Shinki and Ed Paik Accounts vs. CIT Methods by Erik Larson

Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) have cited Shinki and Ed Paik’s witness accounts to support their claims that the plane said to have hit the Pentagon on 9/11 (American Airlines Flight 77), actually flew on a different flight path (‘north of Citgo’) and flew over the Pentagon. Ed Paik’s account appears in their films ‘The Pentacon’, and most recently ‘National Security Alert’ (NSA). In addition, Ed’s account has been cited repeatedly in their articles and online discussions. However, my January 2010 interviews of Ed and Shinki, as well as a 2006 interview of Ed recorded by Dylan Avery, Ed Paik’s drawings and gestures for CIT, and other related material, show that certain facts have been omitted or distorted by CIT in their attempt to make their case for the ‘north of Citgo path’.

I. Summary of Erik Larson 2010 Shinki and Ed Paik Video

II. Ed Paik says he was inside the A-One office when the plane flew past; Shinki says he was outside

III. From inside the office, Ed Paik saw the right wing- and perhaps the fuselage

IV. Shinki Paik said the VDOT tower antenna was “bent over … about 60, 70 degrees”

V. Ed Paik’s drawings and gestures for CIT have been misrepresented

VI. Conclusion

I. Summary of Erik Larson 2010 Shinki and Ed Paik Video

The video is mainly footage from my January 2010 interviews with Shinki and Ed Paik, but also includes 2006 video footage of Ed being interviewed by Russell Pickering, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, which was recorded by Dylan Avery. Ed’s 2006 testimony largely confirms what he told me in 2010. In my interviews, Shinki and Ed Paik said that on September 11, 2001, they were in their shop's office watching and discussing the news coverage of the attacks on the World Trade Center, when they heard the increasingly loud noise of a large jet approaching their location, very low. Shinki was behind the counter, and Ed was in front of it, and the noise was so loud, they both instinctively ducked. At this point, Shinki and Ed’s accounts diverge. Shinki said Ed “went out” and he saw Ed outside, ducking, when the plane passed by. There is a large window in front of the counter, and a large window in the door, which give a view of their parking lot, Columbia Pike, and the other side of the road. Shinki saw the outside get dark briefly, but did not see any part of the plane. According to Ed, he was inside when the plane flew past, and while ducking in front of the counter, he looked up and out the window, and saw the “big”, “black” “right wing” of a plane for "1 or 2 seconds". In two places on the August 2006 Avery footage, Ed indicates he was in the office. In my interview, Ed says his “feeling” was the body of the plane was very low and directly over their shop, with the right wing extending over their parking lot and Columbia Pike. In 2010 he said he did not see the body of the plane, but in the 2006 footage he described the body as “gray.” Shinki said that after the plane passed, he saw the VDOT antenna “bent over” towards the Pentagon "about 60, 70 degrees", and that it was not like this before the plane went past. He recalls noticing that on September 11, but Ed didn't remember seeing the bent antenna. Both remember it being worked on; Shinki thought it was the following day or soon after, and Ed seemed sure it was the next day that people were working on it. Ed also recalled talking to others in the area regarding the work being done on the tower, and that they were also under the impression that the plane had hit the antenna.

II. Ed Paik says he was inside the A-One office when the plane flew past; Shinki says he was outside

As of this writing, if they have it, CIT has not released footage from their 11/4/06 interview (used in NSA) in which Ed Paik states his own location when the plane flew past; they have only released footage that shows him describing and pointing out the plane’s location and heading. However, 1/24/10, CIT released August 2006 footage of Shinki Paik, in which he says Ed first went outside, and then the plane flew over:

Shinki Paik: “… And at the last moment my brother jumped out the office and as soon as he went out he was just scooping down and I was sitting here, and then standing, and then I think at that moment a big airplane just flew over. ... As soon as he went out, jumped out he was scooping down on the ground and then I think he thought something hitting him and then I see here inside … the kinda black cloud a little bit.”

Craig Ranke: “A shadow?”

Shinki: “[inaudible] shadow, yeah.”

Shinki Paik reported the same sequence of events to me, 1/5/10:

Shinki Paik: “We heard some- enormous- almost incomprehensible noise- is that something is dropping here. So we kinda scootin’ down here [demonstrates ducking]. But my brother- in a way he felt more ‘dangerous’ and insecure- insecurity or something- he went out [points to door] and jumped out. And as soon as he went out, I saw he was he was doing like this, right? [demonstrates ducking and covering his head] And something flip a second [makes fast motion with hands] and a little bit dark in the sky- and about less than a second or something, boom! And we ran out [makes running motion with fists]. Across the street is a … State of Virginia Traffic [inaudible] Center. We look to the Pentagon side, there’s a plume of smoke coming up.” (0:10)

However, in my interview of Ed Paik 1/9/10, he says he saw the plane through the office front window, and that he went outside after it passed by:

Ed Paik: [Ed is standing in front of the counter] “Shinki sitting over there, I’m standing up here. We’d been talking about the Twin Towers. And then we heard about- the big sound. And then I just look out like this [bends over, ducking and turning head to look out the front window] and then aircraft- I can hear- black, big wing as it goes- heading to that way [motions with arm, sweeping from West to East, roughly parallel to Columbia Pike]

Erik Larson: “So- were you outside when it happened?”

Ed: “After that- I saw it, and after that I go out.”

Erik: “So, you were inside when the plane flew over.”

Ed: “Yeah- flew this way.” [indicates path with his hand, West to East, parallel to Columbia Pike, again]

Erik: “OK. But you were looking outside the window.”

Ed: [bends head down, and points outside] “Looking outside here.” (1:10)

I was surprised to hear Ed say he had been in the office and had only seen the right wing of the plane through the window, as Shinki had indicated he was outside, and CIT have always represented Ed as being in A-One’s parking lot. For instance, on the Loose Change forum 8/25/06, Aldo Marquis (Merc) said, “Edward actually went outside when they heard the jet approacing [sic] and actually saw the plane.” On the CIT forum 12/6/07, Craig Ranke referred a graphic of the parking lot as "Edward's POV". And CIT’s films ‘Pentacon’ and ‘National Security Alert’ feature Ed in the A-One parking lot gesturing and describing the flight path and location of the plane’s body and wings (Ed Paik’s account starts at 16:45 in NSA, but the footage can be seen in this youtube short, starting at 2:53).

When I reviewed the August 2006 interview of Ed Paik by the Loose Change/CIT/Russ Pickering crew, I noticed that Ed had, at that time, indicated he was in the office when he saw the plane, though it is a bit unclear due to his English being rough:

Ed Paik: "I heard about the- a very big jet sound- looks like just up to here [puts hand above head, close] I just look at outside [turns head]- big black wing coming- that way [motions with hand] and then I just running out- then 2, 3 seconds- boom! (Avery 0:01, Larson 3:37)------

Aldo Marquis: "You didn't see it come over you, then."

Ed Paik: "I cannot see that, because at the time- I- facing through the- in the office. So the airplane coming this way- [points]- to the- my right hand side- it goes- [sweeps arm fast]- to the Pentagon." (Avery 1:30, Larson 3:59)

If an eyewitness account is going to be used in reference an event, it needs to be acknowledged where they said they were when they witnessed it. And if an eyewitness says that person was somewhere else, that needs to be taken into account as well. Even when eyewitness are in close proximity, their accounts sometimes differ on significant details, and Ed and Shinki’s accounts are a prime example. Both of them are consistent in regarding their own accounts from 2006 to 2010; so who’s right about Ed’s location when the plane flew past? Ed is adamant that he was inside, and physically demonstrates where he was and how he reacted. What he described seeing on 9/11, in both 2006 and 2010, is from the vantage point of his being in the office. My interview of Ed was in front of Shinki; he didn’t say anything to correct Ed, and I confirmed Ed’s location with him twice. It seems to me the most likely explanation is that Shinki’s recollection of the sequence of events got confused, as everything happened so fast; according to Ed, he ran outside immediately after seeing the plane pass. In any case, it’s not logical to use Ed’s account of where the plane was, but discount or omit where he says he was when he saw it.

CIT may or may not have footage of Ed Paik from their 11/4/06 interview in which he describes his location. Certainly, they should have been aware of his statements from August 2006 which place him in the office- and Aldo Marquis is the one who said, "You didn't see it come over you, then.” If Aldo and Craig felt it was unclear, they should have clarified his location in their November 2006 interview of him; not doing so is sloppy research. If they were aware that Ed says he saw the plane from the office, and they did not disclose this- in order to create the impression that Ed was in the parking lot- this is manipulative and dishonest journalism. Ironically, Craig Ranke said on the CIT forum 8/9/09, “Witnesses are data points. You can only rely on them for the general placement of the plane in relation to the ground they are standing. You can't use a witness to extrapolate what you want regarding the placement of the plane in an area that they would not even be able to witness from their location! That is spin and is deceptive.”

In this photo Ed demonstrates how he ducked:
Photobucket

In this photo Ed points out the window, indicating where he saw the plane:
Photobucket

III. From inside the office, Ed Paik saw the right wing- and perhaps the fuselage

Ed Paik’s testimony is consistent from 2006 and 2010 regarding his being in the office when the plane passed by. It’s also consistent in that, in addition to the loud jet sound and his impression that the plane was very low, he clearly recalls seeing a big, black wing (Ed saw the wing from underneath, shadowed from the sun). The only significant difference is that in the 2006 LC/CIT/Pickering interview, he said he saw the body of the plane (perhaps an engine?), which he described as “gray” (similar to an American Airlines plane). Also in the 2006 interview, he said he believed the right wing tip was extending over Columbia Pike- far enough to hit the VDOT tower:

Russell Pickering: "Did you see anything about the airplane, how many engines, what color, anything about the plane?"

Ed Paik: "Uh, no, I just only- feeling's it looks like a- black wing- very huge, black wing. That's what I saw then."

Aldo Marquis and another person: "Black wings?"

Ed: "Yeah."

Aldo: "Do you remember what color the plane, the body was?"

Ed: "Body's look like gray- kind of gray. And the wing- underneath wing is looked like, uh, black, because I saw it like (turns head, then turns back, motioning with hands, fast). Soon as the uh- passed, away. (Avery 0:56, Larson 5:41)

------

Russell Pickering: "In relation to your street, would you say like here's one wing tip, here's another wing tip- right in the middle of the airplane, where would you put that in relation to the street?"

Ed Paik: "Right wing; right wing is at the end of the street. Left wing, I cannot see the (inaudible). Right wing is at end of street."

Russell: "The right wing was as far out as the tower, so the center of the airplane was near the road."

Ed: "Yeah, on the road, yeah. That's why it hit the antenna." (Avery 2:44, Larson 6:20)

Also in the 2006 interview, Ed also says the plane almost hit the last building of the Navy Annex (2:31), but even from the vantage point of the parking lot, Ed would not have been able to see this, which is clear from CIT’s footage used in Pentacon and NSA. It seems he was either speculating, or perhaps incorporating into his account what another witness had described. CIT ignored or neglected to note Ed’s statements regarding his location, but made special note of this by adding text to the youtube video which transcribed that part of his statement. Again, ironic, considering Craig Ranke’s 8/9/09 statement; “You can't use a witness to extrapolate what you want regarding the placement of the plane in an area that they would not even be able to witness from their location! That is spin and is deceptive.”

In my interview of him, Ed says that he did not see the body, but he describes the wing as a “triangle”. Considering Ed’s 2010 statement describing the wing as a “triangle” in conjunction with his 2006 statement in which he describes the body as gray, it may be that he saw the wing close to the base, and that he got a glimpse of the fuselage in 2001- enough to recall its color, in 2006.

2010 Erik Larson interview:

Erik Larson: “To be clear, when you looked outside, how much of the plane could you see- just the wing part, or could you see any of the body?”

Ed Paik: “No. Just the- body side- [points to his roof] my roof side [places hand above his head]

Erik: “OK, so all you saw was the wing.”

Ed: “Right hand side, the wing. That is my feeling … because- if I see the one that is left-hand side, then I can see the body, and [inaudible]. But I don’t see anything, only kind of a triangle side [makes shape with hands]- kind of an- a wing [motions with right hand, West to East]. One second or two.”

Erik: “What do you mean, ‘triangle side’?”

Ed: “Looks like [traces out triangle shape with hands]- right-hand side…”

Erik: “It was like the right wing, that you saw?”

Ed: “Right wing, that’s right.” (4:51 – segment starts at 4:19)

I took the below two photos while down on one knee in front of the counter, to approximate Ed’s position.

This photo shows the view directly out the front window, about where Ed says he was:
Photobucket

This photo out the front window shows the VDOT tower on the left:
Photobucket

There are at least a couple possibilities for the plane’s location that account for Ed’s seeing the right wing (and possibly the fuselage) from this vantage point:

1) If the plane was close to the tops of the telephone poles and crossing Columbia Pike, left wing tip close to the Sheraton Hotel, fuselage almost directly over his shop, heading NE over the Navy Annex (aka FOB #2), as CIT claims, then all Ed might have seen was the right wing, and perhaps the fuselage. However, this path would mean the plane was below the line of sight of Dawn Vignola and Tim Timmerman at the Sheraton, and they both said they could see it at that point, which was shortly before it disappeared behind some buildings closer to them. In my interview with Dawn Vignola, she also said she had seen the plane cross in front of the Sheraton. A plane on this ‘north path’ would also mean that Madelyn Zakhem (who was outside on the south side of Columbia Pike) would have seen it over the Navy Annex- not directly above her, as she reported in 2001, and confirmed to Russ Pickering/CIT in 2006. This ‘north path’ also conflicts with the 2001 account of CIT witness Terry Morin, who reported seeing the plane for several seconds until a row of trees blocked his view, that it had “red and blue stripes down the fuselage”, and he “believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines”. If Morin had seen it directly over top of him from between wings of the Annex, he would have seen the plane for less than a second (at his minimum estimated speed of 350 kts/402 mph/590 fps), and could not have seen any markings on it. There are no markings visible in the simulation in NSA, which can be seen starting at 3:28 in CIT’s 1/24/10 youtube video. In 2006, Morin states the plane would have hit the Air Force memorial now at the north east end of the Annex. (3:34) However, in 2001 Morin said, “The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB.” “Essentially” implies the plane was not ‘exactly’ or ‘directly’ overhead.

2) Another possibility is that the plane was traveling approximately on the ‘official’ flight path (based on FDR and radar data, allowing for margin of error). From Ed’s vantage point ducking inside the shop and looking up out the front window, the right wing (and perhaps the fuselage) may have been all he could see for the “one or two seconds” that he saw the plane- and his “feeling” like the fuselage was over his shop may have been due to a common perspective error known as ‘forced perspective’. This flight path would also match the accounts of Vignola/Timmerman, Zakhem and Morin (2001). In addition, there’s some evidence the plane clipped (see section IV) the antenna on the VDOT tower (on the left in the 2nd photo; 169’ above ground at antenna tip). However, even if it did not- if it was slightly above or north of the antenna tower- the flight path would still match the accounts of Ed Paik, Madelyn Zakhem and Terry Morin (in 2001), as well as being within a margin of error for the FDR and radar data.

IV. Shinki Paik said the VDOT tower antenna was “bent over … about 60, 70 degrees”

Less than 200 yards from the Paik’s shop, on the south side of the street, is an antenna tower on VDOT property. Shinki Paik told me the antenna on top of the tower was “bent over, not right angle, 90 degrees, but I would say about 60, 70 degrees.” When I asked when he noticed this, he said, “I believe it was the same day [9/11].” (8:44) Ed had not noticed the antenna was damaged (7:02), but both Ed and Shinki said that there was a crew working on the tower soon after 9/11. They both attributed this to the antenna having been hit by the plane, though they acknowledged they didn’t see the antenna get hit. (Erik Larson 2010 video)

According to Craig Ranke on the Loose Change forum 8/31/06, CIT “confirmed with the VDOT employees that the antenna was not clipped.” When Arabesque, Adam Larson and John Farmer raised questions about possible damage to the VDOT tower, Craig Ranke elaborated 3/17/08 on the CIT forum, “That same day we spoke with many people at the VDOT and all of them told us that the antenna WAS NOT damaged and that the feds used the VDOT building as emergency headquarters on 9/11 and were probably adding extra communication or something of that nature.” No names are cited, and there are no direct quotes, but the use of the words “probably” and “or something” implies the “many people at the VDOT” weren’t sure what was being done on the tower.

Craig also said in the 3/17/08 post, “We first spoke with Edward's brother Shinki Paik the day before we spoke with Edward Paik. Shinki did not see the plane but he told us that they saw workers on the antenna the next day and figured they were repairing it because the plane hit it.” However, when I interviewed Shinki, he offered on his own that he had seen the antenna, “bent over … about 60, 70 degrees.” If Shinki mentioned this to CIT, they’ve never acknowledged it. As of this writing, CIT’s full video footage from their interviews with Shinki and Ed Paik have not been made public.

Craig, again from the 3/17/08 post: “If the plane was over the antenna it would support the official flight path but this is not where Edward or ANY of the witnesses (including VDOT employee Madlene Zackhem) claim they saw the plane.” Craig is correct in saying, “If the plane was over the antenna it would support the official flight path”, but as I showed and documented in the previous section, the accounts of Columbia Pike witnesses Madelyn Zakhem and Terry Morin (2001) support the official flight path, and Ed Paik’s account makes the most sense if that’s where the plane was. This photo taken by Steve Riskus and enlarged by John Farmer may show a bent antenna, but the image quality is poor, so it’s hard to say for sure:
vdot antenna tower,steve riskus,john farmer

In any case, while proof the antenna was hit by the plane would prove the plane was on the official flight path, the plane could have cleared the top of the antenna or to the north side of it, and would still be within a margin of error for the official flight path, and it would still match the eyewitness accounts. As Adam Larson (no relation) demonstrates in this article: OBSTACLE? IMPOSSIBLE. WHY THIS ANTENNA THING IS A NON-ISSUE.

V. Ed Paik’s drawings, statements and gestures for CIT have been misrepresented

CIT has represented their video footage of Ed Paik in the A-One parking lot (a vantage point Ed says he was not at) pointing to his roof and gesturing while describing his impression of the flight path, as evidence of the plane’s flight path. In addition to featuring it this way in Pentacon and NSA, CIT created a gif from their footage of Ed and put text on it that says, “Ed Paik pointing out heading of plane: ‘Body this way’”:

However, from the footage, it’s clear that at this point Ed says, "Body here", not "Body this way." In the footage of Ed used in Pentacon and NSA (see this youtube short, at 2:53), Ed does not say "Body this way" at any point. It's also clear from the footage, that in the first clip in the gif, Ed is pointing to where he believed the body of the plane was over their shop, while indicating the path by moving his hand parallel to Columbia Pike. And in the 2nd clip, Ed is pointing to the location where he believed the body of the plane was when it flew past; he’s not "pointing out heading of plane", as the gif’s text claims. This is also evident in that none of his drawings match the ‘heading’ allegedly being pointed out in the gif. Also worth noting from this segment is that Ed points perpendicular across Columbia Pike, and says, "Right wing is this way", indicating that he perceived the right wing to be over Columbia Pike.

CIT has also represented Ed Paik’s 3 drawings of the flight path as evidence of the plane’s flight path. However, these were drawn on photos that don’t match Ed’s actual perspective from his vantage point in the office (according to his own account), and are based on his impression of what he saw for “one or two seconds”, and his “feeling” where the plane’s body was. And, considering the plane was traveling about the length of 2 football fields per second, he probably saw the right wing (and possibly the body) for less than a second. These 3 drawings, while contradicting the official flight path in some respects, also contradict each other and the alleged ‘north of Citgo path’. For instance, in the top drawing at the above link, Ed has drawn a line roughly parallel to Columbia Pike, which has the plane flying over the Navy Annex and directly into the Pentagon; this line passes south of the Citgo gas station, which is out of view in that photo. This first drawing also contradicts the one CIT uses most often, the bottom one, an overhead view which shows the flight path as being roughly parallel to the official path, but further north of it. And the middle drawing has the plane flying wholly or partially over top of the Sheraton Hotel, also contradicting the bottom drawing.

These drawings and gestures don’t diminish Ed’s credibility as a witness; he was trying to be helpful, and when asked by CIT to speculate, he did so. Clearly, witness drawings and gestures from perspectives they didn’t have cannot be relied on as accurate, even if they aren’t obviously contradictory. And representing the results as giving anything other than a general, but inconclusive, idea of where the plane came from, where it was when Ed actually saw it, and where it was headed, is deceptive and a disservice to the public. Again, this is ironic, considering that Craig Ranke, taking issue with a critic’s interpretation of the drawings, said on the CIT forum 8/9/09, “Witnesses are data points. You can only rely on them for the general placement of the plane in relation to the ground they are standing. You can't use a witness to extrapolate what you want regarding the placement of the plane in an area that they would not even be able to witness from their location! That is spin and is deceptive.” CIT will say that Ed’s account is corroborated by other witnesses, they are not relying on it alone; however, they’ve cherrypicked the statements of the other witnesses, made selective interpretations that support their theory while denying other possibilities, and apply double- and dubious- standards when judging the credibility of witness accounts that indicate the plane was on the official flight path, even slandering witnesses in some cases. Arabesque and Adam Larson have documented numerous examples of this, in addition to what I’ve pointed out in this essay:

William Lagasse: "These poles were not knocked down" CIT: "He didn't see the light poles" by Arabesque

The South Path Impact: Documented by Adam Larson

Roughshod Over the Suspicious Ones by Adam Larson

VI. Conclusion

In summary: Shinki and Ed Paik place Ed in different locations at the moment the plane passed, and CIT, as of this writing, has not acknowledged Ed’s account placing himself in the office, if they were aware of it. According to Ed’s 2010 account, he mainly saw the right wing of the plane, from inside the office, for “one or two seconds”, though in 2006 he recalled seeing the body. Ed said he did not see the plane from the parking lot, and did not ‘see’ it fly over their shop; he qualifies his placement of the fuselage over their shop by saying his “feeling” is that’s where it was. Shinki specifically recalls seeing the VDOT antenna bent over; if Shinki said this in CIT footage, or if CIT was aware of this, they’ve never disclosed it, as of this writing. CIT has cited unnamed VDOT employees as saying the antenna was not damaged, to counter the hypothesis that it was. Ed’s drawings and gestures in CIT videos were based on seeing the wing for “one or two seconds”, and his “feeling” about where the body was. The gestures were made at a location he says he did not witness the plane from, and the drawings are based on perspectives he did not have. In addition, elements of these drawings variously support the official flight path, contradict each other, and contradict the FDR/radar flight path, as well as the path reported by Madelyn Zakhem, and Terry Morin in 2001.

My impression of Shinki and Ed Paik from my own and the other interviews, is they did their best to honestly and accurately describe what they recall seeing. However, while eyewitness testimony can be accurate- and seem compelling- in some cases, witnesses often miss significant details, make incorrect interpretations and recall things inaccurately, even when they’re sure they’re right. Human beings are subject to errors in judgment, perspective and memory, and in the case of an event that is over in “one or two seconds”, errors are more likely. Language barriers and misunderstandings between witnesses and questioners can also play a role in witness accounts being misinterpreted.

There are problems with some elements of Shinki and Ed Paik’s accounts, but CIT has compounded these by omitting or distorting elements of Ed and Shinki’s accounts, while selectively interpreting and hyping other elements. CIT has a history of doing this, they’ve consistently done it in ways that support their theory about ‘north path’ and ‘Pentagon flyover’, and their doing so- while accusing their critics of being ‘agents’ and ‘disinformation’- has created controversy and undermined their own credibility. Whether or not it’s intentional on their part, CIT have caused disruption and division in the 9/11 Truth Movement, and have distracted some activists from larger questions and more conclusive evidence of wrong doing on the part of those charged with defending the United States and its Constitution- for instance, the fact that the Pentagon was hit at all. I support disclosure and accountability for 9/11 and the way “the day that changed everything” has been exploited to justify a national security state, massive increases in funding for the military industrial complex, wars, torture and subversion of the Constitution. I support independent research and investigation 9/11 and related events- including study of efforts and ideas that distract, divide and disrupt the 9/11 Truth Movement. Not because ideas and efforts that are distracting and disruptive are worth of pursuing in themselves, but because learning which theories are false or inconclusive narrows the field of research to the most productive lines of investigation, and because learning which efforts are impeding progress can improve the effectiveness of activists who are seeking truth and justice.

Show "Erik Larson confirms north" by Adam Syed
Show "Great job Adam" by Swingdangler

Adam Syed: "Erik Larson confirms north side approach!"

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

Show "Oh, nothin' funny about it" by Adam Syed

Disrupting the truth movement w/ misleading claims is no joke

Cherrypicking witness statements and excluding context doesn't constitute 'proof'. In fact, it discredits those who do it. Ed was honest enough to say his "feeling" was the fuselage was over his roof. In 2006 he described the body as "gray"; if he saw it, obviously it wasn't over his roof, though it might've seemed like it. And for him to see the wing, the plane would've had to be close to the tops of the telephone poles, and Dawn Vignola wouldn't have been able to see it cross in front of the Sheraton. See the pics in my article w/ Ed demonstrating where he was and how he ducked, and see the line of sight he point out.

Odds are, the plane was more or less on the 'official' path, and Ed, seeing mostly the wing, for a split second, though it was closer than it was. Keep in mind Shinki's statement about the VDOT antenna tower “bent over … about 60, 70 degrees”, which Riskus' photo seems to show. CIT no doubt heard this from Shinki, and probably has it on video. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that CIT has Ed on video in Nov 2006, telling Craig he was in the office- after all, it was ALDO who said, "You didn't see it come over you, then." Craig blames Shinki for his 'incompetence' in [allegedly] not verifying Ed's location.
__________________________
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

CIT-false accusation, double standard, cherry picking, strawman

in CIT's thread falsely claiming that Ed's most recent testimony confirms the N path, Craig says: "And the stuff about the VDOT tower is ridiculous. NOBODY reports seeing the plane hit the tower. The VDOT says that the tower was NOT HIT as confirmed by the two biggest CIT detractors ever: jrefer John Farmer (who we know that Larson is colluding with because he posted advance screenshots of Larson's Paik interview on jref weeks ago) AND former Pentagon attack researcher Russell Pickering." http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1013&view=findpost&p=...

False accusation: Craig, in his responses to my Vignola and Paik articles repeatedly falsely accused me of lying and deception, w/o providing any actual evidence of this. Above, he accuses me of "colluding" with John Farmer. While researching for the article and video, I emailed photos to a number of people who've done research related to the Pentagon to see what information they could provide. I cited some of Farmer's work in my article. There was no 'collusion', i.e. "secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy" Yet, without evidence there was- and based on alleged 'evidence' of 'collusion' that was public- Craig sees fit to accuse me of "colluding".

Craig, at the above link, quotes from a response to a John Farmer FOIA, which says, "After thorough research by both VDOT and VSP personnel who were present that day, there was no damage to the antenna installation at Columbia Pike, September 11, 12, 2001. In addition, a request for information was directed to the VSP Radio Division, the owner of the antenna in question. They provided further confirmation that there was no damage to the antenna. There is no information that documents any activity on this structure/antenna."

Double standards; on numerous occasions Craig has claimed that all evidence from the govt must be considered suspect or rejected out of hand; however, in THIS case Craig will 1) accept what a govt source says as 2) reported by a 'jrefer' and 'CIT detractor', apparently cuz he believes it supports CIT's N path 'hypothesis'.

Cherry picking; Craig bolded the part of the FOIA response which says there was no damage to the tower. He quoted, but did not draw attention to, the part where it says, "There is no information that documents any activity on this structure/antenna", a point which was reiterated upon follow up, which Craig also quoted, but failed to draw attention to. So, the state of Virginia is claiming there's "no information" re: ANY WORK being done on the tower; yet CIT claims to have talked to people at the VDOT who say there was work being done the next day; the Paiks saw work being done; and Ed says he talked to people on the street that saw work being done. Ed, in my interview, even says there was a crane there; did he imagine this? What's the deal? "No information" might mean records were destroyed in accordance with a schedule. CIT, however, cherry picks the statement of a 'jrefer' and 'CIT detractor' quoting the govt, claiming it's 'confirmed' that there was no damage- and omits consideration of how this info simultaneously, if correct, contradicts the numerous witness reports of work being done, which they've relied on elsewhere.

Strawman; Craig asserts "NOBODY reports seeing the plane hit the tower". Neither Shinki or Ed said they saw the tower get hit; what Shinki was SURE of, is that he saw the antenna BENT OVER toward the Pentagon about "60, 70 degrees", and he noticed it that "same day." In addition, Riskus' photo shows the antenna, and in the enlargement it appears to be bent, toward the Pentagon. However, in my article I did not claim that Shinki's statement and Riskus' photo PROVE the antenna was damaged; i presented the information and noted the possibilities. Shinki being confused about Ed's location during an event that was over in a few seconds is understandable; his certainty that the antenna was BENT seems less easy to explain- but I still did not claim it's PROOF that it was.

The above examples are very typical of CIT's methods
__________________________
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Show "Debate call to Erik Larson" by Adam Syed

Adam ignores the above points, reposts Craig's debate challenge

Adam ignored my points in the above comment, and dismissed it by characterizing it as "Larson bumped it up today" and saying he "didn't originally plan on making another post in this entry." Then Adam attempted to goad me into a verbal debate with Craig by suggesting, "Erik, if you feel comfortable with your positions and conclusions, you'll surely accept, no?"

I'm comfortable with my positions and conclusions as I've expressed them in my articles and comments, and so far CIT and their fans have not pointed out any real flaws in them (they've made a pretense of doing so, then claimed they have), and they've mischaracterized some of the info i present in my Paik and Vignola articles, claiming it supports their conclusions, while largely ignoring other issues and points (some examples of which I've pointed out).

There's already a 'virtual' debate going on in the form of the articles and responses, and the interested public is reaching their own conclusions about the merits. I'm aware of Craig's challenge to me to debate him verbally http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate, a format which is different from textual debate, and which I have not practiced and don't have experience in. I prefer to read and write, and don't usually watch videos or listen to audio.

I've become increasingly familiar with, and critical of, CIT's work as a result of Adam's incessant posting about it here at 911blogger; I was mostly not paying attention to it during the time CIT was posting here, and I was not a moderator until Sep 09. If I accept Craig's challenge, I'm sure Adam will be one of the first to know. In any case, there is already a great deal of public info on our "positions and conclusions."

As Adam raised this 'debate' issue, I'll also note that CIT (and PFT )- afaik- have yet to submit an actual paper outlining their evidence and conclusions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, though they've published material on their own websites, and are selling videos. If the JO911S peer-review and publication process is flawed/biased, formally submitting a paper and having it peer-reviewed would help document that. In addition, in comments on forums and from their own websites, CIT and PFT have criticized that journal and Dr. Legge's Pentagon paper which references their work, but, afaik, they have not submitted a letter for peer-review and publication, in response to Dr. Legge's paper.

You'd think if they were "comfortable" with their "positions and conclusions", they'd do so, no?

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

Show "Pilots for Truth and JO911S" by Adam Syed

scientific method, trial by jury, & the court of public opinion

Adam still hasn't addressed anything from the previous comment, and has addressed only 1 point in my reply to his repost of Craig's debate challenge; I had forgotten that JO911S published PFT's press release from almost 3 years ago. So, it seems Adam is implicitly acknowledging neither PFT nor CIT have put out a paper for peer-reviewed publication which presents their evidence and analysis, and that neither PFT nor CIT has formally responded to Dr. Legge's paper with a letter submitted for peer-review.

In addition, Adam has misrepresented the notice at JO911S' homepage by selectively quoting from it; it also says:
"We will continue for the time being to provide a service for researchers who wish to present a new finding or a new point of view but who feel that their contribution would not be suitable for a mainstream journal. We will also be happy to receive sound, substantial work which has nevertheless been rejected by others." http://www.journalof911studies.com

This would seem pretty obvious, as, in addition to other papers and letters, JO911S has published 7 versions of Dr. Legge's paper!

Adam: "CIT's work is not the kind of work which requires scientific peer review. It simply requires jury review, i.e. citizen review." and "Once again, such information does not require peer review in the scientific sense, just in the jury sense."

So, Adam, are you admitting you believe CIT's work won't pass peer-review, that their methods and conclusions are not scientific?

That Craig is claiming Ed Paik pointing to his roof from inside the office is proof of N path- while ignoring the fact that Ed repeatedly acknowledges that's his "feeling" that's where the body was (and in 2006 he described the body as "gray"), ignoring the line of sight Ed points out thru the window, ignoring his statement that he believed the plane was high enough and far S enough to hit the VDOT antenna, and ignoring the fact that what he described could've been seen if the plane was around the official path, and that this correlates better with what Vignola, Zakhem and Morin 2001 said, as I pointed out in my article- is just one recent example.

CIT's work is being tried in the court of public opinion, and while it might fool some people, it's not going to persuade the public at large or a jury- all the witnesses being subpoenaed and subject to cross-examination, and CIT's witnesses to N path- in addition to stating they saw the plane hit the Pentagon- being contradicted by these 18 S path witnesses, 8 of which CIT interviewed, incl. Roosevelt Roberts http://www.911blogger.com/node/22239, and there being no flyover witnesses (Roberts is not a flyover witness- see the article, and my comments on that thread), as well as the dozens and dozens of impact witnesses.
__________________________
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Show "Journal of 9/11 Studies not accepting new papers anyway" by Adam Syed

greater appreciation

Thanks Erik for taking the time to do it your way. I now have a greater appreciation for the thoroughness and methodology of Craig and the CIT team in regards to gathering witness testimony.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

"Star" Witness exposes CIT and supporters as Frauds

Roosevelt: It wasn't a- it wasn't a jet; it was a commercial aircraft.

Aldo: Okay. Did it have propellers, or did it have jet engines?

Roosevelt: It looked like jet engines, at that time.

Aldo: Jet engines. Okay. Um, uh- so- uh- y- how close were you to running outside 'cause this seemed to be pretty qui-eh- at least from what your account sounded like; it sounded like literally the explosion happened, and then you ran outside.

Aldo: I mean do you remember how many seconds it was when you heard the explosion and then saw that plane?

Roosevelt: From the time the explosion hit, 'til. . . I ran outside and saw- it's a loading dock, and you can run right out to the. . . look-out, and look off.

The video explains this explosion as the one he just saw on TV.....CIT pretends it's at the pentagon
4:50 mark of video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31LTIqcoTUg

Aldo: Uh-hum.

Roosevelt: And then uh. . . you see the flickering lights. . . uh, and saw the area, and then. . . uh, real quick I realized that it was some sort of attack, and there was going to be a counter-measure with it.

Aldo: Right. So, how many seconds-

Roosevelt: Uh. . .

Aldo: -would you guess?

Roosevelt: Maybe, uh. . . ten seconds tops.

Aldo: Ten seconds tops?

Roosevelt: Ten seconds tops.

Aldo: So you- you heard the explosion and ten seconds later you were outside and you were able to see that plane?

Roosevelt: Correct. You could see that plane just as clear as day. Couldn't miss it.

Aldo: Wha- what color was it; do you remember?

Roosevelt: Uh, it was- to me at that time, it looked like it was silver in color.
{{and that would be the same plane Lagasee describes--flight77}}

Aldo: Like silver in color; but you saw it over the south parking lot.

Roosevelt: Right; around the lane one area, and it was like banking just above the, uh, light poles like.
{{The lightpoles that were hit}}

The video points out where this is just before it's impact...

7:45 mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31LTIqcoTUg

Aldo: Okay. And ho-

Roosevelt: Had to been no more than- had to been no more than fifty feet or less than a hundred feet.

video shows this as where flight 77 hit the poles where Penny Eglas was at....

7:53 Mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31LTIqcoTUg

Penny Eglas was near these lightpoles and confirms this as well, she said 40 to 50 feet....

4:50 mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNY2x9FbdWA

Aldo: Wow. And s- ho- do you remember how many engines you saw on it?

Roosevelt: Uh, couldn't tell for the engines.

Aldo: And it was- was it moving fast?

Roosevelt: Oh, it was moving extremely fast. It was like, uh. . . maybe you saw the aircraft maybe for like, uh-a quick five seconds.

Aldo: For a quick five seconds. But you definitely- and you saw it over the south parking lot. . . over lane one?

Roosevelt: In the south- in the south parking lot over lane one.

Aldo: Okay. Do you- do you remember which direction it was headed?

Roosevelt: Uh, coming from the, uh 27 side 27 heading, uh. . . uh, east towards DC; coming from that area, uh, there's a highway.

Roosevelt: If you were to come up 395. . . uh, north heading towards the Pentagon, and you got off in south parking. . . you were like right there, 'cause 395 went right into 27.

The video (the bonus video)points out this is flt 77 flight path just before impact....
7:40 mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMSQ1YYRkHI&feature=related

Aldo: So from where- from where it had headed away from the Pentagon, which direction was it heading?

Roosevelt: From the w- uh, can you repeat that one more time, please?

It flew into the pentagon of course so this question confuses Roberts, but Alpo will point out to him that now he's talking about the second plane..there was a second plane you know, and CIT knows this as well...

Aldo: Yeah, when it was heading away from the Pentagon, this- this SECOND PLANE?

Roosevelt: Right.

Aldo: -wh- do you remember which-

Roosevelt: Right.

Aldo: -which direction it was heading?

Roosevelt: It was, uh. . . it was heading, um. . . back across 27. . . and it looks like. . . it appeared to me- I was in the south, and that plane was heading. . . like, um. . . southwest. . . coming out.

Aldo: So like banking around; turning back around?

Roosevelt: Correct.

Aldo: Okay.

Roosevelt: Banking- banking around, coming back out, turning southwest. . . and going straight across.

That would be the c 130

Here is the c 130 and the pilot who flew it....once again this no plane garbage is used against us, as Fetzer IMO potrays 9/11 truth in a negative way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFTNPEmZHXE

Steve Chaconas is in another of their DisInfo movies, where they make a fake flight path for flight 77. He saw the c 130 as well, but says he assumes it was a commercial airliner. It was 3000 feet in the air, this is an assumption. Well, we know the flight path of the c 130 and that is what he is describing. See the flight path of the c 130 and where Chaconas was here..the green dots are the c 130 flight path and the blue dots are flight 77, from the radar data.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnsM6Z-jHC4

The C 130 flying away from the pentagon....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXj066J4JUQ

Roosevelt: Yes, sir, that's not what I think: I saw it. It was two aircraft. That's for sure.

Star witness indeed!

What's hysterical is R Roberts, their "star" witness really was a star witness to expose their fraud, once you break it down. He saw both planes but not only that placed the plane at the lightpoles where CIT claims the plane never was so CIT claims they planted the poles and accused the old cabbie, and others of being "in on it". Flyover witness LOL! Except this isn't funny what these frauds did, and it's about time 9/11 truth conducted an "Operation Accountability" on CIT and their supporters. They accused innocent people of being mass murder accomplices, and need to atone for that. Jim Hoffman said what their doing is despicable, I think Hoffman's being nice.

Roosevelt: Yes, sir, that's not what I think: I saw it. It was two aircraft. That's for sure.

Show "Fallacy of Omission from Truthers???" by Swingdangler

Read Much?

Swingdangler said...."If you going to do a character attack at least have the facts straight."

I agree, so take your own advice.

Swingdangler said... "You'll notice that the above links that JIMD3100 links to committs a terrible fallacies of omissions in order to create false impressions and testimony."

No, I'm addressing the issues, not writing a book.

Swingdangler said..."Aldo: Okay. Did it have propellers, or did it have jet engines?
Roosevelt: It looked like jet engines, at that time."
"((NOT A C-130 PROP PLANE as the above post tries to claim.))"

How about getting your facts straight. I never claimed he saw the c 130 near the south parking lot. He saw two planes, and he descibed that one as a silver jet liner, he describes the c 130 later when he is asked about the SECOND plane.

He makes it clear the event he is descibing is from the TV showing events in NY....
Roosevelt: "As I hang up the phone, the plane hit the building, it all came at the same time, WATCHING THE TV, it was like it was almost timed."
4:50 mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31LTIqcoTUg

Swingdangler said...."((NOTICE IN NONE OF HIS ACCOUNTS DOES HE DESCRIBE THE PLANE HITTING THE PENTAGON , THE RESULTING FIREBALL, OR EVEN CLAIMING THE PLANE HE SAW HIT THE PENTAGON AFTER SEEING IT! No where does he claim he saw the jet THAT hit the Pentagon, only the jet that was heading away from the Pentagon. Sheesh.))"

How about getting your facts straight. If he's on the south loading dock, how can he watch a plane go into the west wedge? But he knows it hit of course, because he's not an idiot, like the people falling for this garbage.

Aldo: Wha- what color was it; do you remember?
Roosevelt: Uh, it was- to me at that time, it looked like it was silver in color.

Again, this is about to hit the pentagon, the same plane AA Silver...and where is it?....

Aldo: Like silver in color; but you saw it over the south parking lot.
Roosevelt: Right; around the lane one area, and it was like banking just above the, uh, light poles like.

AGAIN, the exact same spot Penny Eglas sees the plane as well

Roosevelt: Had to been no more than- had to been no more than fifty feet or less than a hundred feet.

And Penny said it was 40 -50 feet, they are both describing the same plane, the one Penny watched go into the Pentagon.

Now pay attention, he is putting this silver commercial airliner at the same spot Penny Eglas was where the lightpoles were hit just before it's impact....

Roosevelt: Uh, coming from the, uh 27 side 27 heading, uh. . . uh, east towards DC; coming from that area, uh, there's a highway.

Roosevelt: If you were to come up 395. . . uh, north heading towards the Pentagon, and you got off in south parking. . . you were like right there, 'cause 395 went right into 27.

Are you able to comprehend this? Again...which way is it heading? It's heading EAST. and where is it located? Here let me help you out with that....
7:40 mark...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMSQ1YYRkHI&feature=related

Now, we are about to talk about the SECOND PLANE which was a c 130 try and pay attention....

Aldo: So from where- from where it had headed away from the Pentagon, which direction was it heading?
Roosevelt: From the w- uh, can you repeat that one more time, please?

Now Alpo wants to know where it was heading away from the pentagon, and Roosevelt has no answer because it's a stupid question, it hit the pentagon, so Alpo clarifies his question....

Aldo: Yeah, when it was heading away from the Pentagon, this- this SECOND PLANE,-?
Roosevelt: Right.

Are you paying attention? He can answer this question now because Alpo has made it clear that they are now going to talk about the SECOND PLANE! There were two planes, maybe you still haven't figured that out yet, but ignorance is the main tool CIT uses to con chumps into this BS. Now for the SECOND plane which was a c 130...

Aldo: -which direction it was heading?
*04:01
Roosevelt: It was, uh. . . it was heading, um. . . back across 27. . . and it looks like. . . it appeared to me- I was in the south, and that plane was heading. . . like, um. . . southwest. . . coming out.
Aldo: So like banking around; turning back around?
Roosevelt: Correct.
Aldo: Okay.
Roosevelt: Banking- banking around, coming back out, turning southwest. . . and going straight across.
*04:32
Aldo: Okay, so-
Roosevelt: And that was-
Aldo: -did it look like it went out over the river, and- and kind of turned around?
Roosevelt: Um, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around; because you've got. . . the mall there, and then- where I was, was south; and the plane,. . . from the direction it was sitting, was facing west; so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon.
Aldo: Sou- southwest away from the Pentagon, okay; so kind of doing a U-turn, in a way?
Roosevelt: Right.

How about taking a look at the flight path of the SECOND plane, the c 130....
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/C-1...

How about learning what the actual flight paths of these planes were, it's here AGAIN....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnsM6Z-jHC4

Swingdangler said..."((UH OH. MISSED THE TARGET AND BACK TO THE AIRPORT?)) Hmmm what could this be?"

How about taking a reading comprehension class?
Roosevelt: Well, no, not heading towards the airport;

Roosevelt: Commercial aircraft.

Swingdangler said..."((NOT A C-130 MILITARY AIRCRAFT))"

Hey sherlock, try and convince the forum that most people would identify this as a military plane....BTW someone did...it was Keith Wheelhouse, which is why CIT insist you call Wheelhouse an agent....but here it is.......This is the c 130 flying away from the pentagon just as he described, some thought it was a commercial plane...gee, I wonder why....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXj066J4JUQ

Roosevelt: Yes, sir, that's not what I think: I saw it. It was two aircraft. That's for sure.

Swingdangler said..."((UH OH..CRITICS-"ALMOST LIKE WHERE THAT FIRST PLANE HAD, UM...FLEW INTO THE, UM PENTAGON RIGHT THERE. IT IT IT LOOKED LIKE IT CAME FROM THAT DIRECTION"))"

"((SO ITS NOT THE ATTACK PLANE!! DOLT What commercial aircraft in the airspace for less than 6 seconds could this be???))"

You have a reading comprehension problem. He is describing the SECOND PLANE, how many times does this need to be pointed out to you? Try looking at the flight paths....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXj066J4JUQ

I would suggest a reading comprehension class. Guess you missed this part...

"Aldo: -so there was another commercial aircraft in the area as- as the, uh. . . the plane hit then, basically. Is that what you think?
Roosevelt: Yes, sir, that's not what I think: I saw it. It was two aircraft. That's for sure."

And for sure there was. But it wasn't commercial. It's a well established fact that there were two and we know what they were. The passenger jet and the c 130. There were no others. And why would he assume the other plane (c 130) was commercial? Anyone can see the plane themselves right here and the answer becomes obvious.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXj066J4JUQ

You also have a problem with your disgusting accusations against Wheelhouse, seems a John O’Keefe on Sept 12 confirmed Wheelhouse's account and what I'm telling you about this c 130 as well....

"Northern Virginia resident John O’Keefe was one of the many commuters who witnessed the attack on the Pentagon."

“The first thing I did was pull over onto the shoulder, and when I got out of the car I saw another plane flying over my head, and it scared ...me, because I knew there had been two planes that hit the World Trade Center. And I started jogging up the ramp to get as far away as possible."

“Then the plane -- it looked like a C-130 cargo plane -- started turning away from the Pentagon, it did a complete turnaround.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010918054047/http://www.nylawyer.com/news/0...

Let's recap...
“Then the plane -- it looked like a C-130 cargo plane -- started turning away from the Pentagon, it did a complete turnaround. -John O’Keefe
http://web.archive.org/web/20010918054047/http://www.nylawyer.com/news/0...

Roosevelt: Um, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around; because you've got. . . the mall there, and then- where I was, was south; and the plane,. . . from the direction it was sitting, was facing west; so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon.
Aldo: Sou- southwest away from the Pentagon, okay; so kind of doing a U-turn, in a way?

c 130 flight path or as Alpo and Mr Roberts called it---THE SECOND PLANE .....

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/C-1...

BTW--even if you insist on ignoring the fact that every witness they talked to said they saw a passenger jet fly into the pentagon, and even if you insist on ignoring all the physical evidence confirming what they saw, and even if you desperately want to believe the plane Roberts saw was the same plane that approached the west wedge of the pentagon then (according to the CIT loons)flew over the pentagon (and fooled everybody) LOL! you are aware aren't you that it is physically impossible for it to appear a few seconds later in the area (South parking lot near the lightpoles)in which Roberts says....right?
There is not a person on this or any other planet that claims to have seen a missile hit the pentagon, or a plane fly over it.....what does that tell you?

Have you purchased 500 CIT DVDs for the great low price of only $1000? Could you please do me a favor and when you give your DVD to your local congressman explaining to him how every witness talked to by our "9/11 truth reporters" claimed to have seen a passenger jet hit the pentagon therby proving as a scientific fact that no plane hit the pentagon, and you demand that he arrest the cab driver, could you please do a youtube video of it so we can have it on the record forever your "contribution" for 9/11 truth, and something I can check out now and again for a laugh?

Show "Omit, Omit, Omit and character attacks? Why?" by Swingdangler

You got Pentaconned and Loved it!

Swingdangler said..."How many times you run outside after watching replays on TV? LOL."

Probably the same number of times I've run outside to get a good look at a "silver jet airliner" that's about to hit the building I'm in.

Swingdangler said..."Don't you think he would elaborate that he just saw the plane that hit the Pentagon? The resulting fireball
and smoke? The shock wave and explosion? Nawww what does he talk about? A second commercial aircraft leaving the area after running out onto the docks."

Wrong. On the docks he descibed the silver airliner heading EAST toward the pentagon that is about to get hit by it and AT THE LIGHT POLES, that you still can't figure out who planted them. No one did. So how did they get knocked down...I'll give you a hint.....he describes a silver jet airliner at the very lightpoles that CIT claims the plane was never at. Work on that reading comprehension thing. He descibes the SECOND PLANE when Alpo asks him about the second plane.

Swingdangler said..."What does he see in the area? Two commercial aircraft, the "2nd one" coming from the same direction as the impact."

Still haven't figure out how to watch a youtube video with both flight paths I see. You're quite the "investigator".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnsM6Z-jHC4

Swingdangler said..."No where in his story does Roberts claim he saw a military aircraft, a C-130, etc. He stresses the second plane is a commercial plane. You tend to ignore this fact.
Guess what else you ignored? If you said the altitude of the C-130, you would be correct!"

Not only did I not ignore any of that I showed a video of the c 130 which showed why he assumed it was a commercial plane. Useing your logic the plane that Lagasse and Brookes described has a secret technology that changes it's colors within nano seconds. Lagasse said it was a silver American Airlines. Therefor it had to be a Silver American Airlines. Brooks said it was white with a united logo. Therefor it was white with a united Logo. Guess what sherlock? It can't be both. Wheelhouse descibed the second plane as a c 130 So did O’Keefe. Roberts descibed it as a commercial airliner, guess what sherlock? It can't be both. We know it was a c 130. There was no other plane, and he describes it's flight path, or was that just a coincidence?

Swingdangler said..."Go ahead and list the people who saw the impact and then less than 10 seconds later saw a C-130 on a dive run seconds after the explosion."

Work on that reading comprehension thing. The 10 seconds was how long Roberts said it took him to be out on the docks observing the first plane, the silver plane that crashed into the pentagon. And this may be a shock to you but not to anyone else. I can see a plane well before it reaches my location. Know how? With eyes. Planes are in the sky and you can see them before they arrive.

Swingdangler said..."John O’Keefe. Your not good at this debunking are you? Go back and read his account. See if you can determine how many seconds or minutes passed between the time O'Keefe experienced the explosion and then saw the C-130. Guess what? You can't because he doesn't tell you!!

And neither does Roberts. This is the part where you are supposed to say 10 seconds because you don't know how to read. That was in reference to the first plane the silver one, that crashed into the building. Not the SECOND PLANE which was the c 130

Swingdangler said..."But for you to push Roberts seeing the C-130 as the second plane seconds after the explosion, you have to lie about O'Keefe seeing the C-130 seconds after the Pentagon explosion. Guess what? the C-130 showed up nearly 3 minutes later. See the Tribby video and listen to the C-130 pilot's interview. OOOPSSS! You fail."

Who's lieing? Roberts said he saw the second plane how long after the impact? 10 seconds? Wrong...that is the first plane.....learn how to read.

Swingdangler said..."You claim Roberts sees the C-130 banking and turning. He NEVER said that."

ooops...
Aldo: So like banking around; turning back around?
Roosevelt: Correct.
Aldo: Okay.
Roosevelt: Banking- banking around, coming back out, turning southwest. . . and going straight across.

Swingdangler said..."He says it was a commercial plane that did that seconds after he heard the explosion, saw the ceiling tiles fall, and then ran outside within 10 seconds."

Wrong. Will you please stop posting until you take a reading comprehension class? For instance.....

Aldo: Ten seconds tops?
Roosevelt: Ten seconds tops.
Roosevelt: Correct. You could see that plane just as clear as day. Couldn't miss it.
Roosevelt: Uh, it was- to me at that time, it looked like it was silver in color.

See? That's the first plane.....you really haven't got a clue as to what you are talking about, you are utterly confused....which is why you are so easily conned by loons.

Swingdangler said..."Why do you ignore the pilot of the C-130?????????????"

You mean like when I posted a video of the pilot himself? Or when I posted his flight path? LOL..You seem to be ignoring him...and calling him a commercial airline pilot for some reason. Oh yea, because Roberts said commercial....I'll remind you again that Brooks said the plane he and Lagasee saw was white, while Lagasse said it was silver AA....nearly everyone else in the world knows witnesses aren't perfect, which is why all the physical evidence has to be ignored by you, that's very scientific.

Swingdangler said..."Have I purchased 500 cd's? Nope. I've never purchased a thing from CIT."

LOL! So much for your "operation accountability". Don't forget to make that youtube video when you give your free CIT video to your congressman..That's gonna be a classic!

Swingdangler said..."A friend in the Army who was training to dismantle nukes at the time of 9/11. Himself and the men in his unit do not think the plane hit the Pentagon and this guy is trained in explosive ordinances and worked in the area on a daily basis. Hmm go figure."

LOL...all the men in his unit.....yea I'm sure you are their spokesman. Well, then if some guy you talked to in the Army said...LOL! Using that logic I got some news for ya, I was in the Army, and the Air Force. I worked Law Enforcement and counter intelligence, I have interviewed witnesses before at crime scenes. So I guess I'm the expert here huh? But see...that's your logic not mine. No one needs anything to figure this out but a tad of common sense. Uh- oh...did I just expose myself as a secret agent of the NWO, trying to stop 9/11 truth from our genius plan of "fooling" everyone by flying the plane over the pentagon? Dang it. LOL! Get a clue.

Swingdangler said..."Those who claim to have seen the impact are deductionists."

No, they're witnesses, the ones that see a plane 3000 feet in the air and assume it was a commercial airliner are deductionists. But it's easy to see why they would deduce that when they are seeing this.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXj066J4JUQ

"You would too deduce that if you ducked, turned away, dove to the ground, jumped into your cruiser, etc. etc. There is something called situational awareness. Look it up."

Let's take a look at these deductionists who ducked, turned away, and dove to the ground shall we?

So did this person Duck, turn away, or dove to the ground? LOL! .....

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PTRsuRao7A

ooops..that one doesn't count because he's "in on it".. I forgot sorry, LOL!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzBmgsjC6Nc&feature=related

he lived on the 16th floor and didn't see a flyover...did he duck? LOL!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H8CinIWltY&feature=PlayList&p=6FA2A86038...

Guess he got fooled huh? LOL! No, YOU did! You got pentaconned by a couple of loones. How embarrassing!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXq6H2kCtEU&feature=PlayList&p=6FA2A86038...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IURJBJ6tnC4&NR=1

another in a highrise who didn't see a flyover.....did she duck? LOL!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HBjxYrhI4E

Someone else who wasn't "fooled" YOU WERE!

Swingdangler said..."Don't cut n paste 'parts' of different accounts and then rearrange them to create your own time-line."

LOL! You mean like you just did?

Swingdangler said... "Don't turn 7-10 seconds into 3 minutes. Time travel doesn't work yet."

And you just did it again! LOL! How Embarrassing!

Swingdangler said..."Don't ignore information critical to the account and cherry pick statements to construct a false argument."

Like you just did? And what CIT base their whole existance on? LOL!

Swingdangler said..."Complete your research. Study the C-130 pilots account so you understand the factual time-line that took place. Your whole post should be deleted because it is completely destroyed by this military pilots account."

You mean the one I posted?

Swingdangler said..."DO NOT OMIT! That is the first clue that you aren't being honest in your research and postings."

You mean like all the accounts I included that you don't along with all the physical evidence, that you just brush off as planted because you can't deal with reality?

Swingdangler said..."Calling people names in your argument just displays your lack of knowledge."

You mean like gullible? Oh, I haven't used that till now.

Swingdangler said..."You've alluded that I'm an idiot, I have no reading comprehension, you allude to a profit motive, state I made a disgusting claim about Wheelhouse which I haven't until this post."

"state I made a disgusting claim about Wheelhouse which I haven't until this post."

So I guess that makes me a prophet? Or someone who knows your argument better than you do?

BTW, have you figured this part out yet?.....

Even if you insist on ignoring the fact that every witness they talked to said they saw a passenger jet fly into the pentagon, and even if you insist on ignoring all the physical evidence confirming what they saw, and even if you desperately want to believe the plane Roberts saw was the same plane that approached the west wedge of the pentagon then (according to the CIT loons)flew over the pentagon (and fooled everybody) LOL! you are aware aren't you that it is physically impossible for it to appear a few seconds later in the area (South parking lot near the lightpoles)in which Roberts says....right?
There is not a person on this or any other planet that claims to have seen a missile hit the pentagon, or a plane fly over it.....what does that tell you?

Swingdangler, a guy so smitten with being conned by loons that only 20 others including Alpo and Stinke of CIT could beat him to sign up at their forum. HOW EMBARRASSING!

Roosevelt: Yes, sir, that's not what I think: I saw it. It was two aircraft. That's for sure.

Flight 77 and C 130...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnsM6Z-jHC4

And just for fun.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31LTIqcoTUg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNY2x9FbdWA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98EMY_zFt68

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMSQ1YYRkHI

Double Post

double post

Show "Why?" by Swingdangler

Remember what my sig used to be...

"I make a point of reading all the downvoted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments." Which itself was a quote from someone else.

As someone at the CIT forum said: The anti CIT clique at Blogger and the "debunkers" seem to be converging like the pigs and the humans in George Orwell's Animal Farm.

Roberts Timing

Since the above posts and reviewing the entries I've come to the conclusion that those who critique Roberts account in order to change his timeline MUST IGNORE the following comments by Roberts:
-----------------------
Aldo: I mean do you remember how many seconds it was when you heard the explosion and then saw that plane?

Roosevelt: From the time the explosion hit, 'til. . . I ran outside and saw- it's a loading dock, and you can run right out to the. . . look-out, and look off.

Aldo: Uh-hum.

Roosevelt: And then uh. . . you see the flickering lights. . . uh, and saw the area, and then. . . uh, real quick I realized that it was some sort of attack, and there was going to be a counter-measure with it.

------------------------
What is claimed by those in the above post is that Roberts ran outside after the second attack replay on the twin towers. This doesn't makes sense of course but in order to hold this false belief YOU MUST IGNORE ROBERTS COMMENTS ABOVE!

Roberts runs outside after the explosion HIT and after the lights flicker and ceiling tiles fall in his office. Please explain how a the replay of the second tower getting hit, causes all of these physical anomalies at the Pentagon that caused Roberts to run outside? LOL!

The point is you CAN'T! You have to accept that what he saw was not the impact plane but something else and it wasn't the C-130 propeller driven plane.

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