmed, verified, and on film?

One other question, Dr. L, why not change the title to "Why the Pentagon should not have been attacked?" instead of assuming something did indeed hit the Pentagon? That way you end the biased approach.

Visit http://dotheordersstillstand.blogspot.com/ for analysis and commentary on 9/11. For NASCAR News, visit http://www.atthetracknews.blogspot.com/

Exactly.

A court of law would accept only first hand witnesses confirmed in person. They wouldn't accept quotes from USA Today let alone "Arabesque"s or Mark Roberts' sites.

Give me at least four people ON FILM who were in a position to see the plane relative to Citgo and who are as emphatic about a south approach as Lagasse, Brooks, Middleton and Turcios are about the north path. Then I'll perk up.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Illegitimate dabate

I do not see this as a legitimate debate. It is my opinion that many of those who argue in favor of this research (i.e. CIT, flyover theories) are not debating in good faith.

To those who choose to debate them: You cannot wake a man who feigns sleep.

This is just No-Planes Meme 2.0 - and anyone who has been around this movement for more than their 15 minutes of fame knows it..

"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA

Funny, you seem to be describing perfectly yourself

and the contingent of anti-CIT folks. All you ever do, John, is utilize typical debunker-style non-arguments: Insults, false guilt-by-associations, ad hominems, straw men, false representations of your opponents's arguments, rinse, repeat, ad nauseum...I'm not impressed with your attitude in the least.

You're welcome to that opinion John,

You're welcome to that opinion John, but an opinion it is. More useful would be to make a case demonstrating it. For instance, where is the deception in anything I wrote above? I'm trying to be as clear as I can to explain why I consider CIT research a worthy edition to the evidence we have amassed, if I'm wrong shouldn't it be easy to demonstrate that with logic?

A debate, ultimately, is not for the benefit of any of the parties involved; it is for the benefit of the audience who get to see the arguments and counter points laid out in front of them and are then well equipped to make a decision.

If, as you suggest, the only people who could see merit in eye witness corroboration have some nefarious motive, then where is the risk in openly discussing the evidence? Surely the "real people" would see right through it? Surely the best thing to do is just get it over and done with and explain to us why over a dozen witnesses corroborating the same flight path should reasonably be dismissed and we can all get back to our lives?

make a case?

the case has already been made.

it is my OPINION that the strategy of SOME people is to engage people in endless worthless debate that endlessly goes in circles.

in that light, i view YOUR QUESTIONS as worthless.

"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA

John...

This is about the testimony of 14 9/11 eye witnesses, people just like you who happened to be in a position that day to see a part of the events unfold.

So please, humour me and tell me why it is I'm not supposed to take the corroborating details which ties their testimony together seriously?

Humour me and tell me how it is they could all be wrong in such a way as to corroborate each other?

Or perhaps you should cut out the middle man and give them a call yourself and explain to them they didn't see what they remember seeing and inform them what they should actually be remembering in order to be 'credible'.

How do you think you would react if someone did that to you?

because

i've seen an endless stream of extremely cogent explanations coming from highly credible sources that have already answered your questions.

You have been at the center of endless debates that have been conducted, clogging up multiple 9/11 forums, answering these very same questions that you, yet again, ask – as if no one has already addressed them ad nausea .

And, also please note that adding a tone of righteous indignation to your tone does not make your questions ring any truer. It just make them appear impetuously obstinate – if not downright deceitful.

"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA

Jog my memory

Jog my memory John. Remind me of all these cogent explanations. They seem to be of a mysterious nature whereby you can see them everywhere and yet they can't be found with search engines.

I think I must have heard you telling me that my questions have been answered over twenty times, and throughout it all you've steadfastly refused to tell me what that answer was.

Why not repeat it? Come on John, you've got a captive audience and apparently you have the silver bullet that would defeat the arguments of CIT.

I can barely wait - hit me with it!

...

Or will you once again say it would be wasting your time to give the answer to me, as I've already been given, and then proceed to move on to that lovely part of every post you write to someone you disagree with. That's right, the bit where you wax rhetorical about your evidence-free suspicions of the person's motives and make other thinly veiled accusations that they are an "agent".

Well if you think it's a waste of time you're looking at a false economy.

Even if the answer is a page long, you still could have written it out a dozen times in time you've spent refusing to.

lol

naaa...

i think i'll stand pat with this hand.

"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA

Seriously John

Do a copy and paste of the answers, so we can see them again. I am relatively new to this discussion, and what I see here is one side providing credible evidence and well thought out analyses, and I see the second side bringing up "holocaust deniers" "no planers" and so forth, with no good analyses, and some wild conspiracy theory that the government might someday produce a video of Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

Okay, once and for all:

Loose Nuke said:

CIT interviewed Wheelhouse, McGraw, Zakhem, England (any others on public record?) and they confirmed the S side path, but CIT attacked them and dismissed their testimony.

Sorry, but these individuals confirmed no such thing, and upon examination their eyewitness testimony can not be believed given their POV with respect to the topography.

One by one:

Keith Wheelhouse

NOT in a position to see gas station or point of impact:

He marked his exact alleged location with an X so because we know for a fact that he would not have had a view of the Citgo or the official flight path from this location due to the topography and landscape, Keith can not fairly be considered a legitimate witness who saw the plane fly south of the former Citgo gas station. You can't be considered a witness to something you couldn't have seen.

Madeline Zakhem:

2. Zakhem refused to go on record for her claims and never provided an interview at all even after promising. Her account is proven false by infinitely more credible witnesses Paik and Morin. Even still, like Wheelhouse, she could not see the citgo at all from her location. You can't be a witness to something you can not see.

Madeline's Point of View (hint - no view of gas station):

Father McGraw

Most likely, he was not on the highway at all and the fact that he claims he didn't even realize he was next to the Pentagon is a good indicator that if he hypothetically was honest he would not have been able to point out his exact location on the highway anyway.

Realize he was one of CIT's first interviews ever and they knew nothing about the north side witnesses at the time, and simply did not even think to bring an overhead. So unfortunately, no picture exists of his supposed exact location.

It's clear McGraw's testimony is false though. He claims that upon other people jogging his memory, he remembers the plane cartwheeling into the building after hitting the ground first (clearly refuted by photos). Like Lloyd England and his dubious testimony, McGraw was used as part of the propaganda to sell the impact.

Most importantly he is NOT an SoC witness and the fact that he admits the plane had already passed over him is proof of that.

Finally, realize that the SoC and NoC paths are practically starting to converge by the time they get to route 27.

Finally, check out these rather bizarre photos. First of all, he claims he was on his way to a funeral when the Pentagon attack occurred. Under no circumstances is a priest to abandon a funeral. Yet he did so.

Strange, the body language on these guys.

The Pentagon is BLAZING, a man is sprinting by for his life, and McGraw and these guys are greeting each other as if for a business meeting, seemingly oblivious to the carnage right behind them.

Finally, Lloyd England

Well, if you believe this man I don't know what to tell you. He clearly is a part of the official propaganda machine whether he wanted to be or not. When he was confronted with the NoC evidence, he tried to change where he said his location was, while he was on camera. Off camera, but with the audio still recording, he correctly tells the truth about being "on the bridge." You can hear his wife (who works/worked for the FBI) actually say: "I know why the FBI didn't take the cab in for examination."

For all of the above reasons, these witnesses must be dismissed as being non-credible. This is not a case of CIT cherry picking their witnesses to support their pet theory. Any attempt to paint it as such is disingenuous.

In order to rebut the north side witnesses, one would need evidence of equal or greater strength. In this case, at least four people on the gas station property who are just as confident about the south approach as Lagasse, Brooks, Turcios and Middleton are emphatic about the north approach. No such eyewitnesses exist.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

I have a question...

For those who argue on behalf of CIT, P4T, etc... what would you like the other side to concede? Please keep your answer to a paragraph. Thanks.


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

John,

John, it's not so much a case of wanting people to concede anything, it's wanting a logical reason provided for why they ask I should reject certain points that I find to be perfectly rational. The fact is that I the corroborating details throughout the CIT witnesses, in the absence of equally compelling testimony to the contrary establishes a north of Citgo flight path. No one seems to be able to give me a good reason not to consider that reasonable. I've been given plenty of hair brained reasons, and when I explain why they do not suffice I get abused. What I want is for everyone to act like adults and treat each other like human beings and then we might start getting somewhere.

I can tell you...

Why people "reject certain points that you find to be perfectly rational." I don't know the names Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, or Rob Balsamo because of the years of activism they've participated in. Because of the multitude of contributions they've made to this cause. I know their names because of aggressive behavior against members of this movement. I know their names because they have focused on one issue that has never helped this cause. People "reject certain points that you find to be perfectly rational" because they have no reason to trust the previously mentioned people.


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?

Would it be fair to say

Would it be fair to say that you reject evidence presented by CIT because you find fault in their character?

Having an enemies list...

Doesn't help that's for sure. The thing is... even if they were to "change their ways" I still wouldn't promote their work because their work focuses on an aspect that has never helped this cause. They can't produce a video or satellite imagery showing exactly what happened that day, so we are still at square one. We don't know exactly what hit the Pentagon because those who should be able to show us what happened, REFUSE to do so, and I don't think it wise to go around pushing a theory as fact on everyone like has been done countless times in the past.


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?

OK

No, they haven't produced a video or satellite image showing what happened that day, they have produced over a dozen witnesses though and now we've discussed your view of Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis I'd like to move on to them.

Is there anything in their charecters you find fault with?

I've never met them...

To my knowledge, but this is a good write up by the anonymous Arabesque (I know his name).


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

Yes...

I've read that article John, I've read all of Arabesque's articles on the topic. What is it specifically within it that you feel warrants a rejection of the eye witnesses we are discussing?

Do you not see...

A problem with not being able to find any concession that would end this constant debate? Allowing people to be more productive for this cause on this site? We can't say, "Ok, Craig and Aldo have interviewed people that show there is a possible contradiction in the official account" and move on... we MUST believe their theory that is contradicted by some of their own witnesses. I have a problem with that.


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

What thread is this?

Jon, of course you could say "Ok, Craig and Aldo have interviewed people that show there is a possible contradiction in the official account" and move on.

You could also say nothing at all and move on.

I would absolutely love to agree to disagree Jon. But please, do you remember what thread we are on? It's cause and effect. Attack will always result in defence. Blogs, articals, podcasts, videos, endless forum posts day after day from people who want everyone to say CIT are wrong or shut up. That is not the action of anyone looking to "move on".

You can accept CIT have shown the flight path to be incorrect or not, it's your choice. But if you start saying they are wrong publicly then you have some responsibilities. If you make a statement in opposition to someone you have to be able to justify that statement and defeat the counterarguments, and if you can't you should retract it.

OK so where we are right now is you have just stated that CIT witnesses contradict CITs theory. So the point you are on is looking up what they have said in response to the claim (which was presented a long, long time ago) and to either argue that your point still stands and explain why or retract it.

I consider that to be a basic level of intellectual integrity.

None...

Of their witnesses say they saw a plane fly over to my knowledge, and some of them say they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. That is a contradiction to the idea that Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon.


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?

OK

OK Jon, that doesn't really respond to what I just said to you but fair enough. You've expressed two concerns, now have you ever taken the time to look at what CIT have said in response to these points?

What do you know proving the airvehicle at the Pentagon is AA77

Jon,

You, amongst other Truthers, feel quite free to continuously state the the airvehicle that "approached"..."crashed into"...or..."overflew" the Pentagon is AA77.

From what I KNOW...AA77 was lost to positive radar contact in eastern Ohio and nobody, at anytime, at any facility and in any circumstance has PROVEN that whatever debris at the Pentagon is that belonging to AA77...Captained by Chic Burlingame.

Can you please inform me of your evidence that ascertains that the airvehicle involved at the Pentagon [if one was ]...is that of AA77,,Captained by Chic Burlingame of the "Pentagon hijacked aircraft attacks scenario study"...

I really do not need very much proof about this...maybe a serial number of a part belonging to AA77. Whatever Jon...anything will do.

Except of course evidence that has no custodial trail...

If you can't provide this info...then PLEASE...stop calling the airvehicle involved as AA77...at LEAST...call it a B757.

Of course...if you do THAT...then I would hasten to ask that you PROVE that the airvehicle inviolved was indeed...a B757...

Sorry for the interesting questions...and...

I stand by awaiting your answers to both.

love, peace, progress...

...and of course...dump the up-down vote "high school" CRAP on this compromised blogsite...

Robin Hordon [my REAL name BTW]
Kingston, WA

Well, the scatological reference holds up pretty well

I don't see any value in the up-voting and down-voting, and I agree with Robin Hordin on this.

Given my expressed opinion in favor of Robin's views, I may well be down-voted. Something similar happened in the recent past. My interest in this site is rapidly fading.

Like a few others, my tendency now is to look at the hidden comments, just to see what has been hidden.

Regards
Michael Zimmer

See Robin...

This is how someone responds to someone else. WE KNOW which questions of mine you have refused to answer.

I don't have "a serial number of a part belonging to AA77," but what I do have is this article I wrote.

And there's this article from John Judge.

"She saw parts of the fuselage of an American Airlines plane, a Boeing 757 plane. She identified the charred wreckage in several ways. She recognized the polished aluminum outer shell, an unpainted silver color that is unique to American Airline planes, and the red and blue trim that is used to decorate the fuselage. She saw parts of the inside of the plane, which she easily identified since she flew and worked in them for years. Upholstery, drapes and carpeting she could identify by both color and design. The soft carpeting and padding of the inner walls had a cloud design and color she recognized from American Airline planes, though it has since been replaced. The blue coloring of drapes and carpet were also specific to the 757 or 767 larger planes, and were not used on the smaller planes. Seating upholstery also matched the AA 757 planes, including the blue color, tan squares and hints of white.

She saw other parts of the plane and engine parts at a distance but they were familiar to her. She did not see any galley supplies, which she would have recognized as well, nor any jump seats. All the parts were charred but colors were still visible. She also saw charred human bones but not any flesh or full body parts.

One area of fuselage had remaining window sections and the shape of the windows, curved squares not ovals, was also distinct to the 757's she had flown. She also saw parts with the A/A logo, including parts of the tail of the plane. Smaller A/A logos and "American" logos are also on the planes and she saw parts of those. One website shows pictures of wreckage inside the building, including sections of the fuselage with bright lime and yellow coloring, which is distinctive to Boeing parts. My friend confirmed this, having visited a Boeing plant where she saw the bright colors on the production line marking the inside of fuselage parts. She did not notice this coloring at the site, but the photos show it in some pieces of the plane.

She spent approximately 15 minutes in the crash area looking at parts of the wreckage, all of which she recognized as coming from a Boeing 757 American Airline plane, the same planes she flew regularly. She did not see any rubber, only metal pieces of fuselage, engine parts and sections of the inside of the plane."

I've never known John Judge to be a liar.

Then there's this from Kevin Fenton.

Jon Gold is my "real name." My FULL NAME is Jonathan Michael Gold the first.


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

And yet...

The people who wrote Firefight seem to corroborate some of what John's friend said. Also, Cynthia McKinney still works with John. Or did recently. I don't think she would work with a BS Artist, and a liar. I could be wrong. Peter Dale Scott has never had a bad word to say about John. Kyle Hence, while he may have differences with John, still refers to John's knowledge of events as "encyclopedic."


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 disagree...

With your account of John.


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?

Account of John?

Which account of John (I assume John Judge) are you referring to? Does John Judge still insist that the towers did not come down in controlled demolition?

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

Here it is.

For the sake of the record, this is the posted account of John Judge (written by Keenan, but deleted for some reason) that Jon Gold disagrees with:

Judge's phantom friend, it should be noted, is not your average flight attendant. In a post dated February 21, 2004, Judge told the latest fanciful, and unintentionally hilarious, version of his friend's story, which has grown more and more elaborate, and more and more ridiculous, over the past three years:

A dear friend and fellow researcher had been working as a flight attendant for American for many years, and that was her regular route, several times a week ... As it turned out, my friend had not been on Flight 77, having taken the day off work to care for her sick father ... When questions arose about Flight 77, I contacted her to raise the issues that concerned me and the speculation of others who denied the plane hit the Pentagon. She was adamant in saying it had, and told me she had been to the crash site and had seen parts of the plane. I asked her about the speculation that the plane would have made a larger hole due to the wingspan. She informed me that the fuel was stored in the wings and that they would have exploded and broken off, as the fuselage slammed through the building walls.

Already we see that not only is this person a flight attendant, but also a fellow researcher and, apparently, an expert on airplane crashes. As we return to the story, Judge's mystery friend has been "approached by another flight attendant to assist in support work for the rescue crews at the site." Let's see what happens next:

The Pentagon was seeking people with security clearances that they could trust to be near the site and all the airline attendants qualified for that level of clearance ... [My friend] and her mother signed up for an overnight shift on Friday, September 21st. She and her mother spent the entire night continuously providing drinks to rescuers ... At the end of her shift on Saturday morning, September 22nd, she was approached along with other attendants to visit the crash site. One declined, but she and two others took a van driven by the Salvation Army to the area.

I have to interrupt here briefly to ask a couple of silly questions that come to mind. First, how is it that someone who is supposedly a conspiracy researcher, and a dear friend of a very well known conspiracy researcher, obtains a security clearance that allows them to roam about the Pentagon? And second, if the mystery friend had just spent the entire night tending to the rescue teams working at the Pentagon crash site, why did she then have to be driven to the crash site? Where did that Salvation Army van take her -- across the Pentagon lawn?

Memo to John Judge: lying isn't as easy as it may appear to be. If you're going to completely fabricate a story, you have to be careful that that story is consistent. And with that out of the way, let's get back to the story, which is about to veer off into bizarro world:

The area was covered with rescue equipment, fire trucks, small carts, and ambulances. They were still hoping to find survivors. Small jeeps with wagons attached were being used to transport workers and others at the site. One flight attendant was driving one of these around the site. Once inside the fence, she was unable to clearly discern where the original wall had been. There was just a gaping hole. She got off the van and walked inside the crash site. The other attendants broke down crying once they were inside. But my friend went in further than the others and kept her emotions in check as she has been trained to do and usually does in emergency situations.

How do I even begin to dissect out all the absurdities present in this one brief passage? I suppose I could begin by pointing out that the mystery friend couldn't possibly have seen a "gaping hole" since any entry hole was buried in rubble shortly after the alleged crash, when the Pentagon was afflicted with that curious September 11 malady known as Collapsing Building Syndrome. I also have to point out how extremely unlikely it is that a group of flight attendants would be invited to freely tour a site that was: (1) one of the world's most secure military installations; (2) ground zero of an investigation into what was supposedly the deadliest act of 'terrorism' ever on American soil; and (3) a badly damaged, unsafe, partially-collapsed structure that obviously would have been off-limits to anyone who didn't need to be in there.

I was also going to comment on the scenario of the unnamed flight attendant cruising around the site in a jeep-and-wagon set-up, but, to be perfectly honest, every time the visual flashes through my mind I find myself too convulsed with laughter to think of anything to say.

At this point, you are probably wondering what the phantom stewardess/researcher/crash expert/rescue worker saw when she entered the building. Quite a bit, as it turns out. Certainly far more evidence of a plane crash than anyone else has ever claimed to have seen. And much of what she saw, believe it or not, was wreckage that could be positively identified as wreckage of an American Airlines Boeing 757, which she was, of course, an expert at identifying

She saw parts of the fuselage of an American Airlines plane, a Boeing 757 plane. She identified the charred wreckage in several ways. She recognized the polished aluminum outer shell ... and the red and blue trim that is used to decorate the fuselage. She saw parts of the inside of the plane ... The soft carpeting and padding of the inner walls had a cloud design and color she recognized ... The blue coloring of the drapes and carpet were also specific to the 757 or 767 larger planes ... Seating upholstery also matched the AA 757 planes ... She saw other parts of the plane and engine parts at a distance but they were familiar to her ... One area of fuselage had remaining window sections and the shape of the windows ... was also distinct to the 757's she had flown. She also saw parts with the A/A logo, including parts of the tail of the plane. Smaller A/A logos and "American" logos are also on the planes and she saw parts of those.

Who knew there was so much identifiable aircraft wreckage? Wreckage that was apparently never photographed and never shown to anyone other than John Judge's friend? Am I the only one here who is wondering whether Mr. Judge has maybe been watching too many reruns of old Saturday Night Live skits featuring Jon Lovitz. "Yeah, John, that's it ... that's the ticket."

The anonymous friend "also saw," we are to believe, "charred human bones but not any flesh or full body parts." So the bodies were apparently reduced to charred bones, but the upholstery, carpet and drapes were, of course, still looking factory fresh.

In an earlier version of the flight attendant story, posted on October 30, 2002, Judge claimed that his friend was also "shown autopsy photos of her fellow crew members, including the severed arm of her best friend at work, which she recognized from the bracelet she wore." I have to confess here that I never realized how much access flight attendants have. I now find myself wondering what kind of access commercial pilots must have. I'm guessing they could probably sit in on the President's morning briefings if they really wanted to.

Anyhow, getting back to the story, we aren't quite through yet being subjected to outlandish claims. The next one goes something like this:

The crew of Flight 77 who died in the crash included her personal friend Renee May. She had spoken to Renee's mother after the crash, and Renee had used a cell phone to call her mother during the hijacking.

It sounds like the phantom stewardess has this case all wrapped up. She has, single-handedly, gathered more evidence that AA Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon than the entire federal government and all of its media mouthpieces combined. I, for one, am impressed. She has seen and positively identified wreckage of Flight 77. She has seen and positively identified the remains of actual humans who were supposed to be on the flight. She has seen the gaping entry wound. She has spoken to someone who can personally vouch for the hijacking story.

And that's not all! Judge has other phantom witnesses as well, and they can verify other portions of the official fairy tale:

Other American ground crew workers saw some of the suspects board American Airlines Flight 77 and recognized them from published photos ... My attendant friend knows and has put me in touch with other American Airlines employees and pilots who were at the site and took photographs. We are busy locating these, as well as another attendant who was at the site with her that day.

Well, you keep working on that, John. Let us know just as soon as you can produce a single one of these alleged witnesses, or any of their alleged photographs. But, really, there's no rush. We understand that these things take time, and you've only had three-and-a-half years [now going on seven-and-a-half years] to locate these witnesses that you claim to have already been in touch with.

By the way, what were they all doing stomping around the Pentagon crash site? Was it open to all American Airlines employees? How about United Airlines employees? Were Boeing employees allowed to tour the site as well? How about employees of Dulles International Airport? How about employees of the company that catered the meals for Flight 77? Did the baggage handlers get to take a peek? I don't mean to sound snide here; I'm really just trying to determine what the criteria were for deciding who was allowed to tour this very sensitive site, because, truth be told, I would have liked to take a look for myself, but my invite must have gotten lost in the mail or something.

Moving on, it's time for Mr. Judge to abruptly segue into the conclusion of his formidable case:

My friend is therefore a credible and very knowledgeable eyewitness to the fact that American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. She has been vilified by those who refuse to believe the obvious ... My friend is herself a researcher for many years into government misdeeds and cover-ups. If she did not see the parts, she would say so. She has no reason to lie about it. Nor is she confused about what she saw. She is a professional and is used to looking at evidence.

Let it never be said that I participated in the vilification of a nonexistent person. That just wouldn't be right. For the record, the argument here is not that Judge's friend is a liar. No, the argument here is that John Judge is a liar. And not a particularly good one -- but certainly a very ambitious one. Lest there be any lingering doubt about that, Judge saves his best for last. In the final paragraph of his missive, he actually makes the following claim:

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

No shit? I hope she didn't receive any serious injuries.

In that same paragraph, Judge claims that Flight 77 "flew dangerously close to the ground, skidding into the ground floor of the Pentagon." In yet another Pentagon rant, this one from October 23, 2002, Judge made a similar claim: "the plane bottomed out just short of contact with the building and bounced into it." That scenario, of course, was long ago discredited, owing to the fact that it is quite apparent that there was no damage to the Pentagon lawn consistent with an airplane crash. And yet, more than three years after the events of September 11, Judge is still hawking the same story.

The bottom line here is that Judge has quite obviously fabricated an elaborate tale - allegedly, but not actually, based on the testimony of unnamed witnesses - and he has used that story to shield himself from having to deal with the very real evidence anomalies uncovered by legitimate researchers. For three years, he has asked that we take him at his word, because he is, after all, the great John Judge. And that, my friends, is what legend building is all about.

After reviewing Judge's various Pentagon rants, I have a few final questions for the Tattoo theorists [Tattoo theorists are a reference Dave McGowan makes to the Fantasy Island TV show with the guy named Tattoo ("Ze plane!, Ze plane!) to refer to those who argue that, "of course Flight 77 hit the Pentagon!"]: why did the 'powers that be' feel the need to call on the services of an established 'conspiracy theorist' to further gild this lily? Why is John Judge so obviously lying? Or, if he is isn't lying, then why do all you Tattoo theorists shy away from referencing his 'work'? After all, he has obviously presented more evidence in support of your Tattoo theories than anyone else. Isn't the fact that you choose to ignore his contributions a tacit admission that you know full well that he is lying his ass off?

So, again I must ask: if the evidence of the crash of Flight 77 is so persuasive, then why is John Judge gilding the lily?

Thank you Jon...this is supportive of your "theory" about AA77..

...crashing into the Pentagon.

Again...serial numbers of parts that establish that the debris is from AA77...the American Airliner flying under the number AA77 on 9/11/2001...would be helpful...and

...evidence that has a custodial trail and which couldn't have been placed there after the crash...

After all, as Fenton's work establishes, its our friendly FBI that was in control of the scene...just like they came in to ZBW and grabbed all the ATC tapes within minutes of the 9/11 attacks...just like they were at the video camera sites at the Pentagon within minutes of the explosion[s]...

I see a common denominator here and I do not trust the HI PERP's police squad...the FBI...

It seems that others who comment upon Fenton's work [which is greatly appreciated] have already asked, or questioned, some of this evidence. So, my time has been saved here.

From what I see, there is no proof that it was AA77 that hit the Pentagon...IF an airvehicle did so.

So many wedding rings found...very interesting indeed?

Now, IF the interior elements of an AAL B757 indeed matched what John Judge presented, and that eyewitness is valid, well, now that might establish that it was an AAL B757.

[Whoops...looks like Elusus has just shared some homework...I was writing my response and failed to read it first...AAL flight attendants allowed to scour the debris some 11 DAYS AFTER the events at the Pentagon certainly COULD identify the interiors of AAL B757s...how convenient aye? rdh]

So, I appreciate your research and for sharing it.

love, peace and progress...

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

You may as well ask me...

For a transcript of Bush and Cheney's testimony.


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?

They have eliminated the word "enemies"

from their thread. They conceded that was harsh language.

If I were them, or if I did serious investigation of something re 9/11, and I found a cabal of individuals who seemed passionate about discrediting me, I would have a "detractors' list" also. I would not care if my detractor opposed any and all things 911 truth, or claimed to believe in CD. If they have ample amounts of time to spin and distort my work, I will expose them if I can.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

The word "Enemy"

....was removed because Richard Gage threatened to pull his endorsement if they didn't. Richard Gage has admitted to me that it was a mistake to endorse CIT.

Temporarily

he regretted it, after the aggressive campaign from your "side" to pressure him.

Richard and Craig are totally on good terms. They were in NYC on the anniversary and gave each other a big hug. No joke.

But, keep trying all you want at casting doubt on their character. It won't change the testimony of their credible NoC witnesses.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

>>Richard and Craig are

>>Richard and Craig are totally on good terms.

He can still regret endorsing the work, regardless.

Richard also expressed an interest in having lunch with that debunker he debated in front of the White House. Doesn't mean he agrees with the guy's claims. He gets along with almost everyone.

"He can still regret

"He can still regret endorsing the work, regardless."

Of course he "can" but you haven't a reason on earth to say that he does because he has made no such statement. You have no right to speak for Richard Gage let alone imply that he believes something other than he said.

Richard also expressed an interest in having lunch with that debunker he debated in front of the White House. Doesn't mean he agrees with the guy's claims. He gets along with almost everyone.

Yes but he did not endorse a presentation from this guy. Look at you comparing CIT to a jrefer out of pure desperation! There is nothing accurate about your analogy.

Richard DID endorse CIT's presentation National Security Alert and he has stood by that endorsement to this day. You have no right to suggest or imply otherwise.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Adam

He does regret having endorsed the CIT fiasco.

Who made it into a fiasco

Have him send me an email

telling me he STILL regrets it. What the hell, I'll email him myself.

If he does, it's only because he wants to be on good terms with everyone and perhaps didn't realize how many people don't like CIT on a personal level. Once again, doesn't diminish the quality of their work. As a musician I can tell you that Bach, Beethoven and Brahms all had personalities a MILLION times more disagreeable than Craig or Aldo could possibly be if they tried.

Let's also not forget that Gregg Roberts and Jim Hoffman are very close (isn't GR JH's webmaster?) And it was Hoffman who turned Steven Jones on to 911 truth. So Hoffman is in a very strategic position of influence in the movement, despite his being a mere SOFTWARE engineer.

Frankly, I defend CIT "face to the name" thread. I regret caving in to pressure in one post a couple months ago and conceding the thread was "immature." If I were in their shoes, spending all that time, money and effort doing what they've done, only to be shouted down by armchair critics who use illogical arguments ("it doesn't matter that Wheelhouse couldn't see the Citgo) and ad hominem attacks ("they are Dylan Avery wannabees"), I'd create a detractors list too. It would not matter to me whether the detractor was anti-everything 9/11 truth, like the JREFers, or a "truther" who believes in CD at the WTC like Hoffman. If the detractor spends ample time trying to discredit me, I shall be exposing him or her.

PS If he does still regret it he's the only endorser who does.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

and the flyover witnesses?

with all your hawking of witnesses - you just don't seem to be able to produce ONE - not ONE - who claims to have seen the plane pull up and fly over the Pentagon. Not a one.

so - your self proclamations of 'rationality' is CLEARLY lacking - if not downright intellectually dishonest.

while the witness testamony that you DO choose to focus on appears to be quite weak, and witnesses who disagree with CIT claim they have been are harassed - with some ACCUSED of being government plants - you STILL cannot produce ONE witness who actually saw a HUGE wide-bodied plane pulling up and flyingover the pentagon. not a one. none.

you spend all your time disputing flight paths - yet can't produce ONE witness to corroborate your central thesis. CIT claims a flyover that no one is on the record witnessing? not one witness?

tell us again about your amazing powers of rationality...?

and gee - how would the conspirators have GUARANTEED that someone would NOT have snapped a picture - or video taped - the flyover? who would devise such a plan - such a strategy - in today's digital age of phone-cameras, etc etc.?

no witnesses and no photos and no real evidence of a flyover - except some loosely culled witness accounts cherry-picked to throw the flight path into question?

tell me - how does one go from point A - the flight path - to point B- a flyover?

anyone? anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

answer: you can't. furthermore - you know that - and you do not care.

"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA

Albanese:

Albanese,

Obviously you haven't bothered to view any of the evidence, let alone CIT's latest presentation National Security Alert that has an entire chapter dedicated to flyover evidence. Yes they have provided direct evidence for a pull up and flyover. Robert Turcios very explicitly reported that the plane "picked up" over the highway and Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr saw the plane flying away immediately after the explosion, while Erik Dihle has provided officially recorded testimony that other witnesses (note plural) immediately reported that a bomb went off and "a jet kept on going".

Clearly it is YOU who is being "intellectually dishonest" by refusing to even bother to view the evidence that you are furiously arguing against.

Furthermore you are FLAT OUT WRONG about CIT by claiming "and witnesses who disagree with CIT claim they have been are harassed." If you weren't you would name the witness and source the claim. Therefore it is YOU who is doing the malicious character assassination based on lies.

"tell me - how does one go from point A - the flight path - to point B- a flyover?

anyone? anyone? Bueller? Bueller?"

(raises hand like Horshack from Welcome Back Kotter)

Oooo! Oooo! Oooo!

YES I can tell you why the north side evidence ALONE proves a flyover without any direct evidence for a flyover at all. Because it is physically impossible for a plane north of the citgo to cause any of the physical damage to the light poles, generator trailer, OR the building. This is explained in detail on CIT's FAQ page here:

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-can_north_side_plane_hit.html

Your pseudo-intellectual sarcastic angry rants do not help your cause when it's clear you are oblivious to the research and evidence.

p.s. 9/11 didn't happen "today". It happened in 2001. Cell phone cameras weren't on the market yet.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

there you go again

accusing your critics of ignorance and making claims that you cannot POSSIBLY substantiate.

"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA

"you spend all your time

"you spend all your time disputing flight paths - yet can't produce ONE witness to corroborate your central thesis."

Please examine Roosevelt Robert's confirmed and verified testimony. Turquois states the plane started to pull up. As far as others, please google situational blindness. I've explained this in the past on this same topic numerous times. Cherry picked? ROFLMAO@U. Go do us a favor, and go confirm on video and with a hand drawn picture every witness you find in the mainstream media that saw the impact. Then you can counter CIT's research.

Roberts a Pentagon employee, immediately after explosion, sees a large passenger airliner a few hundred feet off the ground banking hard. He stresses that it was a passenger airliner, not a C-130. I would ignore him to, John, if I were attacking CIT and not the facts. There is at least one fly over witness.

"and gee - how would the conspirators have GUARANTEED that someone would NOT have snapped a picture - or video taped - the flyover?" Of course you can't guarantee that but you can control the access and flow of information. I've taken numerous informal polls of friends, students, co-workers, family, etc. Guess how many towers collapsed on that day? TWO! Over and over again, TWO is the answer. And that media was broadcast live! LOL.Your terrible assumption is that one a picture would be snapped of a very common occurence-low flying passenger planes entering and exiting the airspace to land at Regan. Yeah that is exciting thing to do especially after a major explosion at the Pentagon. NOT.
Hmm take pictures of the mundane or of an explosion. You be the judge.
Two, you assume a photograph would automatically be sent to the mainstream media and broadcast the worldwide over and over again. Another bad assumption.

Where are all of those pics that show a plane or a missile or dumbo the elephant hitting the Pentagon? Considering all the witnesses you claim saw the hit, surely you can produce one picture of that incident. Right? Surely of all the people that saw a jumbo jet flying a few hundred feet off the ground, someone would have snapped a photo or video taped it, right? Oh wait, low flying jets and Pentagon flyovers are a common occurrence. In D.C. and in and around Regan Intl. Airport. No need to take pics of the everyday and mundane.

In other words, your logic fails you and your attack.

"no witnesses and no photos and no real evidence of a flyover - except some loosely culled witness accounts cherry-picked to throw the flight path into question?"
Again, see Roosevelt Roberts. Loosely culled witness accounts?? How about verified witnesses accounts who not only state where they saw the plane, North of the Citgo, they also DRAW the path on a picture! Dolt! And strangely none of them have the plane on the official flight path hitting light poles. And strangely enough, they weren't in a position to see the actual impact but deduced it.

"tell me - how does one go from point A - the flight path - to point B- a flyover?"
Which flight path? The official one? The NTSB? The North of Citgo? The FAA?
Its called pulling the yoke back to climb. And then substitute a black box to cover your ass.

N'uff said.

Visit http://dotheordersstillstand.blogspot.com/ for analysis and commentary on 9/11.

Jon:

As when debating "debunkers" on Amazon (i.e. DRG's books, esp D911D), I am not expecting the TrueFaction clique to concede anything. It's obvious you are all married to your point of view and are not going to budge. The attempt, for example, to cite someone like Keith Wheelhouse as a credible witness to counter the truly credible 13 is a pathetic grasp at straws.

I am posting in the event that the neutral ones will look at all "sides" and draw their own conclusion.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Comparing individuals...

To "debunkers" and calling a site that started the Eleventh of Every Month Action as "TrueFaction" is disrespectful. I don't see anyone here referring to anyone else as "twoofers, moonbats, conspiracy theorists, etc..." like a "debunker" would do. Having doubts, or not accepting an argument as fact does not mean someone is a "debunker." It means they are cautious about what they choose to promote.


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?

Jon, you know damn well

you called me an a**hole recently on here, and it was reported. To my knowledge you were not queued for it. I've been WAAAY less nasty than that in the past and I've been queued. This site is not a level playing field.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Also

On this VERY THREAD, Frank Legge himself has actually cited Mark Roberts' "debunking" website as if it were a credible source.

So it's not a stretch at all, let alone disrespectful!

I have a problem with that.

I'll admit it. The information may be right or wrong, but Roberts deserves no attention.


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?

Right or wrong

No matter how a person is being treated by others, that person should correct any information they have posted on websites or message threads if the information is shown to be incorrect. Purposely holding onto bad info is extremely suspect, no matter what reasons are given. Purposely bad info = disinformation.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

I don't...

Disagree with anything you just said. I often correct my mistakes when they are pointed out. As should everyone else.


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 do the same...

I correct myself, too. As should Jim Hoffman.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

Adam

You're really showing your true colors now - using terminology created at a site that specializes in attacking 9/11 family members and activists and mixing holocaust revisionism with 9/11 truth. A site that for a long time carried a banner proclaiming that 911blogger.com is "Islamaphobic". Watching your behavior here on this site, it's not surprising that you've become very cozy there. You obviously fit right in. But don't you think you should leave all the cutesy namecalling over there in the garbage dump? Or should we just go ahead and start calling you Adam Syop?

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

You may call me Adam Syop if

You may call me Adam Syop if you wish. I gotta give you credit, that's pretty clever.

It doesn't change the evidence for a north approach and a flyover.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

No thanks

My point was that namecalling drags everything down to a Jerry Springer level. You seem to revel in that but it turns everything to shit and it's against the site's rules for a reason.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

You guys name call at your

You guys name call at your site. Off the top of my head, one of the people at your site referred to Craig and Aldo as "Dylan Avery wannabees," even though they've done incredibly ground breaking work.

You prohibit discussion of CIT's evidence there. If someone does start a thread about a north approach or a flyover, you lock the thread.

This is why people consider your group a "faction."

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

First of all Adam - we're talking about THIS site

try to stay focused

and don't bring the filthy garbage you're playing with into the house.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

I love Family Guy...

Peter Griffin [dressed up in an American flag suit]: Good morning, my American family!

Lois Griffin: Peter, where did you get that suit?

Stewie Griffin: My God, you look like the Statue of Liberty's pimp. [he and Brian high-five each other]

Peter Griffin: This is how a patriot dresses, Lois! Boy, I never knew it would feel this good to love my country. It's like loving God or a step-parent. You never really feel them love you back, but that's OK, because they got other stuff going on and you understand.

Brian Griffin: Peter, you do realize there's a difference between loving America and being swept up in post-9/11 paranoia.

Peter Griffin: Brian, are you suggesting that 9/11 didn't change everything?

Brian Griffin: What? No, I was just...

Peter Griffin: 'Cause 9/11 changed everything, Brian! 9/11 changed everything!

Brian Griffin: Peter, you didn't even know what 9/11 was until 2004.


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

It appears to me that CIT is the "faction"

It appears to me that CIT is the "faction" - trying to foist an unprovable fringe theory on the movement with the help of a few VERY active (and very wordy) individuals such as yourself. Truth Action, on the other hand, has long attempted to provide a+means+by+which+we+could+unify+on+our+points+of+agreement and leave the most divisive issues aside. Most sincere and reasonable activists who actually want justice can understand the value in that.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

I am a big fan of yours Adam.

I wish people would actually contribute to the discussion instead of trying to get RAH RAH RAH points.

Adam, my advice to you is to just state your evidence once, and leave it at that. Do not let any gang, faction, or whatever you want to call it affect you. The back-and-forth comments are unnecessary. You have to trust that those in the 911blogger community can decipher what's really going on here. The other 99.9999% of the 9-11 Truth Movement have no idea that there is even a conflict over the Pentagon issue.

You can't convince people if they do not want to be convinced. That is the problem with group loyalty - members of a group will put their loyalty to the group ahead of any sincere search for the truth.

The up/down thumbs are quite juvenile - an anonymous personal attack or pat on the back, often on comments that are generic or pointless.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

Thank you.

You have to trust that those in the 911blogger community can decipher what's really going on here.

That's why I'm posting prolifically in these Pentagon threads. I just received a private email also complimenting my posts in this thread; and of course, there's my sig quote... ;-)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

If they don't...

If those who reply to your analyses do not provide anything of value, then ignore them, as will everyone else. You present your evidence in detail with explanations, and that's strong. Those one line comebacks from others come across as quite shallow, so let it be. That's my advice.

Anytime someone brings the words 'Holocaust denial' into the conversation, their agenda comes front and center. From the moment I first came into the 9-11 Truth Movement, many of those to whom I brought up the subject of 9-11 Truth came back with "I bet you are a Holocaust denier!" So now, as soon as anyone within the Truth Movement throws in that comment, I immediately write them off as a dis-info agent, agent provocateur, or just another person who is really having a difficult time adjusting to what the bulk of 9-11 evidence is pointing toward.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

I agree

Although I find the "up and down" thing actually quite amusing.

What do they think people are going to conclude when they see someone's verbal abuse and accusations with 7+ points and someone else saying nothing offensive at all with -5?

Do you think that an outsider to this little debate is going to think this reflects well on the side with the + points, or do you think it is going to look like a blatantly coordinated propaganda campaign?

Treating people like they are idiots has never won anyone an argument...

Show "Comment #100..." by Jon Gold

One single "fall guy"

Here's the biggest reason why it is not enough to say "nothing should have hit the Pentagon." The reason is that all the perps have to do is trot out one fall guy who screwed up that day in ordering the F16s into the air and they're done. But explosives in the Pentagon, far more incriminating, cannot be spun. By ignoring CIT's evidence, we give the perps an easy out.

Believe it or not, even though it's not credible to you or I, it could theoretically be possible to "spin" explosives in the WTC as being planted by al Qaeda.

I can just imagine when the CD at WTC case gets too large for even the MSM to ignore. Say the 10th anniversary, all the media attention, perhaps 1500-2000 (or more) architects and engineers on Gage's petition.

I can see Katie Couric demurely crossing her legs (underneath that $100,000 outfit she can afford by being a corporate shill), looking into the camera, and saying with a straight face: "The 9/11 Commission has reopened its investigation today to try and probe deeper into how the al Qaeda hijackers were able to bypass World Trade Center security in the months leading up to the 9/11 attacks in order to plant 'secondary devices' in strategic points of the buildings to assist the buildings coming down."

Believe me, the ones who "need to believe" would believe it.

But there is ZERO way of spinning explosives in the Pentagon. That points to a straight up military deception hoax in the purest (mihop) sense.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Show "Strong" by bbruhwiler8

Its way too late for "one single fall guy"...to take the blame..

Adam,

Citizens will no longer believe that "one fall guy"...is responsible for the 9/11 attacks...or even the failures for the national air defense system in the good ole USofA.

The horse is well out of the barn in many areas...and this one of them.

Along with that horse being out of the barn analogy...

...that the 9/11 Truth Movement will be hurt by diverging opinions, research and/or theories...has absolutely NO LEGS!

...because we are all doing our jobs here...and the truth will eventually emerge...

...question EVERYTHING!!!...

...and this is indeed a GOOD state of affairs within the 9/11TM!

love, peace and progress...

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

PS: The above are my real name...and my real hometown...rdh

Robin,

I really hope you're right.

And I would sincerely hope that a majority of people, if presented with the fallback of "Al Qaeda planted the charges," would react "Ah, poo poo poo! Fool me twice shame on me!"

But then again, look how easy it was to convince 69% of Americans in 2003 that Saddam Hussein was responsible for (or at least had some involvement in) 9/11. Look how easy it was to convince the public that Osama and Saddam were allies working together, when in reality they were arch-enemies. (Osama was an Islamic extremist [supposedly] while Saddam was a secular atheist who outlawed religious worship in his Baath regime.) But hey, they both had brown skin so they MUST be conspiring together against America, right?

(Of course, the shock and awe of 9/11 still hadn't worn off yet at that point.)

Time will tell what the perps will use for fall back excuses when the dam truly breaks.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

No proof for no plane?

The government made the plane hit pentagon claim without sufficient proof.
So it is propable there was no plane.
Is it the best 911 argument, no.

NPT nonsense

Of course "there was a plane". It is almost undisputed in the 9/11 truth community that "there was a plane". Every single witness saw a plane. A commercial aircraft, with an American Airlines paint job.

So no, it is not probable that "there was no plane". I understand you may be referring to "no plane hit", but it doesn't come across that way.

Almost correct, snowcrash.

Not every single witness reported the American Airlines markings. Some said it was merely a silver plane. Could have been perspective from vantage point, but other than that you're correct. "No plane at pentagon" is deceiving; the real hypothesis being no plane -crash- at the Pentagon.

Check your e-mail.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

I'm in the middle of a move

So expect me to be a bit difficult to reach while I surf from various places. Will check ASAP.

Keith Wheelhouse

This is a response to Loose Nuke's comment of 10/2/09 at 10:11 p.m.

Keith Wheelhouse has been interviewed by CIT on camera at his summer home outside of Virgina Beach. His account has been proven false and he is arguably one of the witnesses most implicated as a part of the operation. You can view CIT's complete interview with him in their full-length supplemental presentation "How They Pulled It Off" and he is also featured in their video short "The 2nd Plane Cover Story".

Keith was a well known witness prior to our interview with him because he was heavily featured in a series of articles written for local newspaper the Daily Press by reporters Terry Scanlon and David Lerman in the first weeks after the attack that focused on a mysterious "second plane" that was allegedly in the airspace at the time of the attack. Wheelhouse was quoted going so far as to claim that this second plane was actually "shadowing" the American Airlines jet that allegedly slammed into the building.

If you follow the progression of these articles it is presented as if the identity of this plane was unknown until the reporters ultimately published a piece announcing that they had obtained confirmation from Pentagon official Lt. Col. Kenneth McClellan that there was a C-130 and crew who "followed the aircraft" and "saw it crash into the building". This has been proven false and we'll explain how a bit later.

Here are the articles in chronological order for the record (right click and choose "save as" to download in PDF format):

Article #1:
HORRIFIC' IMAGE STILL HAUNTS SURRY WOMAN DISASTER VIEWED FROM ARLINGTON
Date published: Sept 14, 2001

Article #2:
HAMPTON ROADS WOMAN SAYS SHE, TOO, SAW PLANE FOLLOWING JET THAT HIT PENTAGON
Date published: Sept 15, 2001

Article #3:
C-130 CREW SAW PENTAGON STRIKE, OFFICIAL CONFIRMS
Date published: Oct 17, 2001

Keith's sister Pam Young is also referenced in the articles but in our interview you can hear Keith awkwardly volunteer that she "exaggerates some when she talks".

Since Wheelhouse was the only witness directly quoted claiming the second plane "shadowed" the airliner we knew it was important to get a hold of him to see if he would confirm this detail firsthand. He did.

To quote Craig:

It was not easy getting Wheelhouse to commit to an interview. We followed up with him for about a year and he was always uncooperative, impatient, and rather curt with us over the phone. During our November 2007 trip to Arlington we tried him again and he told us he was going to be painting his summer home and that we could show up there if we still wanted to interview him. Although it was a 3.5 hour drive from Arlington we did not hesitate to take him up on the offer. When he answered the door the confident demeanor we were used to over the phone was completely gone and he seemed rather surprised to see that we showed up at all.

In fact even as we started setting up the camera inside his house he seemed extremely nervous and a bit in denial of what was happening and strangely questioned, "so you want to video record me?" even though that was obviously the entire reason we were there to begin with and exactly what we had been trying to get him to agree to for the prior year. When we told him that we had interviewed other witnesses he went so far as to ask, "well what did they say?". We laughed off the question and did not tell him. Even more oddly, after we finished the interview, even though we didn't challenge his account, as we were packing up he said, "y'all aren't going to make me out to be a liar are ya?". Naturally this is an extremely odd question for someone who is being honest.

Keith claimed that he first saw both planes approach when they were only "maybe a mile out, half a mile out, two thirds of a mile out", so less than a mile. He claims he watched the C-130 veer away at the last moment just before a silver American Airlines jet slammed into the building on a descent angle after it "dropped its nose and gunned it". At the official speed of 460 knots during this final stretch it would only take about 7 seconds to reach the Pentagon from a mile out but let's take a closer look at his actual POV.

He indicated his exact alleged location in the cemetery on a map and admitted that he had no memory of the Citgo gas station and sure enough there is no view of the Citgo from the location he indicated at all.

Here is an image that he would later provide for us proving how the treeline blocked the view of the Pentagon making it impossible for him to have seen the alleged impact contrary to his claim.

Here is a panoramic gif of the entire area showing how he would have no view of the Citgo or the official flight at all let alone the alleged impact point:

Yet amazingly Keith Wheelhouse contradicted over a dozen other witnesses and illustrated the official south side flight path pretty much perfectly with no bank at all.

He marked his exact alleged location with an X so because we know for a fact that he would not have had a view of the Citgo or the official flight path from this location due to the topography and landscape, Keith can not fairly be considered a legitimate witness who saw the plane fly south of the former Citgo gas station. You can't be considered a witness to something you couldn't have seen.

Another extremely problematic claim by Keith is that he said he saw the two planes approach from only a mile or less out, yet he suggests that he watched them for a good "60 seconds". With the trees obstructing his view the most he would have seen a plane at the official speed on the official flight path would be a second or two of a mere flash in the distance.

Furthermore the direction he has the C-130 approaching from, and the location he has it turning away just before the Navy Annex, has been contradicted by every other witness CIT spoke with, specifically the Arlington Cemetery Employees who were right next to the area where Keith says he was located but in the maintenance yard with a clear view of the approach that is unobstructed by trees. They all independently said the C-130 approached from the northwest.

The on-location interviews with the Arlington Cemetery employees where they describe their encounter with the C-130 in detail can be viewed in CIT supplemental presentation "The North Side Flyover".

Even the alleged radar data that was officially released by the 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron (84 RADES) in 2007 contradicts Wheelhouse by showing an arrival about 90 seconds after the explosion that would appear to be coming from the south from Keith's POV, not more west as he illustrated. However this official data is also fatally contradicted by the other witnesses who all said the C-130 approached from the northwest indicating both the data and Wheelhouse's account are fraudulent.

So although the officials threw Keith Wheelhouse under the bus with the 2007 release of the 84 RADES alleged radar data, even their data has been proven fraudulent via the independently corroborated witnesses who unanimously describe a much different approach of this C-130.

But the most important point to remember is that all other evidence including all other witnesses have the C-130 flying into the scene a significant amount of time AFTER the explosion as opposed to in the last moment just before the explosion as claimed by Wheelhouse. Nobody else at all claims they saw the two planes flying together. The approach of the C-130 a few minutes later is also confirmed in photographs, video, and by statements from the C-130 pilot himself, Lt Col Steve O'Brien definitively proving Keith's account false.

O'Brien admitted via email correspondence with fellow pilot Robert Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth that he was so far away during the attack that he could not even tell the explosion was coming from the Pentagon.

When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC.
-C-130 Pilot Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien

So although air traffic control did ask O'Brien to turn around and report back on the attack jet, he never got a chance to "follow the aircraft" as stated by Pentagon spokesperson Kenneth McClellan and he certainly did not see it "crash into the building" because he was much too far away at the time.

This is independently confirmed with video evidence showing the C-130 flying into the scene recorded by Anthony Tribby who was driving on the 14th street bridge on highway 395. The C-130 appears about two minutes into the video while Tribby states at the beginning how he didn't turn on the camera until "approximately one minute after" the attack. This means the C-130 wasn't in the airspace above the Pentagon until about 3 minutes or 180 seconds later in stark contrast to both Wheelhouse's "shadow" claim and the 90 seconds indicated in the 84 RADES data.

View original video here and a close-up shot of the C-130 here.

The only possible way that Wheelhouse could be "innocent" would be if he simply lied for attention. When considering his reluctance to be interviewed and how convenient this is for the operation given the definitive evidence that the plane did not hit, CIT (and myself) finds this highly unlikely. The implications are clear. Wheelhouse's false account of a "shadowing" second plane that veered away from the building during the explosion served as a perfect cover for the flyover jet that was meant to fool people into believing it hit the building. It was expressly stated and implied in all media reports that the C-130 pilot and crew literally watched the plane impact the Pentagon when they have never made this claim. The exact details concerning its flight path and arrival time were a mystery until CIT asked questions on an investigative level to nail it all down. These important facts were left ambiguous by the media allowing various witness accounts floating around of another plane in the skies to serve as a plausible excuse for the witnesses who really saw the plane fly away during the explosion. Keith Wheelhouse's "shadowing" second plane story was critical to the success of the operation and worked wonders when conflated with legitimate accounts of the C-130 that really flew in the airspace about 3 minutes later.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

I second that.

Adam, thank you for taking the time to put together such a detailed and convincing post about Wheelhouse. And thank you to the CIT crew for taking the time, effort and care to document Wheelhouse's testimony on behalf of the 9-11 Truth Movement.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

A rockin SOB..."it's a Free for All"

You never responded...

Michael,

Do you intend to embrace the journalistic principle of right to reply?

You've had two people on who are opposed to CIT and both said things I assert are false.

Why not have CIT on the show to state their case?

Cheers,

Stef

Stefan-

Stefan-

I invite people on my program whom I feel will have something positive to offer my listeners and the movement in general. This is of course, my prerogative and I make these sorts of decisions based on the information a potential guest has to offer and what kind of trust level they have with me.

With that said, at this time there will be no forthcoming appearance by CIT or any of their supporters on my program. I will not apologize to you or anyone else who feel my "journalistic principles" are inept. I happen to believe that we as a movement are best served with promoting to the public only the best information we have. CIT, their principles, behaviors, tactics and speculation are on the opposite end of that spectrum and hence I oppose public dissemination of their "work" in the strongest of terms and will use my voice and platform to educate those who really care about 9-11 Truth.

If you feel so strongly that CIT and their speculative BS needs a wider audience, by all means start your own podcast and go for it. Good luck friend.

Regards-

Michael

Logic?!? Logic?!?

Logic dictates that people should promote the best information possible at all times.  Logic dictates that people should set examples for other people by participating in the best activism possible.  Logic dictates that if an argument is constantly used against us, then maybe we should stick to better arguments. What is illogical is someone who claims to be a member of this cause, and tries to force feed a theory to everyone, and anyone who doesn't accept that theory gets called a "true gatekeeper" or a "planehugger" or a whatever the flavor of the week is. The "CIT Effort," to me, is no different than the TV Fakery, Mini-Nukes, Pods, Space Beams, CGI, Hologram efforts. They come in cycles, and the purpose of these efforts are to tire and frustrate legitimate members of this movement, to push possible new members away, and to give ammunition to our enemies. If anyone comes across as being on the "wrong side" it is you Adam.


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?

Typical, bringing up

Typical, bringing up nonsense. You must have run out of arguments.

That was in response...

To a post from Adam Syed referring to Wolsey as a "gatekeeper," etc... however, his post was removed. Here is what he said, "Spoken like a true gatekeeper of someone who knows he's on the wrong side and can't defend his side with logical arguments."


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?

Bringing up space beams and

Bringing up space beams and holograms is irresponsible. A loser's way to ruin a debate.

Yowzer

"the purpose of these efforts are to tire and frustrate legitimate members of this movement" - Jon Gold

Referring to your small group of apparent Pentagon debunkers as 'legitimate members of this movement' is quite self-centered and egotistical. A bit of humility works best in a Truth Movement. Try it.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

I don't trust in trust

The difference is that the north of Citgo flight path is a claim backed by documented corroborated eye witness testimony. Based on precedent, this would pass the test in any court of law were the justice system open to challenges to the establishment rather than being a part of it.

All of the various other topics you listed were defeated in debate. That is the key point. You and your friends may have taken the tack of banning them from forums, but on the UK forum we let them keep spamming and kept of destroying their arguments day after day after day until one by one they dropped off and have now essentially disappeared. Who were three of the principle people who put in this ground work in? Chek, Calum Douglas and myself. All of whom have since been accused of nefarious motives for having an interest in the Pentagon.

Yes, these theories were shown to be insufficient because they could not stand up to challenge. Nobody had the right to just decide on behalf of "the movement" they were wrong - they were defeated.

You might have been told by those you trust that CIT have been defeated too. If that were true then maybe you could tell me how that was?

It is patently obvious to me Jon that you are not familiar with the detail of the evidence CIT have produced, or their counter points to arguments against them. You are asking me to trust the people you trust, who have told you what the score is. But I don’t in all of my involvement with various truth groups, campaigns, figures I never let myself be led away from the evidence, and never take anyone's word for anything.

I don’t trust anyone. I only trust evidence.

When I asked you why I should reject CIT, having told me that you reject them because you don’t trust them, you then posted a link to an Arabesque article, when I asked you what part of it you were asking me to look at, you didn’t even appear to know what the article said.

You trust Arabesque because he is part of your in-group, you aren’t as familiar with his arguments as I am and you certainly aren’t as familiar with CIT’s so why should I listen to your advice on the topic?

Are you not aware that this tendency to make decisions on evidence based on how much you like the person presenting it is logically fallacious? Or how open it makes you to manipulation? If one person in your “circle of trust” is rotten the whole circle rots with them.

The person I trust most in the world could tell me something is true and if I don’t feel the evidence supports it, I will reject it. Someone I have no time for whatsoever could tell me something and if the evidence supports it, I will accept it. I look at evidence alone and I don’t care who it is that is presenting it. Therefore I sometimes have positions which are unpopular, since I pay no mind whatsoever to what the people around me are for or against.

But at least I know my information framework is not supported at any point by faith which could always potentially be unwarranted.

You are fine one to talk about "logic" Jon

You were referring to CD as a mere "unproven theory" even after over 400 people way more qualified than yourself had signed Gage's petition, focusing instead on things like "ignored warnings from al Qaeda."

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Didn't Steven Jones...

Refer to it as a "hypothesis to be tested?" Yes he did Adam. And now it has been tested, and they have results. I am not qualified to tell you whether or not they are right or wrong, but they now have results. Results that can be, and should be taken to every science teacher in the country by students who are on our side.

It's funny you mention CD. There was a time when the movement frowned upon the mention of CD. Just look back to 2004 when almost 17,000 people signed this petition that doesn't even mention CD.

I'm done with this thread... keep on keepin' on.

Edit: One last thing. I think it's funny that you oppose the promotion of one of their BIGGEST lies... nah... that doesn't help us at all.


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

If those 17,000 were aware

If those 17,000 were aware of more than a dozen witnesses to CD they may have mentioned it. The movement is an unpeeling. The more we learn the more we know. Meanwhile, there were those of us who knew those buildings were taken down. Steel buildings don't blow up and then fall down. I would not have been afraid to mention CD as a giant possibility.

I'd don't believe what you've been led to believe I believe

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the response.

First off, I completely believe that you believe everything you say about CIT, and it actually explains a lot about the way your are approaching the topic about the tone you take when you speak to people who disagree with you on the issue.

For example on the Jim Hoffman show he said there are many more witnesses who testify to a south of Citgo path than a north of Citgo path and you enthusiastically agreed.

You do actually believe this don't you? It's not true though, check for your self.

No one with any intellegence at all would be saying the north side witnesses proved anything if more witnesses corroborated the details of the official flight path. Since that's what you've been led to believe is the case you naturally lower your level respect for anyone not also denouncing CIT. They must be absolute morons or disinfo agents to believe that right?

Right, but it's not what they beleive.

I'm certain that you've read every debunking article on this topic, and therefore have a head full of misinformation. But I also know you did watch National Security Alert. You said that you found it quite comelling at first. Presumably it was the argument that these witnesses were in a tiny minority that swung you back into your previous position again. Perhaps you should watch it again now you know that is not the case?

If you rejected what you had just watched (massive witness corroboration of an event), because of something untrue you had been told (overwhelming corroboration of another version of the event) then I cannot fully blame you. You had bad information. But now you know it's false, how can you dismiss that level of corroboration? There is probably more in the way of reliable witnesses for the north of Citgo flight path than there is for molten metal at ground zero, and we all rightly think it perfectly rational to take corroboration of that as evidence.

So, don't take my word for it, go and fact-check whether or not there are more south side witnesses than north and let me know what you find.

Best regards,

Stefan S

The song that doesnt end....

No planes, flyovers, fake calls, no hijackers etc etc....

There were passengers on flight 77. Every one of them are dead. The passengers on flight 11 and 175 and flight 93 are dead to. The DNA and body parts were recovered at the scenes. Planes were flown into the WTC. If you believe the WTC towers were ready to be demolished with explosives, are you really going to cross your fingers and hold your breath and hope the hijackers who never flew passenger jets before would hit their targets? Or is it more logical to think the planes were in the control of the same perps who knew the towers were to be exploded? Which BTW would mean Flt 77 was also under control. If that were the case then flying over the pentagon would be incredibly stupid and unneccessary. No one saw a missile, and no one saw a flyover. What they saw was a plane fly into the building. How were the passengers disposed of? Not one of you no planers and flyover believers can tell us. But some of us go along with the rest of the world and realize they were where the rescue workers found them. At the locations of the plane crashes. That means the planes were not switched. It also confirms what the flight attendants told us before they died on their AIRPHONE calls. That also confirms that there were hijackers. Instead of saying "you go along with the official story", why not do some real research and realize that the AIRPHONE calls prove that the everyday person was doing their job on 9/11 most in a heroic manner, and that the military and civilian authorities knew that terrorist acts were taking place BEFORE any plane hit any building. You'd know that the plot to fly planes into buildings was a plot already 6 years old by the time of 9/11. And was known about ever since the capture of Ramzi Yousef. You'd know that CIA headquaters was an original target back in 1995 when Abdul Murad admitted it. If 9/11 was an inside job then certain components in the military and CIA would know it, and that the NRO building was staffed with members of the military and CIA and they were conducting an exercise on the morning of 9/11 of a plane flying into their building. Instead of saying the phone calls were fake you'd realize that the calls prove Rice and Bush knew that there was a terrorist act taking place before he stepped into the classroom. Instead of saying ordinary citizens like elderly cab drivers are "undercover agents" and making yourself look insane you'd realize that "plants" don't give out their name and personal information. Why don't one of you tell me the name and hometown of "the harley" guy? Go ahead and tell me he is an actor named Humphrey and make a fool of yourself. Go ahead and claim that "I support the official story" because I go along with the idea of hijackers, when you could instead point out how the money trail goes from the Saudi Embassy and Prince Bandar, to Saudi Agents assisting the hijackers. (FBI agent Steven Butler) Or perhaps you haven't figured out that Saudi Intelligence and Mossad are intelligence agencies that are much more "safe" than our own for some of this work? There is zero evidence of a flyover. There is lots of evidence of a plane crashing into the building. Saying the plane flew off into the wild blue yonder makes us look like idiots.

jim

You are thoroughly spreading bad information with your discredited "hijacker" story.

You are aware that even the FBI+admits+that+the+conversation+between+Barbara+and+Ted+Olsen+did+not+occur? That the connection attempt failed and the call lasted "zero seconds?"

Incidentally, that was the only "phone call" which mentioned "boxcutters."

Why are you propagating information that even the FBI says is untrue?

"How embarrassing." For you.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Flyover - How Embarrassing

His wife is dead. While you are busy calling him a liar and trying to pin 9/11 on him and old cab drivers, you can add Lori Keyton and Mercy Lorenzo to your list of people who are "in on it". Lori took the actual call and Mercy is the AT&T operator that put it through. She tried calling him directly at 9:18 and did not connect. The AT&T operator did connect. As this document says.....

'While there was no direct evidence with respect to the "unknown calls" interviews with recipients(especially Lori Keyton who was answering the phone call in Ted Olson's office on 9/11), plus interviews of family members of other flight 77 passengers, has lead to the conclusion that all of these unknown calls were from Barbara Olson to her husband Ted's office."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18886083/T7-B12-Flight-93-Calls-General-Fdr-52...

Some of us prefer to deal with reality. Not silly make believe "undercover cab drivers", flyovers, and "NWO" fake phone calls. While you want to promote silly flyovers, and NWO fake calls, some of us prefer to use the phone calls to prove they knew it was no 'accident" that a plane flew into the WTC, and Hani Hanjour was not a gifted pilot who was determined to hit the one spot of the building that would cause the least damage. But have fun with your silly theories that will get you no where and are backed up by nothing. Thankfully we have people like Michael out on the front lines, who are not afraid to expose BS like this CIT crap.

Why didn't she call his cell

Why didn't she call his cell phone. She obviously had one. Me wonders who you are.

Why was he on a talk show the very evening of her memorial. Grieving, hardly.

"How were the passengers disposed of?"

"How were the passengers disposed of?"

Read about Operation Northwoods.

Seems like you are way out on the fringe of this discussion which is about the Pentagon. They could tell us that they identified the DNA in the yard of the Pentagon, and some might believe them, and others may be a bit skeptical. I am a bit skeptical, and that is my prerogative.

What is your theory as to what happened to the massive tail section of AA77? There is no damage to the Pentagon facade to account for it, and there is certainly no hole in the wall to account for it, and it did not find itself on the lawn outside the building. Where did it go? Do you believe it vanished? If so, how?

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

These people are real even the ones on the plane

You said:
"How were the passengers disposed of?"

"Read about Operation Northwoods."
-------------
I've read it and so I guess the crew of Flight 77 was imaginary and the victims are just made up names. Try telling that to their grieving families. As Ron Burgandy would say...."Stay classy San Diego"......

Then you said:
"What is your theory as to what happened to the massive tail section of AA77?"

BTW How'd that missile theory work out for you? Where is the tail section? Are you kiddding me? A plane going 500 sum miles an hour smashing into a wall just refurbished to withstand bombs and you want me(who wasn't even there) to tell you where each piece ended up? Well, I'm no genius but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it was tore up pretty good. Peggy was there, here is another person so called "truth seekers" can harrass.....

According to Penny Elgas, who was there, part of it went into her car through the sunroof when debris from the crash came raining down on people near the pentagon(this confirmed by several other witnesses, but if you and CIT don't approve of what they say they are no longer witnesses, but liars....)

"Then I went to my car and faced that piece of the plane that was in the back seat. It appeared to be a piece of the tail."......"The plane piece consisted of a layer of white paint, and layers of yellow and gray fiberglass as well as a thin brown corrugated material."
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/supporting.asp?ID=3...

You can see the piece yourself here, of corse you'll deny that it is from the tail even though you have no clue, as I don't either....
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=28

But according to CIT and probably yourself, she is either "in on it" or was "fooled" when she says....

"The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building."
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/supporting.asp?ID=3...

You can hear her describe her "hallucination" or "lie" yourself here, when someone calls to question her.....
http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/pe_060509.mp3

Still wondering who you are.

Still wondering who you are. Do you really think we don't know how real this is? How emotional it is? How much pain this caused? We don't need your reminders. Your methods and madness are very faux like. Anyone with the courage and stamina to face this truth is also deeply emotional about it.

Go wake up the public about 911 and be sure to tell them about the plane that did cartwheels into the pentagon.

You are ignoring obvious evidence.

"Where is the tail section? Are you kiddding me? A plane going 500 sum miles an hour smashing into a wall just refurbished to withstand bombs and you want me(who wasn't even there) to tell you where each piece ended up? Well, I'm no genius but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it was tore up pretty good.'

There was no damage on the Pentagon facade to account for the massive tail section, and your explanation of 'smashing' at '500 sum miles an hour' does not take this evidence into account. I don't want you to tell me 'where each piece ended up', but I do want you to tell me where the tail section is, and where the two massive engines are. That would be a good start. Attempting to give a blanket explanation that the whole plane just disappeared does not work.

Wow, what a story Penny tells!
"And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building."
The tail of the plan just 'slip' into the building? How? You mean magically through the wall, without breaking the wall?

Then it gets better:
"Then I went to my car and faced that piece of the plane that was in the back seat. It appeared to be a piece of the tail. There was no metal on it and it was very lightweight -- all plastic and fiberglass. It was 22" long and 15" wide. I have no idea how it got into my car because I do not remember seeing any rubble flying around while I was at the crash site. I assume that it dropped in through the sunroof or flipped in through a window. The plane piece consisted of a layer of white paint, and layers of yellow and gray fiberglass as well as a thin brown corrugated material."

Not only did the tail 'slip' into the building, but a piece of the tail just magically slipped into the back seat of her car! She contradicts her own testimony. If I were willing to believe that the authorities magically identified all the DNA of all the passengers and hijackers, then I may also be willing to believe Penny's far-fetched testimony in which she contradicts herself.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

I think it's unfortunate

I think it's unfortunate that Wolsey doesn't want to have Craig/Aldo and Rob on his program after making such a big fuss about the Pentagon on his show, at which he and Legge do discuss CIT's research. Why not have them on to defend themselves?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

He has drawn a line in the

He has drawn a line in the sand which is also unfortunate. Now with every bit of his being he will have to defend it. Most who don't believe there is a discrepancy in the official story and the north path will just not deal with it. But no, he has to take it public and then complain about the fiasco.