Support 911Blogger


Summary and Analysis of "National Security Alert" by Chris Sarns

12-31-09 revised 7-12-10

Summary and Analysis of "National Security Alert" by Chris Sarns

Like many others I was impressed with the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) video "National Security Alert" (NSA) when I saw it for the first time. I thought that the unanimous testimony of the witnesses confirmed the north flight path of American Airlines flight 77, but I could not see how that in any way proved their "flyover theory". I did not give the "flyover" theory much thought because it seemed to be a minor point. As it turns out, the strong evidence for the north flight path was just the "hook", and "flyover" was actually their main point.

I started to doubt the validity of NSA when I found out that CIT had misled me into thinking that the witnesses were unanimous in confirming the north flight path. That is not true. There are numerous south flight path witnesses including four that CIT had interviewed. CIT claims that these witness statements are "dubious" and this justifies not mentioning them in the video. CIT not looking for south flight path witnesses and excluding the ones they did find is like NIST not looking for evidence of explosives and excluding the FEMA C report. You can't find something if you don't look for it. A real investigative report would give all the evidence and let the viewer decide.

Like NIST starting with the conclusion that the plane impacts and fires brought down the Trade Towers, CIT started with the conclusion of flyover. They included the statements that supported that conclusion and left out any statements to the contrary. Most notably the clear, unambiguous and unanimous statements by the five witnesses CIT interviewed who could see the Pentagon. They all said the plane hit the Pentagon. Four said they saw the plane fly into the building and the fifth said he "could not totally see when it hit the Pentagon" but it "was a direct line to go into the Pentagon [and it] collided". CIT asked him if the plane flew over the Pentagon and he said "NO". Once again the viewer is given only the information that supports the flyover theory.

Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis are not acting like investigators. They are acting like lawyers for the defense of the predetermined flyover theory and therefore not required to tell the whole truth.
This reply from Aldo is rather telling. At the "Pilots for 911 Truth" forum, I noted that CIT had included the part of Erik Dihle's statement that seemed to support flyover and left out the part that supported fly into.

Chris: You do misrepresent the facts about the Erik Dihle statement.

Aldo: WHICH PART OF ERIK DIHLE'S ACCOUNT DO YOU THINK WE WOULD LOGICALLY FOCUS ON? Which part of his account is more important to us in light of the evidence we have collected and the conclusions we have come to?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18306&view=findpost&p=10778730

* * * * * * * * * *

At 74:00 of National Security Alert
As shown, the evidence proves the plane actually flew directly over the Naval Annex and north of the former Citgo gas station, and therefore did not hit the light poles or the building.

At 74:30
"A plane on this flight path cannot . . . cause the directional external and internal damage leading to the curiously round C ring hole."
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html

The so called "proof of flyover" is that a plane on the north flight path could not cause the directional damage (leading to and including the hole in the “C” ring). However, the flyover theory assumes the directional damage was caused by something other than the plane, such as explosives. If the directional damage was caused by something else in the flyover theory then it could be caused by something else if the plane hit the Pentagon. The directional damage has nothing to do with whether or not the plane hit, and it does not prove that a plane on the north path did not hit the Pentagon.

The North of Citgo flight path does not prove flyover.

* * * * * * * * * *

The following is an analysis of the video "National Security Alert" by the Citizens Investigation Team, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis.

National Security Alert - Omissions and misrepresentations

1) The five witnesses that CIT interviewed who could see the Pentagon said the plane hit the Pentagon.

2) The witnesses were not unanimous in confirming the north flight path.

3) CIT says Roosevelt Roberts, Erik Dihle and Maria de la Cerda are flyover witnesses.
They are not.

* * * * * * * * * *

1) The five witnesses that CIT interviewed who could see the Pentagon said the plane hit the Pentagon.

Citgo Gas Station Witnesses
Sgt. Brooks, Sgt. Lagasse and Robert Turcios were at the Citgo gas station across Hwy.27 from the Pentagon:

At 25:30 of NSA
Ranke "Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?"
Turcios "Fly over the Pentagon???" [He was surprised anyone would ask that question] "No, the only thing I saw was a direct line to go into the Pentagon. (It) Collided."

37:56
Ranke "Were you actually able to see the plane hit the building?
Sgt. Brooks: "Correct"

At 49:40 of NSA
Ranke "Did you see the plane hit the building?"
Sgt. Lagasse "Yes". Did I see what the plane did? No, there was a big fire ball. When the plane hit it just kinda disappeared.

78:46 Ranke says: "He admitted that he did not see what the plane actually did as it reached the building because of the fire ball." and plays this part of what Sgt. Lagasse said: "Did I see what the plane did? No, there was a big fire ball."

Ranke gives the viewer the impression Sgt. Lagasse did not see the plane hit the Pentagon.

Then at 78:57 he says: "Both police officers at the gas station have agreed that we presented their accounts fairly and accurately."

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos-pentaconsgv.html

Witness at Pentagon Heliport Control Tower
Sean Boger was in the heliport control tower at the Pentagon.
He had the best vantage point, about 100 feet from the impact point.
Official interview 11-14-01
Page 11: "I just see like the nose and the wing of an aircraft just like coming right at us and he didn't veer. You just heard the noise, and then he just smacked into the building, and when it hit the building, I watched the plane go all the way into the building."
"So once the plane went into the building, it exploded, and once it exploded, I hit the floor and just covered my head."
http://www.thepentacon.com/neit299

Witness in Arlington National cemetery
Keith Wheelhouse was in the Arlington National Cemetery.
At 9:36 ”And then it just evaporated into the side of the building."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3383333411025014760#

Ranke left these statements out of his video "National Security Alert" and claimed instead:
"But the fact is that a flyover is 100% proven by the Citgo station witnesses alone."
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18306&view=findpost&p=10778662
"ALL of the north side witnesses were deceived into believing the plane hit the Pentagon."
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18306&view=findpost&p=10778748

2) The witnesses were not unanimous in confirming the north flight path.

At 7:45 of National Security Alert
"Thirteen eyewitnesses from the five most critical vantage points unanimously confirmed the plane crossed to the north side of Columbia Pike, flew directly over the Navy Annex and north of the former Citgo gas station."

At 15:30
"There is no room for error in the official flight path at all. So these critical details should have been easily confirmed by the witnesses. But as you are about to see for yourself. they independently and unanimously reported the opposite."
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html

In "The 2nd Plane Cover Story" video at 13:35, Keith Wheelhouse drew the south path on the same satellite photo CIT had shown the north path witnesses in the other CIT interviews.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3383333411025014760#
Ranke and Marquis use double talk and a double standard to discredit Wheelhouse. They write him off as "Some guy who lied . . . for attention." They then use this as an excuse to not include Wheelhouse's statement in NSA so they could claim the witnesses unanimously support the north flight path.
At 17:14, Marquis quotes the black box data of a jet traveling 530 mph despite the fact that CIT refutes this [at 46:25 in NSA] and claims the jet was going much slower.
At 17:20, Ranke says "Most of the genuine witnesses said they could only see the plane for one or two seconds." and uses that to refute Wheelhouse saying he saw the plane for about a minute. These statements are in conflict with several other north flight path witnesses who said it was 10 to 13 seconds from the time they first saw the plane until it hit the Pentagon [10 sec. Naval Annex to Pentagon = 180 mph]. CIT tailors their misrepresentations to fit the situation and ignores the inconvenient fact that the "one or two seconds" and the "530 mph" also refute the north flight path witnesses who said they saw the plane for 10 to 13 seconds. I believe Wheelhouse's recollection of time is simply inaccurate and his memory of the distance between flight 77 and the C-130 was also flawed, but this does not make him a liar. After all, he was interviewed 5 years after the event.
At 11:48, Wheelhouse says he was near the fence at the East end of the Arlington National Cemetery (ANC).
At 9:36 Wheelhouse said ”And then it just evaporated into the side of the building."
At 17:40, CIT shows a video they say was taken from the exact place where Wheelhouse was standing. It shows the view of the Pentagon mostly blocked by shrubs. But Wheelhouse had just drawn an X on a satellite photo of ANC. The center of the X was about 100 feet in diameter. Ranke and Marquis say Wheelhouse could not see the plane hit the Pentagon - but that is just supposition on their part.

CIT interviewed 3 other witnesses who said the plane flew the south path.
At 26:07 Ranke: "We've spoken with Mike Walter, we've interviewed on camera Joel Sucherman, we've interviewed over the phone Vin Narayanan."
But did not include them in NSA because, according to CIT, these witness statements are “dubious”.

CIT claims 13 north path witnesses. There were only ten witnesses who said the plane flew north of the Columbia Pike. The other three, Roosevelt Roberts, Maria de la Cerda and Erik Dihle, were not north flight path witnesses.
CIT also falsely claims that they are "flyover" witnesses.

Eleven north flight path witnesses and four south path witnesses is not “unanimous”. CIT is entitled to their opinion but they did not say it was opinion, they stated numerous times that the witnesses were "unanimous" as if it were a fact. It is not.

3) CIT says Roosevelt Roberts, Erik Dihle and Maria de la Cerda are flyover witnesses.

Roosevelt Roberts was a security guard, in the Pentagon who heard an explosion, ran outside to the center of the south parking lot loading dock. He states that he then saw a plane flying away to the south-west. Ranke insists he said it flew away to the north. It does not matter. A plane approaching from the west could not make either turn. The plane Roberts described could not be the plane approaching from the west. Roberts is not a flyover witness.
"coming from the 27 side heading east towards DC . . . it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side [north] and turned around . . . . the plane . . . was facing west, so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon. . . around the lane one area [west end of south parking lot], and it was like banking just above the light poles like. It was heading . . .back across 27.. . . that plane was heading . . . southwest.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread382628/pg1

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
Sarns 12-20-09

The green line is the official flight path. The orange lines are the flight paths drawn by the CIT witnesses. The purple dots are what Roberts surmised from what he saw - a plane approaching from the north-west and flying away to the south-west. The red dots combine what the north path witnesses saw with what Mr. Roberts describes. As shown, the resulting turning radius is about 350 feet. But an airliner flying at 200 knots requires a turning radius of about 5,000 feet. So clearly the plane Mr. Roberts describes could not have been the plane approaching from the west.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
Nate Flach screen capture 12-5-09 From Pilots for 911 Truth video at 14:40
The speed is 200 knots, the turning radius is 5,090 feet and the bank is 35 degrees.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1248677650819981509&hl=en#

Erik Dihle is not a witness, he only overheard conflicting accounts (by unknown persons who may not even have been witnesses).

“The first few seconds it was very confusing, we couldn’t even tell . . . some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going . . . somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building."
http://www.thepentacon.com/neit426.mp3

CIT misrepresented this hearsay account by including the persons Dihle overheard who thought the plane kept going and leaving out the part where someone said the plane ran into the building. It is not known what if anything these people saw and no assumptions can be made.

Maria de la Cerda is not a flyover witness. Here is the double talk and omission CIT uses to justify calling her one:
58:27
NSA shows the .pdf file of her statement. The camera zooms in, excluding "it seemed" and just shows "like it struck the other side".
Center for Military History #567 pg 10
http://www.thepentacon.com/neit567
58:50
Maria says and the screen has the subtitle "Yea, my mind's eye I saw it hit on top."
They underline "I saw it hit on top" and ignore "my mind's eye".
59:10
My sense of it was not that it was a side impact but rather that it was on top”.
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html

In other words, she did not see an impact or a flyover with her eyes, she just thought it hit top.
If her quote makes any point at all it supports the fly into theory, not the flyover theory. She did not even imagine the plane flying away. However, since she is not a witness at all she should be included as one.

CIT's case is built on misrepresentation, assumption and omission.

good summary and analysis, just a couple issues, imho

This article contains numerous quotes and specific examples and is a valuable reference. There are other flaws in CIT's work, which have been pointed out here at 911blogger on numerous occasions, but these 3 in Chris' review, on their own, destroy the credibility of NSA and CIT:

1) The witnesses were not unanimous in confirming the north flight path.
2) The five witnesses that CIT interviewed who could see the Pentagon said the plane hit the Pentagon.
3) CIT says Roosevelt Roberts, Erik Dihle and Maria de la Cerda are flyover witnesses.
They are not.

Regarding witnesses whose testimony supports the S path, and who CIT interviewed; Chris cites Wheelhouse, Walter, Sucherman and Narayanan, but CIT has also interviewed Dawn Vignola, Madelyn Zakhem, Stephen McGraw, Lloyd England and Steve Riskus, who all confirmed their original testimony, which supports S path and AA 77 impact. For one reason or another, same as with the 4 Chris cites, CIT dismisses these witnesses and/or their accounts as suspect or unreliable. CIT unreasonably dismisses S path accounts, but accepts w/o question witnesses whose testimony supports the N path. For instance, William Lagasse has changed elements of his story over the years, couldn't recall which side of the Citgo he was on, told CIT he saw the plane hit (CIT says he couldn't see it), and claimed the light poles and cab were in a location where they weren't. CIT and their fans have dismissed these inconsistencies and errors, and have even claimed that the fact that Lagasse believed the light poles and the cab were somewhere where they weren't proves he saw the plane there- and that his belief the plane hit proves he was deluded (as if that wouldn't detract from his credibility). http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/10/lagasses-eyes-which-side-of...

Elements of the testimony of CIT-cited witnesses also support the S path, but CIT and their fans simply dismiss this; Terry Morin, Ed Paik, Maria De La Cerda and Roosevelt Roberts. See the below article, and the debate in the comment thread; CIT supporters, primarily Adam Syed, attempted to 'debunk' these accounts, but only addressed 9 of the 18 witnesses cited by Adam Larson, and failed to discredit those 9 witnesses, or demonstrate that what Adam Larson had said was false:

THE SOUTH PATH IMPACT: DOCUMENTED by Adam Larson
http://www.911blogger.com/node/22239

In addition, I posted in the first comment an additional 21 witnesses whose statements referenced the light poles being hit. Four of those witnesses were shown not to be witnesses, leaving 17. Of those 17, some others may not be witnesses to the poles being struck; they may have inferred it. However, Adam Syed, despite claiming all 104 alleged eyewitnesses to impact had been debunked by CIT, was unable to show that any others of those 17 were not in fact witnesses to the light poles being hit.

The one major point of contention I have w/ Chris' essay is with the analysis of Roosevelt Roberts testimony. We agree that Roberts is not a flyover witness. However, I think the most likely explanation of Roberts' testimony is that he saw AA 77 just before it struck, and the explosion he heard which prompted him to go outside, was not AA 77 hitting the Pentagon.

Chris says,
"He states that he then saw a plane flying away to the south-west. Ranke insists he said it flew away to the north. It does not matter. A plane approaching from the west could not make either turn. The plane Roberts described could not be the plane approaching from the west. Roberts is not a flyover witness."

Chris then quotes from Roberts testimony:
"coming from the 27 side heading east towards DC . . . it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side [north] and turned around . . . . the plane . . . was facing west, so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon. . . around the lane one area [west end of south parking lot], and it was like banking just above the light poles like. It was heading . . .back across 27.. . . that plane was heading . . . southwest."

However, this omits the what Roberts said he saw prior to "coming from the 27 side heading east towards DC", which is what he said he saw immediately after the explosion, after he took the 7 steps to the South parking lot; Roberts said he "ran outside and saw the low flying aircraft above the [South] parking lot", it was a "silver" "commercial airliner" with "jet engines", "you could see that plane just as clear as day, couldn't miss it", "around the lane one area, and it was like banking, just above the light poles like", "no more than 50 feet less than a 100 feet [above the ground]" and he "saw that aircraft maybe for like a quick five seconds."

Marquis asks, "Do you remember in which direction it was headed?" and Roberts says, "coming from the 27 side heading east towards DC"

AFTER this, Roberts talks about how (he thinks, he couldn't see over the Pentagon) it went over the Mall entrance and did a U-TURN (meaning it comes back the way it came) and goes south west.

Roberts described a plane that is very similar to AA 77, and his testimony approximates its location and direction on the South path.

Roberts could not have known at the time what caused the explosion; later, after he'd been told that AA 77 had hit the building, he made the connection between the explosion and AA 77's impact, and decided the plane he saw must've been a second plane. Seems to me the most likely explanation for the explosion he heard is that a bomb went off in the Pentagon just BEFORE AA 77 hit, and the plane Roberts describes heading BACK southwest was probably the C-130 on its way back, southwest, that he saw it after evacuating people from the building, and mistook it, in the distance, for the first plane he saw (AA 77, which hit the building, but not when he thought). Roberts never says the plane (after he first saw it and after the U-turn) was over the South parking lot; he says "it was heading, um. . . back across 27"
C-130 flight path according to radar: http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/C-1...

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

We agree on CIT/NSA

Thank you for the positive review.
We still disagree on the flight path of the plane Roberts describes.
No worries and no need to get off topic here, I'll respond by email.

No matter if the plane flew away to the north or south-west. In either case it was NOT the plane approaching from the west or south-west.

Roberts is NOT a "flyover" witness.

Thanks

Great job Chris!

Fantastic

Excellent article. Rather than a point-by-point rebuttal, you concentrate on the major fallacies with CIT's arguments, which makes for a reasonably-sized and engaging article. Very good job.

http://arcterus911.blogspot.com/

4 days and no 'counterpoint' to this essay?

This essay was published 4 days ago and so far has been entirely ignored by CIT's fan base; blog posts related to CIT and the 'what' hit question usually spark firestorms of debate.

Good work, Chris!

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

Louder Than Words

Their silence is an admission that they have no counter arguments.

Thank you Victoria and Arcterus for your comments and your contributions to exposing CIT/NSA for what it really is.
I have read "To Con a Movement" and some of the articles by Arcterus.
http://911review.com/articles/ashley/pentacon_con.html
http://arcterus911.blogspot.com/2009/03/art-of-debate-cit.html
http://arcterus911.blogspot.com/

Thank you Erik for exposing Adam Syed for who and what he really is.
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=35628#35628

Cause of damage

Hi Chris, I've got a question about your revised essay here http://csarnsblog.blogspot.com/

'The so called "proof of flyover" is that a plane on the north flight path could not cause the directional damage (leading to and including the hole in the “C” ring). However, the flyover theory assumes the directional damage was caused by something other than the plane, such as explosives. If the directional damage was caused by something else in the flyover theory then it could be caused by something else in the fly into theory. Therefore, the directional damage does not prove that a plane on the north path did not hit the Pentagon.'

If the directional damage was caused by something else in the fly into theory, where is the damage that was caused by the plane?

Your question ignores the point

I am not trying to prove anything nor do I claim to know what happened. I'm only pointing out that the plane need not cause the directional damage leading to and including the hole in the C ring and therefore it does NOT prove flyover.

Possibilities

Do you think the plane caused the directional damage?

I doubt it

I have said many times that I don't know what happened.

Do you understand that he CIT flyover theory assumes/requires the directional damage to the Pentagon was caused by something other than the plane?

The plane

Yes, because if the plane flew over, it didn't hit the building.

If you doubt the plane caused the directional damage and there was a plane, and there wasn't any damage elsewhere, does that mean you suspect it flew over? If not, where do it go?

The first part is correct

"Yes" [the rest has nothing to do with the point at hand]

Good. CIT assumes, and you agree, that the directional damage to the Pentagon was caused by something other than the plane. Therefore, they/you cannot say the directional damage to the Pentagon proves the plane did not hit the Pentagon because it had nothing to do with the plane.

Don't try to change the subject again by asking about something else. My answer will be "I don't know". The only point I am making is: The CIT claim that the directional damage to the Pentagon proves the plane did not hit the Pentagon, is false.

The subject

Yes I agree, the directional damage to the Pentagon alone doesn't prove the plane didn't hit it.

But don't CIT claim that *if the plane didn't cause* the directional damage to the Pentagon, then that proves the plane didn't hit it? Maybe you are taking their claim too literally? If you were serious about only replying 'I don't know' then thanks anyway.

Thank you very much.

"Yes I agree, the directional damage to the Pentagon alone doesn't prove the plane didn't hit it."
Thank you very much.

"But don't CIT claim that *if the plane didn't cause* the directional damage to the Pentagon, then that proves the plane didn't hit it?"
That is what they claim and it is not true.

"Maybe you are taking their claim too literally?"
No. I'm just saying that that claim is incorrect and you agree.

Good luck

If the plane didn't cause the directional damage to the Pentagon, then that proves the plane didn't hit it (assuming there was no damage elsewhere on the Pentagon).

If you are saying this is a false statement, then I'm afraid we disagree.

Assumptions

"CIT assumes, and you agree, that the directional damage to the Pentagon was caused by something other than the plane."

No, I've not made up my mind yet.

???

There are only 2 alternatives here:

1) The plane caused the damage

2) The plane did NOT cause the damage - something else did and therefore it had nothing to do with whether or not the plane hit the Pentagon.

3 alternatives: All jet, All explosives, or a combination

Remember guys, there are actually 3 alternatives :)
1) The plane caused 100% of the damage
2) The plane caused 0% (Fly Over) and something else (Pre Planted Explosives) caused 100% of the damage
3) The plane caused, say, 33% of the damage, and PPEs caused 67% of the damage to the Pentagon.

The 3rd theory follows the pattern of the major theory regarding the WTCs.
1) Plane hits building and does some damage
2) Pre Planted Explosives do the rest of the damage
3) Plane gets blamed for all of the damage

Narrow column

You can respond to this post so we can continue with a wider column.

You added "alone" to your statement. In fact, the directional damage had nothing to do with the plane so it is not evidence or proof of anything other than explosives were used to stage that damage. [in the CIT flyover theory]

Please remember, I don't know what happened, so don't ask. ;-)
I'm just pointing out that neither does CIT. Their claim of "proof" is incorrect.

ETA:
From NSA at 74:00
"As shown, the evidence proves the plane actually flew directly over the Naval Annex and north of the former Citgo gas station, and therefore did not hit the light poles or the building."

"A plane on this flight path cannot hit the light poles, show up low and level across the lawn as seen in the surveillance video, and cause the directional external and internal damage leading to the curiously round C ring hole."

The staged light poles have nothing to do with whether or not the plane hit the Pentagon and the video is inconclusive. "The directional external and internal damage leading to the curiously round C ring hole" was caused by explosives in their flyover theory so that has nothing to do with whether or not the plane hit the building.

Net result: None of the three reasons in this statement from NSA have anything to do with whether or not the plane hit the building.

...

I think the directional damage does have something to do with whether the plane hit the building in the fly over theory, because it was the only damage to the building, so if the plane didn't cause it then the plane didn't cause any damage to the building, therefore the plane didn't hit the building.

That's beautiful

Excellent piece of wrap around double speak. ;-)

First of all, there was considerable damage to the exterior wall.

None of us are qualified to say whether or not this damage was caused by a plane.

And second, We have agreed(?) that in the CIT flyover theory, the directional damage to the Pentagon was staged and therefore had nothing to do with whether or not the plane hit the Pentagon.

PENTTBOM damage

I agree there was considerable damage to the wall, and I assume it was pretty tough.

Though we may have no formal qualifications on differentiating photographs of explosions from plane impacts, one person who does is General Albert Stubblebine. He was the commanding general of the United States Army Intelligence and Security Command from 1981 to 1984. He said 'I don't know exactly what hit it, but I do know, from the photographs that I have analyzed and looked at very, very carefully, it was not an airplane.'. He is often attacked from within the truth movement because of his views on parapsychology, which I find no stranger than anyone's religious/spiritual beliefs. Curiously, I heard the 'new age' military projects he was involved with were (and are, I suppose) a cunning psyop to confuse the Russians and the general population. But I digress.

We have agreed:
a. that in the CIT flyover theory, the directional damage to the Pentagon was staged.
but not
b. and therefore had nothing to do with whether or not the plane hit the Pentagon.

The good General

Talked about a 16 foot hole. Clearly, he had not seen the above photos. Remember, he made his statement early on in the investigation.

"We have agreed:
a. that in the CIT flyover theory, the directional damage to the Pentagon was staged.
but not
b. and therefore had nothing to do with whether or not the plane hit the Pentagon."

Oh really?

Why are you having a problem wrapping you're mind around that?
Is it the word "staged? Is "caused by explosives" better? Can you think of another explanation?

How can damage caused by preset explosives have anything to do with whether or not the plane hit the Pentagon?

Show "Stubblebine is confounded by his continual failure to ..." by Kerberos

"None of us are qualified to say..."?

What? I'm sorry but all of us are qualified to determine what the evidence indicates for ourselves. After looking over the destruction pattern very carefully, I am more convinced than ever that a 757 did hit the building. The damage was certainly not caused by high explosives. I don't rule out the possibility that there may have been explosives planted in some of the workstations at the Pentagon in order to destroy targeted data, but the major structural damage is not consistent with a missile impact, nor with high explosives planted in the building.

straw man argument = faulty logic

Can't you see Chris? Nobody is falling for your straw man argument. influence device instantly saw right through it!

"But don't CIT claim that *if the plane didn't cause* the directional damage to the Pentagon, then that proves the plane didn't hit it?"

He understands perfectly!

It's pretty obvious that you are removing the existence of the north side plane from this equation when that is central to the evidence provided by CIT.

Even Craig Ranke agreed with this: "Yes I agree, the directional damage to the Pentagon alone doesn't prove the plane didn't hit it."

Don't you remember? It was just the other day in the LCF where he challenged you to a debate and you failed to accept the challenge.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/3228818/1/

You: "If the damage was staged [caused by explosives] it had nothing to do with the plane and it does NOT PROVE FLYOVER."

Craig: I think you said that already.

However we don't claim that the staged damage proves a flyover.

That is your straw man version that takes a single PART of the argument out of context of the full body of evidence.

The existence of a plane in a location that is irreconcilable with the physical damage added to the witnesses to a plane flying away is proof of a flyover.

THAT is our argument.

Accepting that the physical damage was staged can not indicate an NoC impact.

For that you would need NoC damage and there is none proving your theory false.

[...]

"What this Chris Sarns guy has done is reverse our argument as a means to create the impression the logic isn't sound.

He claims that we claim staged damage proves a flyover when we claim the exact opposite: the flyover proves staged damage.

The existence of a plane in a location that is irreconcilable with the physical damage proves the flyover.

There is absolutely zero directional NoC damage and planes can not crash without creating damage.

The logic couldn't be more sound which is why people like Chris Sarns are forced to completely rearrange our claims as a means to argue against them.

It's disingenuous, desperate, and transparent and his failure to accept my challenge to an audio debate speaks for itself."

-Craig Ranke
4/27/2010 during a debate challenge to Chris Sarns

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/3228818/1/

Phew

I'm glad someone else agrees, I almost blew a circuit back there.

Hang on a minute .. are you trying to damage my credibility?

Seriously though, thanks for the links (and the CIT summary on the previous thread). I think it's interesting that the NTSB released an animation under FOI that showed the plane NoC, except it didn't fly over but instead banked sharply and didn't hit the Pentagon level.. I wonder if something like that is what Chris suspects happened?

Show "You're welcome" by Adam Syed

See the personal attacks

This JREFish tactic is common among CIT supporters.

Debating Craig on the air would be no different. It would just be another chance for him to run his mouth.

On a thread at the LC forum, even a "moderator" [Lin Kuei] condones and joins in the personal attacks.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=387462&t=3083747

You can also see the relentless personal attacks on this P4T thread:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18306&view=findpo...

It starts off as a debate but turns into a tag team insult fest.

Personal attacks are evidence of lack of rational attacks

I have also tried, in posts in 911Blogger and the P4T forum and the CIT forum, to separate the North of Citgo path from the supposed necessity of a Pentagon flyover, to no avail. In the other forums, I received an onslaught of beratement and emotional appeal for how it was so obvious to everyone that the NoC path proves the flyover. It felt very much like I was arguing with OCT supporters.

It was also curious that they made a subsequent effort to prove there was no way to bank the plane back to follow the final path through the light poles and into the building in order to cause the directional damage. They must be assuming that if the plane hit the building, it would have had to be along the path of the directional damage. They must be assuming that if the plane hit, it would show enough damage along whatever path it took to make that path clear.

And in the opposite corner, we have people arguing that the directional damage, along with general suspicion about CIT methodology, prove that the plane *did* take that directional path. It seems as difficult to convince them that they might be wrong as to convince CIT that they might also be wrong. The directional damage might have been caused by something else, which doesn't prove the plane either hit or missed.

It seems clear to me that the damage to the light poles *could* have been staged, and furthermore it doesn't make sense that the poles would have been severed in *two* places, where the plane wing hit the poles, which should have simply lopped off the top, and also at the base, which is designed to shear off when impacted at ground level by a much slower ground vehicle. Perhaps one or two of the poles at the end of the path were actually hit, or perhaps something else was hit, as reported by a few witnesses. I don't know about the damage to other structures closer to the Pentagon.

By the way, there were 3 nice round holes in the C ring, supposedly in line with the fuselage and the two engines. Nice and round, seems rather suspicious to me.

Scenario

"It was also curious that they made a subsequent effort to prove there was no way to bank the plane back to follow the final path through the light poles and into the building in order to cause the directional damage. They must be assuming that if the plane hit the building, it would have had to be along the path of the directional damage. They must be assuming that if the plane hit, it would show enough damage along whatever path it took to make that path clear."

Are you suggesting the plane could have flown NoC, hit the Pentagon and caused the damage to the E-ring we see in the photograph above, but without causing the damage to the C-ring?

North of Citgo approach to knock down SoC light poles?

Aerodynamically impossible as demonstrated by the Pilots' calculations and animations.

The idea that the North of Citgo approach could still be reconciled with the physical damage on the south path has been debunked here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/North-Approach-Impact-Analysis.html

The plane would have to do an immediate "roll around" which is not possible.

Required path

But if the NoC impact theory doesn't suppose the plane caused the damage to the C-ring (and D-ring/lightpoles?), such an extreme flight path presumably wouldn't be necessary.

FAA animation with plane NoC for comparison (less in line with the internal damage and doesn't hit the light poles, but without an instantaneous flip).

Avoiding the point

CIT claims that the directional damage to the Pentagon proves flyover. It does not because it could have been caused by explosives as it would have to be the case in their flyover theory.

CIT and their supporters will not admit this is true. When asked to do so they shift to "This is not the only evidence" which is double talk because it is not evidence at all.

It's hard to be a moderate

"Are you suggesting the plane could have flown NoC, hit the Pentagon and caused the damage to the E-ring we see in the photograph above, but without causing the damage to the C-ring?"

Something like that, yes. I'm saying it has not been proven one way or the other, as far as I know. People have focused on either the directional impact or flyover, but not much on the possibility of a building impact that does not match the presumed direction suggested by the lightpoles and C-ring damage.

The impact of a plane on the thick reinforced concrete outer wall at high speed could pretty well obliterate most of it on impact, as evidenced by another famous collision of a jet with a concrete wall. Sandia+National+Laboratories+F4+crash from several angles.

Someone needs to look at the lightpole damage more carefully to determine whether what we can see in the photos really makes sense. Prove it, don't just assume it.

I'm happy to accept whatever is proven conclusively, but I am not happy to accept something that has not really been proven. There is a lot that is unknown about all this. Everyone should endeavor to tread more carefully when making claims about what is known.

just not true

"The impact of a plane on the thick reinforced concrete outer wall at high speed could pretty well obliterate most of it on impact"

You need to provide better evidence to support this wild speculation.

Speculations do need to be proved or disproved

Notice I said "could" in the sentence you quoted. The possibility that it *could* happen seems fairly clear to me, though even that possibility must be proved. It should be clear from the context of my message that I was suggesting it as a *possibility*, and I provided some evidence to support that possibility with the example of the Sandia F4 crash test.

But when you say in your title "just not true" that sounds like you are assuming I said it is not only possible but that it did, in fact, happen that way. If you instead mean to say it was *not* possible, then you should also argue why the Sandia F4 crash test was not relevant as supporting evidence, or prove by some other means that it was not possible.

After proving the possibility of something being true, that still leaves open the much stronger statement about its certainty.

I hope we are in agreement about all this.

The burden is on you

You presented the comparison. How does that short clip of the Sandia F4 with no footage of the aftermath compare to the incident at the Pentagon?

The burden is on all of us

Fair question, but I do believe we all have the responsibility to investigate all evidence and find the truth.

The video shows the impact of the F4 from several camera angles, including at least three from the structure above and behind the wall. You've probably seen the very short clip from one side angle previously, but watch this video, after skipping past the beginning to about 3:25. It would be good to see the aftermath, but we can still tell several things from what is shown.

You should notice that not much of the jet appears to survive, or make it beyond the wall - just the wing tips that miss the concrete. Lots of concrete and some small bits of metal are exploding radially out from the impact zone. Also, the overall wall structure holds together during the impact, though the whole thing appears to shift a foot or so. You can see the top edge of the wall in the last three angles, and in a couple earlier angles, you can see the wall on the impact side. And the structure behind the wall that holds three cameras is not destroyed either, at least until after the entire jet is destroyed.

So this is relevant to the incident at the pentagon because it shows it is possible to obliterate most of the plane on impact with a solid wall. People who expect to see large amounts of the plane on the lawn are probably thinking of other plane crashes that are not direct impacts with solid walls. The pentagon wall appears to have not been thick enough to avoid puncture by a few of the heaviest and hardest parts of the plane, the two engines, and some part of the nosecone or fuselage. (I'm not so sure about the nosecone, however.) And it is not clear to me that the nosecone and engines should be able to travel all the way through to the C-ring, but if they did, they should not be deflected much at all from the direction of impact, and the damage to the C-ring should reasonably reflect the amount of kinetic energy they had at that time. My intuition is that the nosecone should not make a nice round hole in the C-ring, though maybe the engines could have.

All the damage to the outside of the Pentagon should be explainable by an impact by some aircraft at some angle, or if it is not explainable, then you have a case for a flyover.

I agree with you influence EOM

EOM

Bruno

Have you read my [revised] Summary and Analysis?
http://csarnsblog.blogspot.com/

I point out the misinterpretations, assumptions and omissions in NSA.

Can you refute anything in the analysis?

Still waiting

I am still waiting for you or anybody else to prove beyond even a shadow of a doubt that a plane actually hit the Pentagon as described in the 'official' story. The burden of proof is on those who make the claim that such a plane hit the Pentagon.

Peace,
Bruno
wacla.org

Don't hold your breath

We don't know what happened at the Pentagon and anyone claiming to have proof is talking through their hat.

The burden of proof is on those who claim to have proof. CIT claims to have proof. They do not. I have pointed out the fallacy in those claims in my Summary and Analysis. Please read it so you will have all the facts. If you find something you take issue with, state what your disagreement is.

Proof

A large passenger jet die not hit the Pentagon. Nobody has provided proof that one did. Nobody has provided sufficient evidence that one did.

The lack of proof

that a plane hit the Pentagon is not proof that it flew over.

You still have not refuted anything in the Summary and Analysis. Please confine your comments to that.

CIT claims to have proof and they do not. That is what this thread is about.

Where did it go then?

If the plane flew toward the Pentagon, but did not hit the Pentagon, then where did it go?

Here is the latest plane crash. Notice once again the tail section is very prominent. There was no sign of a plane at the Pentagon. If the plane hit the Pentagon, which is what you assert, Chris, then what happened to the tail section?

I don't know

We already knew about the lack of plane parts. CIT adds nothing new to that.

CIT falsely claims that the NoC flight path proves flyover. It does not.

I don't get what you are saying Chris

You are saying that there is no proof or sufficient evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon. You agree to the North of Citgo flight path, so where did the plane go?

The plane flew North of the Citgo. The plane did not hit the Pentagon. Where did the plane go?

Thank you for arguing the issue

The absence of personal attacks is noted and appreciated. ;-)

I just said I don't know what happened to the plane - and neither do you.

SoC or NoC has nothing to do with what happened to the plane. That is the same in both cases.

Agreed

North path or south path has nothing to do with what happened to the plane, though we agree it was the north path. The plane was headed directly toward the Pentagon, but evidence shows that it did not crash before it reached the Pentagon, and evidence shows that it did not hit the Pentagon; therefore, we know that the plane went past that point.

Tell me again, why you disagree with this statement, because I am terribly confused by your position on this issue.

The evidence is not conclusive

We do not know anything for sure. The NoC flight path is no different than the SoC flight path as far as what happened to the plane.

CIT did not prove flyover.

Yes... they... did. :)

Yes... they... did. :)

Okay so this is where we disagree.

The evidence is definitely conclusive that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Where is it?

Irrelevant to the point at hand

The evidence you speak of has nothing to do with the NoC flight path.

Of course it does.

Plane flies toward Pentagon. Plane does not hit Pentagon. There is only one path the plane can take from there.

If a plane filled with explosives hit the Pentagon

What if a substituted plane, switched during the time that Flight 77 was lost to radar, was filled with explosives? Upon going North Of Citgo, the plane could have gone directly into the Pentagon, impacting at about a 90 degree angle. A split second before impact, the explosives in the plane would blow away the twin engines, plus the vertical stabilizer. Hence, no holes for engine or tail.

The plane could only penetrated the outer E ring. Explosives in the building arranged at a 45 degree angle towards the C ring hole, completed the job. Stages light poles would also imply a 45 degree approach.

There was a wind blowing east that day. Perhaps the wind suddenly ceased, forcing the plane, which assumed a constant east wind, to the North West. Or perhaps there may have been a sudden gust, forcing the plane to over-compensate. Fortunately, "Mother Nature" caused it to take the NOC path, rather than the planned SOC path, giving us a clue that something was not right.

Pentagon security cameras are probably being hidden to conceal the wrong angle of approach, and the explosion just prior to impact.

This follows the same pattern seen on the WTCs: a drone plane, filled with explosives, impacts a building, doing some damage. Explosives do the rest, but the plane gets all the blame.

CIT offers nothing new

Bruno

The lack of plane parts has been known for a long time. It has nothing to do with CIT or the NoC flight path.

Why do you keep making the same irrelevant point?

ETA: This thread is about the CIT claim that NoC = flyover.

What you have been doing for the last several posts qualifies as spamming.

Address the points in the Summary and Analysis or cease and desist.

How is it...

How is it irrelevant? Seems to me, the discussion can not move forward until we address the question, "Did Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon?"

I say, no. What do you say, Chris?

False statement

Even Craig Ranke agreed with this: "Yes I agree, the directional damage to the Pentagon alone doesn't prove the plane didn't hit it."

Craig DID make that claim in NSA:
" As shown, the evidence proves the plane actually flew directly over the Naval Annex and north of the former Citgo gas station, and therefore did not hit the light poles or the building."

"A plane on this flight path cannot hit the light poles, show up low and level across the lawn as seen in the surveillance video, and cause the directional external and internal damage leading to the curiously round C ring hole."

The staged light poles have nothing to do with whether or not the plane hit the Pentagon and the video is inconclusive.

That leaves the staged directional damage as the only thing in the above statement that supports "therefore did not hit . . . the building"

* * * * *

ETA: It should be noted that CIT implies the surveillance video actually shows a plane and uses that to support their claim.
"show up low and level across the lawn as seen in the surveillance video"

Show "Surveillance video" by Adam Syed

What substance?

When the so called "evidence of flyover" is examined point by point, it is shown to be baseless.

"CIT is simply reminding us that the surveillance video comes from an official source and is used, by OCT defenders, to defend the official story."

Point taken. Well said, Adam. ;-)

Show ""Man muß die Dinge so einfach wie möglich machen. " by Kerberos

What do we agree on?

Chris,

Let me see if I understand where you stand on the Pentagon issue because it seems that even if you don't believe in a flyover, we actually seem to have quite a bit of common ground.

You have stated on multiple occasions that you believe that the North of Citgo flight path has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you still believe this to be the case?

You have also stated on multiple occasions that you agree with CIT that the light poles were staged. Do you still believe this to be the case?

You have also stated on multiple occasions that you agree with CIT that explosives caused the directional damage in the building. Do you still believe this to be the case?

If you believe all these things you believe that the Pentagon attack was a staged event and that the official story of what really happened is a lie. Is that the page you're still on?

Do we agree on these things? A simple yes or no will suffice.

You haven't been paying attention

"You have stated on multiple occasions that you believe that the North of Citgo flight path has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you still believe this to be the case?"

Because of all the omissions and misrepresentations in NSA I am no longer sure about the north path, nor do I care. The point is now moot because it does not prove flyover. Craig has fooled a lot of people with his professional double talk. He has caused a lot of division in the TM because his followers tend to mimic his "attack anyone who disagrees" tactic. Craig spent more time attacking me than the point I was making when we debated.

I started off defending NoC ardently but when I learned that CIT had misled me about the witnesses being unanimous, I started to doubt them. When I saw the enemies list I got sincerely pissed. It is so repugnant and harmful to the TM I turned against CIT. When I found out that all 5 of the witnesses they interviewed, who could see the Pentagon, said the plane hit the Pentagon, I knew the TM had been conned.

"You have also stated on multiple occasions that you agree with CIT that the light poles were staged. Do you still believe this to be the case?"
Yes, because there were no gouges in the lawn where they were carefully placed.

As to the rest of your questions: I have said numerous times that I don't know what happened.

nor do I care?

Chris,

Your emotionally charged response is quite revealing. You say you do not care about the flight path that the plane took. I can not imagine a detective who would "not care" about the smallest of clues which would point to the truth. I find it regrettable indeed that you would take this attitude.

You admit that you got "sincerely pissed" when you saw CIT's "face to the name" thread and that it made you "turn against CIT." Personally I don't think that thread did the movement much if any harm, but you are entitled to your opinion. However, in both your blog entry and subsequent comments, I get the very uneasy feeling that your primary motive here is to cast doubt on CIT's findings in any possible way, even if it means resorting to some pretty grasping arguments of (il)logic. Your overall tone, which goes as far as to accuse CIT of being disinfo artists at the professional level, seems to be much more preoccupied with discrediting the messenger than with actually trying get to the bottom of the Pentagon mystery.

One of these points of illogic is the simple fact that you assert that the light poles were staged but that the plane hit the building. Maybe I'm dense, but if I were one of the high perps planning this event, and I planned to remote control a plane into my building, I would not feel any sort of logical need to stage any of the damage.

Why do you consider it so out of the question for the witnesses to have been deceived? With the WTC, practically the whole world was deceived, in addition to the people on the scene who reported explosions yet to this day swear by the OCT. If I were an eyewitness to the Pentagon attack, and I knew that two planes had already crashed into buildings in New York, and then a low flying airliner wooshed right past me at high speed, approaching the Pentagon, I would likely duck and start running the other way as triggered by the pure survival instinct. If I then heard an explosion and saw a gigantic fireball at the Pentagon, I would conclude the plane hit, especially if the media began to confirm it.

THIS is why the person said what she said when she "corrected" the people reported by Erik Diehle. Those initial people said that "a bomb hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going." Now, do you think that those initial impressions were hallucinations? Do you really think it's feasible that those people simply imagined a flying object veering away from the building when there was really nothing? Or is it more likely that the person who said "No, the plane hit the building" was deceived? I would bet money on the latter. Clearly, some people DID see the flyover but the mind control machine known as the mass media was there to brainwash everyone with the official line.

Also, when we think of how William Rodriguez' testimony to the 9/11 Commission was never printed in the final report, we have to ask ourselves: How do we know that flyover witnesses didn't talk to authorities? And while we haven't had a flyover witness contact CIT and say, "I've been quietly following your work, and now I'm coming forward: I saw the plane flying away," how do we know this won't happen someday in the future? Since you seem so hellbent on libeling CIT as professional con men, how would you react to such an eyewitness? That she's in bed with CIT in a disinformation hoax?

The people reported by Diehle, in conjunction with Roosevelt Roberts' testimony, in conjunction with the lack of damage and airliner debris visible in the photos/video taken immediately after the event, in conjunction with the NoC flight path proven beyond a shadow of doubt, make a very strong comprehensive case for the flyover + bombs scenario.

And now we start all over

Mr. Ruff.
Please read the Summary and Analysis. All your questions and assertions have already been answered. If you still have any problems with the S&A after reading it, state them.
Your opinion of me is irrelevant so keep it to yourself.

Mr. Nehring,
The problem has been fixed and I am not a moderator so I have nothing to do with it.

Hope I didn't imply...

...you were responsible in any way. Thanks for a great entry and debate.

Dave

Gotta be honest

Chris, I sincerely apologize for this in advance if it upsets you for raising the issue here, but I believe it to be relavent.

This "voted-down-and-now-I-can't-read-the-comment-without-navigating-away-form-the-main-topic" thing is causing some serious issues with being able to take in all the valubale information shared on this site. Right or wrong, in your own opinion, you still have the right to voice it, and this site overlooks that in a very censoring type of manner with regard to whom exactly seems to get voted down, or what topics get voted down, and even what gets on the front page. The point is; it is nearly impossible to follow an intelligent debate on this forum the way the voting hides the comments. Get with it, and fix this issue. We have all clearly voiced our displeasure, this thread is a clear example of what is going on, fix it.

This site used to represent a lot more than just a few people's goals.

It was the beacon of light for those seeking answers, because you knew you could find other people out there wondering the same things, and you could ask the scary questions.

Now....well, not so much.

A disturbing observation

Well, to be frank, I wasn't impressed with this long-winded attempt by Chris Sarns to discredit CIT's work, which I think still stands. But what really troubles me is the increasingly obvious double standard with regard to what kind of rhetoric is considered acceptable. While I agree that it is improper decorum to call another user a liar or disinformation agent, I agree that this is also true for people who are not members of the site.

Chris Sarns concludes his blog with the words: "...and like Dick Cheney looking for evidence of WMD's, they built a case on misinterpretation, assumption, omission and outright lies."

Regardless of what one thinks of CIT's conclusions, I find it regrettable that not only did Mr. Sarns compare two well meaning investigators to Dick Cheney in a negative light, but that the blog entry was even approved, the offensive rhetoric not edited out.

I get the very distinct feeling that if I were to call, say, Jon Gold or Jim Hoffman a liar and compare them to Dick Cheney, even in a comment, let alone an entry, I'd be banned from the site pronto.

You will know them by their fruits

I changed that line in the revised version to:
"CIT did not research what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11, they set out to prove flyover and they built a case on misinterpretation, assumption and omission.”
http://csarnsblog.blogspot.com/

However, CIT did lie about the witnesses being "unanimous" in confirming the NoC flight path.

They lied when they said Erik Dihle and Maria de la Cerda were flyover witnesses.

Leaving out the statements by 4 of their witnesses that the plane hit the Pentagon and then claiming that their statements prove flyover is a lie by omission.

* * * * *
I started off defending CIT but when I learned that they had lied and had an "Enemies list" I turned against them.

Jeffrey Hill [AKA shure] was also a CIT advocate until he saw the way Craig operates.
From another thread on this forum:

"You will know them by their fruits"

For all you CIT disciples:
Anyone with ears to hear can tell who is what!
In case you didn't listen to the calls with Lee Evey, maybe you could do that before commenting!
Phone call to Lee Evey 05/17/10
http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/le_051710.mp3
Craig Ranke and myself calling Lee Evey:
http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/mce_052110.mp3

Craig Ranke started harassing Mr. Evey and even I was bothered by it. That is why I had to speak up and say something. What Craig did was disgusting and he also conveniently left out the part of our conversation after we got off the phone with Lee in his recording. I however, left it in my recording because I have nothing to hide.
Craig compares Lee Evey to Dick Cheney and basically accused the man of planting bombs in the Pentagon!!!
If you don't see something wrong with the way Craig Ranke conducted himself in that phone call, there is nothing I can do to help you.
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-05-25/911-pentagon-eyewitnesses-plane-hi...

Getting the facts straight

Thanks Chris,

It was good of you to edit out the comparison of two well-meaning investigators with Dick Cheney on your blog, but you don't seem very apologetic about it, and that phrasing still remains here as originally posted, and the question of why the blog entry was even approved in the first place with that kind of language remains unaddressed.

You write that CIT "lied", presumably by stating, as you quoted, "Thirteen eyewitnesses from the five most critical vantage points unanimously confirmed the plane crossed to the north side of Columbia Pike, flew directly over the Navy Annex and north of the former Citgo gas station." That looks to be a true statement, as far as I can tell. It doesn't say that ALL Pentagon witnesses reported that flight path, and yes, certain accounts were excluded, for specified reasons - reasons you clearly disagree with - but you're distorting things by making these simplistic and inaccurate accusations that CIT "lied" about the witnesses being "unanimous," when they are clearly referring to the 13 witnesses they interviewed. If you can find me "thirteen eyewitnesses from the five most critical vantage points unanimously confirming" the plane flying south of the former Citgo gas station - and especially hitting all 5 of those light poles - interviewed on the scene, and in as much detail as you see in CIT's work, drawing flight paths on a map, etc., please let me know, as I'd be most interested.

But I've taken a close look at the handful of witness quotes, who certain CIT detractor blogs claim support a south path, which have been openly and extensively discussed and analyzed for years, both within CIT's work, and on a multitude of forums, and have come to the conclusion - unless better evidence emerges - that there's nothing of the sort. What matters is not only the path a witness reports seeing, but a multitude of other factors, including their precise location and vantage point, careful questioning about precisely what they really did see and didn't see, correlating with various landmarks, their relative certainty, as well as all the necessary questions about their background and overall credibility. And it strikes me there is such little solid documentation for witnesses claiming a south side approach, compared to the very compelling detailed testimony that CIT has gathered, and faced with conflicting testimony, you have to make the best educated guess, based on the quality of the eyewitness evidence you have in front of you. Videotaped testimony on the scene beats old newspaper clippings from often questionable sources every time, and until someone can match CIT's considerable investigative efforts with an equally compelling body of evidence proving a south path - or some strange way a north-of-CITGO approach could have possibly caused that pattern of damage - accounts like Keith Wheelhouse's really aren't going to cut it for me, sorry.

As for Jeff Hill, I listened to the debate he had with Craig Ranke on 16th, and then to the May 21 call made to Lee Evey. It's incomprehensible to me how anyone could ever think that Hill was a "CIT advocate" during that call. I've not found any indication that Hill has EVER been an advocate of CIT, so I can't figure out what compelled you to make that assertion. Lee Evey, as far as I can tell, is not a witness. But he does seem to be a high level insider who was the program manager for the Pentagon renovation for years prior to the attack and after the attack.

You seem to think that Ranke was inappropriate during that call, but I'd be interested to know what specific example you would cite, because that post you cited from Hill certainly provided no such examples. All I hear is Hill trying his hardest to disrupt Ranke's reasonable line of questioning. Specific quotes would help me understand what you mean. And, by the way, do you see anything wrong with the way Hill has conducted himself in all these various phone calls he's made to Pentagon witnesses?