BYU and Prof. Steven Jones revisited

A few days ago I was asked by a distinguished Professor at the University of Massachusetts what happened to me at BYU, in my own words. I often get this question and would like to say the following.

1. In September 2005, I presented a colloquium at Brigham Young University (BYU) in a large auditorium, presenting the physical evidence I had accumulated by then that the “official story” of the 9/11 disaster (that it was all due to Al Qaeda ALONE with no US foreknowledge of the attacks) was highly suspicious. I had invited professors from across campus and many came, from numerous disciplines including physics, math, psychology, engineering. I asked them to take the “kid gloves off” and tell me where I was in error. In particular, we watched the rapid, nearly-symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 – which was NOT hit by a plane and yet fell to the ground seven hours after the Towers were completely destroyed.

After two hours, we had to leave because a class had the room scheduled. But before we left, I asked those present (about 70 in all) if they agreed with me that an investigation into 9/11 events was warranted. By show of hands, none disagreed with this proposition, except one, a geology professor. The next day, he saw me on campus and said that he had changed his mind and that he now supported a full investigation into 9/11. Note that a large number of professors supporting an investigation of the full story of 9/11 is not the same as an endorsement by BYU.

A number of those in attendance provided helpful, critical comments for my nascent paper published later in a volume by Profs. David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, and available on-line here: This peer-reviewed paper includes discussion of this colloquium/review described above.

One could say that this was an initial “peer-review” for my research in this area, a peer-review that I sought out well before the paper was published, and at no time have I shied away from scientific peer-review of my research (on the contrary). There was a more formal peer-review process on the paper as well, by multiple referees. The paper was finally approved for publication following extensive peer-review and published in about August 2006:

Professors David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, editors, 9/11 And The American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Northhampton, MA: Interlink Publishing, 2006. It was re-published on-line by kind permission of the editors (see link above). One of the editors (Prof. Griffin) has explained that there were four reviewers for my paper, all Ph.D’s. To clarify some apparent confusion: the paper is not published in “The Hidden History of 9-11-2001,” Elsevier, 2006, although that volume does contain a number of relevant articles.
2. In April 2006, I presented a talk regarding my 9/11 research findings at a meeting of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters. I recall that the abstract for this talk was reviewed and approved by a fellow BYU Physics Professor, and my contribution was subsequently published by the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters.

3. BYU placed me on administrative leave on Sept. 7, 2006, with reference to my research on 9/11 (see,5143,645199800,00.html?pg=1)

The University spokesperson clearly stated that "The university doesn't have an opinion regarding the theory."
[quote]“Jones was placed on administrative leave for publishing a theory that explosives were involved in the towers' collapse through channels university officials deemed inappropriate,"
BYU spokesperson Carri Jenkins said.
"The university doesn't have an opinion regarding the theory," she said.”

This was an important distinction -- BYU was specifically NOT stating an opinion regarding my "theory" which challenges the official narrative of 9/11, the highly-publicized "official theory" that ONLY ill-trained Muslim hijackers were involved in the complete destruction of three WTC skyscrapers, one of which was not hit by a plane (WTC 7), with no foreknowledge of the plans by the Bush-Cheney administration.

4. Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, director of the Transmission Electron Microscopy Laboratory at BYU was (and still is) permitted to work with me on my research. 

5. Based on that research, a group of scientists wrote the paper now published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," April 2009. There were two authors from BYU listed on that paper, Dr. Farrer (as second author) and Daniel Farnsworth. Their affiliation with the BYU Department of Physics and Astronomy was listed in the paper as anyone can see by referring to this paper in an established, peer-reviewed journal:
Deseret News article on the paper:

6. Retiring Professors at BYU (at least in the Department of Physics and Astronomy) often are allowed a shared office on campus and to keep a research web page and to continue research, and given emeritus status. One can find this out by asking several retirees; it is not a secret. In response to numerous questions – in my retirement, I was probably treated in a more-or-less standard way.

7. It is apparent from the news media at the time that BYU had been under considerable pressure regarding my 9/11 research; this was particularly clear in radio talk-shows in 2005-2006 (e.g., by Bob Lonsberry, KNRS). Further, we understand from press releases that Dick Cheney's office or the White House approached BYU leaders, and this resulted in Cheney's coming to BYU to give a commencement address just three months after my "early retirement" from BYU, in April 2007. BYU -- to its credit -- allowed TWO on-campus demonstrations against the policies of Dick Cheney in spring 2007. Again, this information is available publicly in the media. (How many protests has BYU allowed through the years? Very few!)

In view of such facts, my friend and fellow 9/11-researcher Kevin Ryan said "Hurray for BYU!" And I have to agree.

Reply from Professor Niels Harrit, Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark (March 13, 2010)


Steven: I am glad that you can see beyond your own (and ours!) annoyance and point to the positive aspects of BYUs handling of their situation.
Let me hasten to join Kevin and cheer for BYU – loud and clear.
We have to acknowledge the political space they live and operate in, and BYU deserves the credits you point out.
One senses a high level of decency at BYU.
Kind of the same thing I feel in the mainstream press these days. The young journalists try to squeeze some information in and take the discussion as far as they can before they run their head into the editors hammer.

Steven E. Jones

Professor of Physics (retired)

PS -- In my email to the distinguished professor in Massachusetts, I added that I feel that an INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATION conducted by scientists and engineers and others is needed -- not a US-congressional investigation at this time. She agreed with me, writing:

"I entirely agree with your suggested objective: an international review body to investigate 9/11, with scientists and engineers from a number of participating countries... In fact, I suspect that this is THE ONLY way to get national and international coverage so extensive that the US media will have to follow the news stories."

With regard to current activities, I am pursuing energy-related research at this time. This is an area where I continue to have support. For example, see: . Experiments involving a low-energy deuteron beam impinging on a liquid lithium target are ready to launch at BYU... stay tuned.

American dependence on foreign oil is causing great problems. It is time to declare American Independence a second time -- this time, energy independence.

Thank you, Dr. Jones.

I'm glad to hear that BYU is supporting you and continuing to support you and your work. Thank you also for providing the above information. Hopefully, it will silence some of the debunkers and attackers that think they know what happened at BYU.


This, combined with the former Controlled Demolition Inc. employee speaking out, serves as a great one-two punch against the anti-truthers.

Thank you for everything Dr. Jones.

ETA: I never knew this:

We know from press releases that Dick Cheney's office contacted BYU; and this resulted in Cheney's coming to BYU to give a commencement address just three months after my "early retirement" from BYU.

Do tell!


Which CDI employee are you referring to?

This one.

Thank you from me as well.

This is helpful to have from you Dr. Jones as another piece of the puzzle. Thank you for your hard work!

Thank you!

I have always admired Dr. Jones for his incredibly valuable and thorough scientific research; but moreso he has served for me as a beacon of sincere integrity. It has always been saddening to see him, and others like him such as Kevin Ryan punished for doing the right thing. Of course, future generations will celebrate himself, Neils Harrit, David Ray Griffin et all for the heroic scholars they are and for being leading voices of reason from the wilderness; but that is a somewhat cold comfort when we hear of their misfortunes here and now at the hands of those they are trying to help.

All the best to yourself and your wife Dr. Jones!

Brigham Young University

BYU obviously had a knee-jerk reaction to the information being presented by Steven Jones. However, if they had come out in support of Steven Jones, they would have had to endure a maelstrom of criticism, a hostile media, and could have been threatened financially by alumni donors. The situation, as it transpired, was about the best we could have hoped for.

I've always wondered how much "the powers that be" pay attention to our little truth movement. Noting the incident with Dick Cheney, I would guess more than we imagine.

"With regard to current activities, I am pursuing energy-related research at this time. This is another where I continue to have support at BYU. Our experiments at BYU involving a low-energy deuteron beam impinging on a liquid lithium target are ready to launch... stay tuned."

Steven, I hope you are not giving up on 9/11? Do you still plan to stay active in the cause, or have you ceded the field to Richard Gage and AE911Truth.

Thank you Prof. Jones

I did not know all the details of your forced retirement or the positions of Dr. Jeffrey Farrer and Daniel Farnsworth. You stated that Dr. Farrer is the director of the Transmission Electron Microscopy Laboratory at BYU. What is Daniel Farnsworth's position/title?

The main point is that BYU found your paper on Active Thermitic Material credible science.and approved it for publication in the Open Chemical Physics Journal. Let your critics choke on that one. ;-)

You are a patriot and an inspiration to us all.

Carry on

Thanks Steven Jones

"In my email to this distinguished professor, I added that I feel that an INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATION conducted by scientists and engineers and others is needed -- not a US-congressional investigation at this time. She agreed with me, writing:

"I entirely agree with your suggested objective: an international review body to investigate 9/11, with scientists and engineers from a number of participating countries... In fact, I suspect that this is THE ONLY way to get national and international coverage so extensive that the US media will have to follow the news stories.""

I guess this position is therefore at odds with those who are pinning their hopes on a new congressional investigation. For this reason alone, Truth Leaders should get together and map out the most effective strategy as the time factor works against us.

Good luck Steve and keep up the excellent work!


Here's a poem I composed in your honor:

For Steven Jones, the authors of the Active Thermitic Material paper, and Isaiah 29

Your Speech Shall Whisper Out of the Dust

All returns to earth and clay
The living, sky, waters,
The fires.

Consumed by processes
The earth speaks through sounds and motions
Guided by prophesies.

Atomized lives mingle with earth stopped torments,
Quieted, except the sounds let loose through

Those sounds, those whispers…

Your speech shall whisper out of the dust.

Fine particles of thought and emotion
Smaller than electrons find pathways
To those who give thanks, those who connect to time before.
All that is time, is sacred.

Your speech shall whisper out of the dust.

Life happens because of connection.
Connection is the thread transcendent.
Connection leads to what is and what can be.

The time has arrived.
Connection speaks. The earth speaks.

Revealed is the story of what is and what was.

Your speech shall whisper out of the dust.

Yes, the GOALS/Vision need to be discussed and-

and agreed upon by the Truth and Peace Community. (I prefer this appellation to "9/11 Truthers").

""I entirely agree with your suggested objective: an international review body to investigate 9/11, with scientists and engineers from a number of participating countries... In fact, I suspect that this is THE ONLY way to get national and international coverage so extensive that the US media will have to follow the news stories.""

I guess this position is therefore at odds with those who are pinning their hopes on a new congressional investigation. For this reason alone, Truth Leaders should get together and map out the most effective strategy as the time factor works against us."

Agreed. How do we DO this? very important IMO.

And thanks for the poem, John.

The time factor ...

I agree 100% ... "Truth Leaders should get together and map out the most effective strategy", but I'm not so sure the time factor works against us - I'm more inclined to think it works to our advantage... after all, there is no statute of limitation for mass murder.

Time factor

If there is no 9/11 truth breakthrough, another, even more devastating 9/11 could follow and we may already be seeing the groundwork being laid for it ("nuclear Al-Qaida"). That is one way in which time may be against us.

And consider this: WTC -93 -> 6 deaths. OKC bombing -> 200 deaths. 9/11 -> 3,000 deaths.

Thanks for all the comments and encouragement.

Daniel Farnsworth was a student in Physics at the time of the research; he has since graduated (Bachelors degree in Physics).

"Steven, I hope you are not giving up on 9/11? Do you still plan to stay active in the cause, or have you ceded the field to Richard Gage and AE911Truth."

I have certainly not "given up on 9/11" but remain active in both 9/11-research and alternative energy studies. Richard is doing great things in speaking; others continue in primary research. Here I include Kevin Ryan, Niels Harrit, Frank Legge, Brad Larsen, Crockett Grabbe, David Chandler and others. I'm watching for a paper by Dr. Grabbe (challenging Seffen) in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics very soon.

Thanks - and a question

Thank you, Dr. Jones, for this clear and informative presentation on BYU's position toward--and role in--your 9/11 research; and for all of your efforts to uncover the truth of 9/11.

There is one point in particular I'm curious about: 'Specifically the chair of the BYU Department of Physics and Astronomy approved publication and told me personally this was sound scientific research and that he was now persuaded that explosives/pyrotechnics were involved in the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11.'

Has this professor been willing to be identified by name as now being so persuaded?

alternative fuel

9/11 woke me up
that led me to finding out how the oil trust formed the Fed
i think the way forward to devolve power from a monolithic empire down to separate non warring countries and regions is alternative energy securitised by non debt-created currency

a currency could be hours (1 hour is an hour of manual labor )

as for energy, deep-bore geothermal powerplants and big ultra capacitors in cars but less high tech:

Prof Jones work is amazing and many people are grateful...

..But re "credible science.", IMHO it would be best to stop spreading links to until certain questions are answered about their publishing practices:

Fortunately some of this work has been confirmed by other sources. Honestly , I can't help think whoever referred them to Bentham was setting up this work.


It would be nice if you could stop endorsing vacant attacks on Bentham, and start standing up for the sound science of Jones and his colleagues which was published though them. Is that just too much to ask of you?

Show "..." by influence device


Didn't you send me a tetchy message at Truthaction requesting "I cease and desist " contacting you? It works so much better when you're not trolling that person to respond to you. It also makes you look a prat whinging to mods about me "hassling" you.

And if you're reading comprehension was up to snuff, you'd see I DO support "Jones and his colleagues " work. That's why looking into the question of Bentham's publishing practices is a good idea, to help that work.

Also it was Arcterus--and loads of kick-ass intelligent atheists at Youtube--, who brought that video to our attention, not me. Here's a helpful link for everyone:

Now, Pav, I'll go back to honoring your apparent desire to be left alone--IF you don't respond to my posts again. Toodles!

FYI--this looks like another attempt at helping criminals

Try to hunt down people.

It should work eventually, assuming she is on the side of truth. Granted, at this point I'm left to wonder; does anyone actually know if Sparks is even truely a "she" at all?

It is none of anyone's business who people are in 9/11 truth unless those individuals make it people's business. And criminals--proven to work with Nazis, crypto and otherwise--have more to worry about than the rest of us. As do web-masters who support criminal behaviour.

There's a great book called, "What the matter with Kansas". People should read it.


Who exactly are you saying is a criminal?

WARNING to commenters about posting others' personal info

Pavlovian Dogcatcher asked, "... does anyone actually know if Sparks is even truely a "she" at all?" This question is irrelevant, inappropriate, rude and off-topic, and the offending comment post has been unpublished.

Anyone that posts personal information regarding any user, which that user has not made public themselves, will be permanently banned from 911blogger.

Please understand

Sparks' comments to me have in general been "irrelevant, inappropriate, rude and off-topic", I was simply replying in turn. Also. Sparks' recommending the book "What's the Matter With Kansas?" is obviously implying he knows my state of residence, and over on Turth Action he did the same, along with indicating he knew I played videogames, and that I'm over 30; none of that being information I've made public myself. So, how would you suggest I respond to such belligerence, or do you just expect I should sit back and take it?

For those unfamiliar with "What's the Matter with Kansas"--

its an excellent analysis of how Right-wing politics hijacked the politics of what was once considered a very progressive state.

(Kansas was where the legitimacy of Slavery was first seriously challenged in the USA). In light of certain people's blind support of Barrett--who has been long suspected of having a crypto-Nazis/racist agenda--understanding the politics of identity--and how it can be used to manipulate a progressive population to adopt racist and bigoted agenda's --is useful to understand the BS they've been fed. In other words, reading the book may help progressive Truthers understand how the Right is trying to hijack 911truth. Any other meaning implied by the book is in the mind of the reader--and those who haven't bothered to check what the book is about.


"Also it was Arcterus--and loads of kick-ass intelligent atheists at Youtube--"

You cannot be serious.

Show "For the record" by Pavlovian Dogcatcher

I remember..

..wondering if Troy from WV was only pretending.

Hang on just a second here...

You're asking Prof. Jones and others to stop promoting the nanothermite paper?

THAT's what you're expressing in your first appearance here in eons, Col. Sparks?

ETA: SO who are the four people who voted this down the past hour? I'm curious. Why did you disagree with this post? Huh? This post did have 4 positive votes and now it's down to zero. 0. What's the objection????

I guess..

..we're not in Kansas anymore.

Good to see this account

While I can't help but be disappointed by the situation in general, I'm glad to hear BYU deserves far more credit than I realized.

Dr. Jones

......... the only thing more impressive than your work is your integrity. Thank you for all you do.

WTC Investigation

Understanding what caused the WTC towers to fall will likely be found in records or recollections pertaining to the extensive renovations that took place at the WTC just before 9/11. The renovation period was likely when the nano-thermite was introduced.

Records may be harder to obtain (especially those of private companies), but savvy investigators who specialize in locating individuals and obatining information from them could generate real information. These individuals include Port Authority and other private contractors (e.g.: Turner Construction, etc.).

What materials were applied to the WTC steel structures and how?

Researchers have generated sufficient evidence. The only investigation that now matters is one with jurisdiction over the crime. This includes local NY authorities. Progress has been made in this area but hopefully will continue.

And thank you Aiden. We can

And thank you Aiden. We can always count on good advice and gems from you.



Dr. Stephen Jones, and all the professionals with the strength of character, cannot sufficiently be thanked in words. Our hats go off to you, Sir.

International investigation, or local investigation?

Aidan raises a valid concern, that we now need local (NYC for example) investigators to jump in...
The question is, will they do it? How?

OTOH, an international team of scientists and engineers would (I suggest) form a panel, hear testimony from "both sides" and draw a conclusion. I believe this would bring media attention internationally which would bring whistleblowers out also, one would hope. I know of a few who would be called in to testify, or to provide video-taped testimony that would immediately get international media attention.
Rec'd an Email today -- DRG is favorable in general, details would need to be worked out.

Further comments on how or indeed whether this is a good idea are welcomed. Think big, think Niels Harrit in Europe and DR Griffin and Kevin Ryan and others testifying...

Obviously a panel with subpoena power would be ideal, but perhaps media pressure will work for some and bring forth insights.

Another thought would be to couple this investigation with a war-crimes investigation (to make the inquiry broader in scope).

Misprision pressure and leadership strategies

I have been attempting to organize monthly teleconferences with leaders of 9/11 movement and representatives of 9/11 truth organizations. We have had only partial success in uniting, but have supported campaigns such as NYC CAN referendum vote, AE911truth petition-campaigns, and Misprision of treason campaigns.

I believe that Misprision citizens' actions in reporting evidence of a crime on September 11, 2001 that continues today by its cover-up, would effectively confront Judges, Governors, and others to respond to oaths of office to protect the US Constitution, using 18 USC Par. 2382, "Misprision of Treason". This US code states:

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of any treason against them, conceals and does not , as soon as possible, make known the same to the President or to some judge or justice of a particular state, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both."

Hopefully the strong evidence will help Judges and especially anyone who has taken a sworn oath to protect the US Constitution, to respond appropriately. The evidence showing demolitions, not airplanes, brought down 3 WTC buildings is evident. To deny the truth seems motivated to maintain a justification for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. This crime of the US government and media complicity is a threat to us all.

Richard Gage is helping me with a document. If Dr. Jones and Richard Gage gave us their endorsement, I believe such a citizens-reporting campaign could be significant.

Here's my blog on for 9/11 Truth Leader Teleconference.

And incomplete blog on 9/11 Crime - Misprision - Citizens Action

Another Misprision campaign initiated by Don Meserlian is posted here: 9-11 TRUTH PROCLAMATION

The key for a major campaign is unity based on the facts, and true leadership, which is why I believe Prof. Jones is so important to where we go from here. Thanks for considering.

Jonathan Mark

Jonathon -- I support

Jonathon -- I support your efforts and I'm glad you're working with AE911Truth on a document.

Does anyone know what happened to the AE911Truth move to take NIST officials (Sundar and Gross) to court?

Grassroots and local legal actions across the country...

Jonathan's work educating us about how to handle the "misprison" approach is fantastic. Its civil, legal, dutiful, fact based and educational.

Should we get to a point where several simple documents that apply to various jurisdictions across te country, then indeed we can bring the solid evidence about 9/11 into our legal systems...and at all levels actually.

This approach allows, if not demands, us to use the governmental structures, laws and processes already established to bring unlawful behaviors to task.

Additionally, I support Steve Jones' preference for calling ourselves the:

...Truth and Peace Community...or...
...9/11 Truth and Peace Community...or...
...something along these lines.

Of course from my view, I do think that we should somehow include the word "World" in the Truth-Peace-9/11 moniker.

It does appear that we have matured beyond being a "Truther"...and this is a good thing.

I do not know if anyone else is hearing/seeing the word "Truth" being used more and more, but I do.

I was listening to Democracy Now cover the anniversary of the Kent State shootings, and some of the original participants or victims of those shootings used the word "truth" in the formation of their new group revisting the events and seeking the facts "truth" at Kent State.

This "truthy thing" is catching on...and an honest look at history will find Mike Malloy and the 9/11TM [Truth Community] being at the beginning of this century's approach and attitude.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

The "other side"

Thank you, Professor Jones, for your pursuit of truth.

Professor Jones proposed new investigation by scientists really makes me wonder what the "other side" would say at this point. There is no peer reviewed article for the "other side," and there's no way to twist political propaganda into answers any more because logic isn't involved. There isn't even a state agenda as there was in Germany during WWII, espoused by the contemporary scientists and engineers on the "other side," only paid opinions for continued funding perhaps for other projects. It remains to be seen why any scientist would agree to such a forum where bogus ideas would immediately be shot down by peers - not talking heads from TV land.

True --

proponents for the "official story" of 9/11 who will stand before a panel of peers will probably be few in number. That in itself says a lot, and would not be missed by the media.

Still, I think the chutzpah of some might bring them to the stand. Sundar and Gross of NIST should certainly be invited to defend the NIST documents, which have not yet had to pass peer-review.

An international investigation? Yes...but...

...without serious coverage by mainstream Amercan media it will prove to be pointless. It will go unseen by the general public, and will render government officials dumb and blind. Well, more dumb and more blind. IF that's possible. Can you imagine what FOX News would do with such a story? I'm sure you can.

What real power will an international body have? Will they have the ability to subpoena Dick Cheney? Donald Rumsfeld? Right. If all they nations of the earth declare the US "guilty" of Crimes Against Humanity...uh... then what? Will they be able to convince governments to install "sanctions," against the US? Will they kick us out of Afghanistan? Or will they declare war or us? Right. The first country to try any of that will receive gifts from our military in the form of missiles, perhaps nuclear, and they know that.

Without the full support and honest coverage by the MSM any investigation, done by anyone, anywhere, will be as a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

So, do we really need an international investigation, (taking how many years to organize and reach conclusions?) when all the work has already been done? Do we really need a another group of scientists proclaiming that symmetrical free fall is impossible without explosives?

Without the might behind it to institute change, punish the guilty, and attempt to correct the horrific wrongs that 9/11 engendered, I'd rather put my energies elsewhere. I look to history to show me how injustice, backed by extreme force, could be defeated. Did Ghandi, or ML King call for an "international investigation"? Did they cry for help to Sweden and France? I'd prefer widespread, organized, and consistent civil disobediance, boycotts, education programs, whatever the MSM cannot ignore or don't need for them to even cover. You know, people actually DOING things. Taking ACTION. All of us.

I don't need any more scientists telling me how it happened, with charts, graphs and formulas and videos.

They had me at, "free-fall speed."

Do THIS Now!

Those are all valid concerns... but right now this very second we can all fax Speaker Christine Quinn of the New York City Council about the recent revelations reported by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro that Larry Silverstein sought to demolish WTC 7 on 9/11. Go to for the script and then please FAX her:

Speaker Christine Quinn:
Fax: 212-564-7347 (free fax if you need it)

*And thanks to Dr. Steven Jones for his momunental efforts. We have the research. Now we need the JUSTICE.

Indeed, yes!

And yes, thanks, thanks beyond measure, to Dr. Jones and his historic and heroic work.

International War Crimes Investigation

sounds promising to me as a way of linking to 9/11... I thought that with Obama we might have gotten a "Torture Commission" that could have opened up 9/11, but that's out of the question now in the US, despite the claims that "No one is above the law."

Here our best best in my view is to get the NYC City Council to compel the Manhattan D.A. into investigating WTC 7, which in turn will open up Pandora's Box. (Or the Council might hold its own investigation). Plus the A/E angle of a Grand Jury Investigation into NIST. Specific, concise and channeled efforts.

Apologies for shouting up above... That was supposed to have been a colon but then I couldn't fix it after the reply. I do support the NYC CAN efforts though and am very impressed with Ted Walter and the cohesion among our leaders now.

Two types of investigations?

Thanks for the update and correct history, Steve!

I've always thought that an international investigation would be a good thing in many ways, but my concern has always been that because we are often so mired in unscientific claims and speculations, that it can -- unless carefully fire-walled -- turn into a circus.

One example of a potential circus-as-International Investigation would be Alfred Webre and Lauren Moret's International War Crimes Tribunal effort from the Vancouver conference in 2007, in which the evidence being put forth for the Tribunal included DEW, HAARP, nukes, etc. It would seem that an international investigation that examines every possible theory is not scientific in nature.

Another example of a circus-like situation in the making: Frank Legge has recently made an excellent case for the precautionary principle being applied to the Pentagon attack, due to the contradictory nature of the evidence. Yet, "no-Boeing at the Pentagon" is one of David Ray Griffin's most consistent claims (it is in literally every one of his books that we own).

These are two leaders in the movement who do not agree on this issue.

Should David Griffin be involved in the main organizing of such an Inquiry, it would seem impossible for the issues of voice morphing, cell phone calls being fake, witnesses being plants, Sky-warriors being used, missiles being fired, etc., to not be prominent in such an effort, potentially undermining the credibility of the rest of the strong evidence.

David has done amazing research into the official reports, and with the WTC destruction, has a great following and speaks and writes very well. But I don't see how that issue could not be highlighted and likely eclipse most of the strongest evidence that we have, both about the Pentagon attack itself, and everything else, including demolition.

Additionally, and from a psychological perspective, it's more than just possible that an investigation into whether or not a Boeing hit the Pentagon would tear the entire effort apart.

If you take a look at the responses here on 911blogger to Frank's paper, the verbal attacks and general belligerence is palpable.

Unfortunately, for many years, the vast majority of the 9/11 movement has been told -- via dozens of DVDs and books, and hundreds or thousands of websites -- that the witnesses to the Pentagon attack, the people who were on the scene that day, were plants, were lying, never existed, etc., and that the victims themselves, too, either never existed, were dumped into the sea, or are off on a desert island having a laugh about it all.

The paucity of existing evidence from that event only feeds the pattern -- 90%+ of the promotion of "no Boeing at the Pentagon" is speculative in nature and relies on logical fallacies (i.e., "I know what a debris field of this type should look like and that's why I know FL 77 couldn't have hit there") and has little basis in the factual evidence.

Consequently, anything like a scientific investigation -- and Franks paper, so far, is the closest thing to a fact-based examination of the evidence -- would be emotionally explosive and confusing for all of the people who have been told these ideas for so many years as though they are fact. David Griffin has been consistently reinforcing the assurances that Flight 77 must never have hit there, year after year, with each talk and interview that he gives, and in each book that he writes.

The only solution I could see to that dilemma would be to hold a separate investigation about the Pentagon of a different nature at a different time so as to keep the likely internal battle from undermining everything else. It's like a trial that is tainted -- the level of distortion around the evidence for that event is so large that it would potentially do more damage than good if treated the same as the rest of the attack.

Science or PR?

To be fair while Frank's involvement in the WTC nano-thermite investigations should be applauded from the rooftops, being a chemist, his view on the Pentagon is no more valid than any non-scientist. Indeed, the non-scientists who state that the plane could not have hit the building clearly know a lot more about the evidence than Frank does.

David Ray Griffin, for example, exposes the issue of the Pentagon with a significantly greater level of detail than Frank does, which could explain why he concludes no plane hit. Frank's method of "well since there are contradictory claims we should ignore the whole issue", if applied to every instance of evidence under the umbrella of "9/11 truth" would see the entire case disappear in a puff of smoke. There will always be counter points to every claim - have a look at the "Debunking 9/11 Myths" book for details. Scientifically, we should interrogate all evidence and put all claims under the microscope, but your cred-police brigade seem to want us to ignore evidence if the unavoidable conclusion it leads to has not passed vetting (by you and your friends of course) as "PR friendly". Let’s not forget that “PR” was simply Edward Bernays’ re-branding of the term “Propaganda”, which he considered bad… well PR… since the Nazis used it.

Not only does Frank's entire argument rest on a plea we ignore evidence, I have found that even when it comes to the evidence he will mention, he made error after error in his exposition of the issue. The claims he makes which state that CIT believe that no one saw the plane fly away and that the light poles were staged in real time are verifiably incorrect. Where did he get those claims from? From your article on the issue. Quel surprise. Franks article is so verifiably wrong because you mis-informed him. You made a fool of him and you made a fool of the journal. For what exactly?

Frank's "excellent case" has so far undergone seven revisions (each apparently peer reviewed) and in an email debate I had with him he was unable to defend his position, and has refused me permission to it publish online. In a similar vein, at the cred-police's precinct (Truth Action Forum) the administration are so certain their position can withstand scrutiny that they ban everyone with a different point of view and lock any discussions which challenge the status quo.

The responses to Frank's article have been because it is nonsense, the exact same reason the same responses greeted your article, Jim Hoffman’s, the Larsen’s and Arabesque’s tabloid pap. If his position was defendable, he would be able to defend it. As it is not, he cannot and he must refuse publication of any discussion of it.

Your writings have claimed there are many more witnesses placing the plane south of Citgo, yet when I asked you to produce them you ignored my question persistently until I was banned from the precinct. You have played dumb to the scientific principle of corroboration in pretending not to understand that if Boger, Stafford, Prather, Middleton, Carter, Lagasse, Brookes and Turcios all place the plane on the north of Citgo, then it proves that is where it flew. There is nothing scientific about your approach; it is instead informed entirely by an ill-conceived notion of what is and is not "good PR".

What is at the heart of Detective Inspector Ashely and the Cred Squad's crusade against half of the salient evidence proving 9/11 an inside job?

A belief that "the general public" will not understand, or will react badly to evidence they themselves have no problem understanding. In other words - they believe themselves intellectually superior to the rest of the world, who need to be led like sheep by their fatherly hand. Are they having a laugh?

As far as I'm concerned, if I can understand it, then anyone can understand it, but Victoria want's you to believe that the "general public" are fools who need to be spoon fed innofensive claims that will change exactly nothing. Bullshit. We are the general public, just those members who know a few more things about 9/11, and who have a duty to spread that information far and wide.

Her argument is a flattering one; that we are smarter than the rest of the human race. It's extension, that she and her friends are the smartest, less so. She tries to make a case that the weak-minded are easily conditioned to believe false claims and have been tricked into believing there is strong irrefutable evidence that the plane did not hit the Pentagon. She and her friends, of course can see through this web of lies which I was so caught up in, and even though she can't present any evidence for her view, it is the view of the elite, the educated and the superior.

Well I’m sorry, but when I deconstruct the arguments used by her and Hoffman, and the Larsens and Arabesque I find propaganda, emotional arguments and logical fallacies at every turning. The evidence remains what it is and shows the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

If my analysis of this situation is way-off because I’m intellectually inferior, fine. Maybe I am mentally impaired for considering evidence more important than... well... her opinion, but if that's the case I'll take it.

I'd rather be stupid than have anything to do with the agenda being pursued here.


Assuming 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, couldn't south side witnesses be developed to contradict the north side witnesses in NSA, and the videos being withheld that don't show it be destroyed (and maybe advanced fakes created)?

They can't turn back time

They can't erase the testimony of all of the independent and verified witnesses CIT interviewed, or the interviews for the centre for military history and library of congress many of them also gave just after 9/11.

You shouldn't care what "they" might do. We presented evidence of controlled demolition, they sent out shills to "debunk" it. Did Dr Jones care? Did he give up? No, he put his head down, stayed on the side of the truth and eventually he found the proof. So please, people, take Dr Jones as an example.

Stop giving "them" power. If you don't fear them then they are nothing. Stop giving a damn.

Expect them to lie. Expect them to cheat. Expect them to fight dirty.

Let them. Don't care.

The truth will always win and the only real threat to that comes from the fear within the people who know it.

Not logical

(ETA: This post is in response to Influence Device, not Stefan.)

It is not logical or prudent to withhold, marginalize, or minimize evidence exposing the deception, based on pure speculation that they will release fraudulent counter-evidence to refute it. Getting fake witnesses to overtly lie to the camera 9 years after the fact as a means to refute the scores of clearly honest individuals who independently corroborate each other regarding the north side approach would be extremely bold and risky. Hell, even the most visible official "impact supporting" witnesses Mike Walter has blended his story to match with the NoC witnesses. Look, here he is giving an interview for a French documentary in 2009, and standing NORTH of the Citgo and delineating the banking north side approach!


Putting out a fake video of a clear plane impact all of these years later would also be extremely risky for them. Faking an ambiguous unclear security video in early 2002 was an entirely different story.

Of course there is always the possibility they will release more fake evidence in the future but if it's clearly in response to such a large body of evidence that blatantly contradicts their story they won't be in such a good position anymore. Again, this type of speculation is not a valid reason to ignore or marginalize this definitive evidence.

Not definitive

Conflicting witness reports isn't rightly definitive evidence of anything.

Corroborated witness reports most certainly

can be "rightly definitive evidence."

Here's the bare bones logic which can not be refuted:

14 independently corroborated accounts regarding a simple right or left claim added to witnesses who saw the plane flying away most certainly is definitive.

The mythological "conflicting witness reports" to the north side approach don't exist which is why you are unable to cite them. It's that simple.

There are zero firsthand eyewitness reports from someone in a position to see the gas station who specifically places the plane on the south side.

The NoC accounts are from the witnesses who were in the very best locations to judge north or south of the Citgo.

This DESTROYS the OCT and the counter-evidence in their favor simply doesn't exist.

This should not be a problem for any true skeptic to understand.

Agreed. Your logic is sound.

May I also add that the other accounts which supposedly conflict with CIT are not first hand accounts but are in fact second hand accounts from a VERY untrustworthy source, namely the MSM. The CIT witnesses are MUCH more reliable because they are first hand accounts directly from the mouths of the witnesses themselves and they corroborate each other.

No one saw "the" plane fly away

Mr, Roberts described a plane flying away back across Hwy. 27 to the south-west. It could not be the plane approaching from the west. No airliner could make a turn anywhere near that tight. CITers keep making the blatantly false statement.

only one plane


One thing that both official reports AND eyewitnesses agree on is that there was no "second plane" on the scene in the moments right before, during and after the explosion at the building. The first plane, a military plane, to enter the scene arrived 3 minutes later, as confirmed by video. That was a C-130. An interview with the pilot of that plane confirms he showed up 3 minutes after the event. Also, there are no eyewitness or official reports of two commercial aircraft on the scene at the time. Therefore, the plane that Roosevelt Roberts saw flying away seconds after the explosion could be only one plane: the decoy PentaPlane.

What part of

No airliner could make a turn anywhere near that tight

don't you understand?

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.

Chris, eveyone understands that

Everyone understands that if Roberts described the plane he saw and it's movements accurately he would be describing something impossible.

Since there was only one plane there, we have two possibilities:

1) He described the plane's movements badly in the short conversation he had with CIT

2) He suffered a detailed and beleiveable hallucination of a large commercial jet liner on 9/11

Since 1) is an every day occurance, and 2) is pretty much impossible, most rational people consider the important part of his testimony to be that he saw a plane, and write off the garbled details as a result of the hurried and impromptu nature of the phone call, and most importantly that he was driving at the same time.

Give it up.

What part of

"The plane flew back over Hwy. 27." don't you understand?

There are other possibilities.

3) He's blowing smoke up CIT's ass.

4) The whole interview was a set up - disinfo.

I don't know if he is telling the truth or not, nor do I care. The plane he described could not be the plane approaching from the west. CITers ignore anything that goes against their flyover theory the same as JREFers deny anything that goes against the OCT.

Give it up yourself. You have no case, just a lot of very selective beliefs.

Show "What conflicting witness reports?" by Stefan


[ETA: this in reply to Stefan's reply to Victronix]

Sad to see such an insightful commentary voted down.

Gee victronix

If we could only get rid of DRG and CIT, we could really get somewhere!!!!! There would be no more "verbal attacks and general belligerence!! Please!!!!
There is so much arguing over the Pentagon just because the evidence is so strong
that no Boeing hit the Pentagon on911! All of the witnesses and compelling evidence isn't going to go away by fits and screams. Nor will DRG, Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Craig and Aldo, go away so that we can get on with a real investigation!


You don't understand Lilly Anne, you see the fact that no plane hit the Pentagon may be obvious to you and I, but we are "truthers" - a genetically superior version of the human genome. "The General Public" - a cattle like creature with little ability to think for itself - could have a mental break down if you try show them over a dozen people corroborating a flight path. Do you really think that the "General Public" can even understand what a flight path is? Let alone understand the concept of corrobration. They also can't count, so it's no good appealing to the number of people all saying the same thing.

Just be thankful we have Chief Victoria and her Cred Squad to remind us both of our superiority to the oafish "General Public" and their superiority to us! We just don't have the grey matter required to understand that this seemingly simple evidence will destroy the truth movement. Only they can see this, and we should certainly trust them.

It's OK you made this mistake, I used to make the same mistake too. It's easy to correct our past sins.

We Ask Questions. That's it.

We ask "how come the Pentagon was allowed to be hit" and when they answer "incompetence" we say:

"How come Norad didn't stop the planes?" and when they answer "incompetence" we say:

"Well then, how come there were so many intellegence warnings and it still happened?" and they answer "incompetence" we just keep going.

If we do this we will get A New Investigation. Because there is nothing like Asking Questions which cause no one to change their mind in any way to make the perpertrators of the crime decide to set up an impartial, independent investigation against themselves which will lead to their arrest and execution.

Think about it. If you had murdered 3000 people what would make you set up an investigation to uncover your own crimes and punish you? Asking questions of course - what else?[/irony]


Yeah, I get it!

Thanks Stefan! You said it well on your above post to Victoria ... "we ARE the general public". And "I'd rather be stupid than have anything to do with the agenda being pursued here." Are we trying to build a truth movement or get to the true story of what happened on 911??
Thanks Stefan for your posts which are wake-up calls if one can listen without fear.

Excellent responses to Victronix' fluff

As you are a newcomer to the truth movement LillyAnn, great to see that you "get it."

There is a reason why DRG is a leading scholar in the movement while Victronix is not.

Dr. Griffin does not speculate, and is dispassionately thorough. However, Griffin goes where the facts lead. He does not concern himself with not going down certain paths out of fear of "looking crazy" to the rest of the world.

This is why he, myself and 99% of other truthers I have met in person agree that AA77 did not crash at the Pentagon. The evidence in that regard is definitive on a number of levels. Victronix' claim that the evidence is "contradictory" is simply wrong.

The idea of a few plane parts being planted and photographed after the fact for example: Why dismiss as so absurd sounding? Since Victronix believes in controlled demolition she must know that the unconvinced non-truthers still, to this day (many of them), think that the WTC demolition scenario is equally absurd sounding? So should we just not "go there" and instead present only the "most credible evidence" such as the "ignored warnings by al Qaeda?"

Let's face the facts: the utter lack of debris in the immediate photographs taken after the explosion (including a helicopter aerial view of the whole Pentagon) combined with the independently corroborated eyewitness testimony putting the plane on the North of Citgo path, presents both the prima facie and the conclusive case that AA77 did not crash there.

Frank Legge's piece is hardly a "gold standard" for Pentagon research; it is in fact a seriously flawed opinion piece. In a sense, it makes a mockery of the journal and the many previous excellent papers that have been published there. Frank Legge is a chemist and yet he acts as if he is qualified to rebut the technical aviation calculations of a professional pilot. The fact that he has written seven versions, each time during which he supposedly corrected errors from the previous version after the errors had been pointed out by people outside the Journal, only makes the "peer review" of this paper a farce. His precautionary principle is basically a way to sweep the damning eyewitness testimony under the rug. None of the seven versions of the paper mention the name "Roosevelt Roberts" for example.

Great responses Stefan and LillyAnn.

Although this thread has

Although this thread has gotten way off topic, it should be pointed out that any commentary pointing to "No Boeing at the Pentagon" is *not* the same as saying there that "no *plane* hit the Pentagon". There *is* evidence that the Pentagon was indeed hit by an "airborne vehicle", but the as of yet, nobody has set forth any proof as to the identity of this "airborne vehicle".

There is precious little solid evidence (with a certifiable chain of custody) that the type of "airborne vehicle" which impacted the Pentagon was, in fact, a Boeing (757). Considering that the building and its surrounds were only accessible to FBI and DoD personnel in the wake of the attacks, any debris that appeared to have originated from an "American Airlines 757" should be treated with suspicion in that the chain of custody of such "evidence" cannot be independently verified.

Show "Wait a second" by Adam Syed
Show "It's not your fault you aren't aware of the evidence" by Stefan

Specifically, what evidence do you find conclusive?

I've watched CIT's NSA video, and seen plenty of other arguments claiming the damage to the Pentagon couldn't have been done by flight 77, but I've yet to see such claims rightly proven. What would you suggest I'm overlooking specifically?

I'd like some clarification before I can answer you?

Hi PD,

If you are aware of CIT's work what part is it you don't go along with?

Is it that the north of Citgo flight path has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt?

Or is it that the north of Citgo flight path is not compatible with the damage outside or inside the building?

It's simply CIT's conclusions which I've yet to be convinced of

I've not seen any fight path proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or the damage to building proven either compatible or incompatible with the official story for flight 77. Again, if you believe I might be overlooking evidence here, please identify it specifically.

Show "Well..." by Stefan

Plausibility vs possibility

I've not seen enough evidence to either believe the witnesses CIT presents are lying or to rule out the possibility that they might be. The same goes for witness who support the official story of flight 77. Another possibility is that there were two planes, the one CIT's witnesses report being something other than flight 77, in which case both sets of witnesses could be telling the truth. As for watching the video again, unless you can specifically identify some conclusive proof in it, I can't rightly consider it worth my time.

Show "speculation and assumptions do not refute corroborated evidence" by Adam Syed

witnesses who support the official story of flight 77

You can find a compilation of the witness reports I refer to here:

I hope that might help you to better understand my previous post.

Show "That list was CIT's starting point" by Adam Syed
Show "Oh and finally," by Adam Syed

Adam, it comes down to this

From the previous discussion you linked, you said:

"You can throw me 1000 "south side witnesses" and to me, it does not carry the same weight as a video of Lagasse saying "100%. Bet my life on it" with regard to the north path."

That's your choice, but don't expect to badger me or anyone else into following your lead.

If you think that printed,

If you think that printed, second hand, media quotes, often snipped and taken out of context, somehow carry equal or greater weight of 13 corroborated, interviewed on location videotaped interviews, then knock yourself out; who am I to stop you.

You are confused

I've made no claims of anything carrying equal or greater weight, but rather simply refuted your claim of definitive proof against the story of flight 77 hitting the pentagon. Again, I'm skeptical of the official account of that myself, but I'm not one to leap to conclusions, nor can I be persuaded by overzealous arguments infested with ill-conceived condescension.

Show "I guess we just don't see eye" by Adam Syed

I hope you are done auguring this in general

Branding quotes from witnesses as dubious is a judgement call, while pretending they don't exist is setting yourself up to be easily and rightly debunked. Refusing to admit as much only makes you look like a crackpot, which does nothing to help the cause of truth.

Refusing to admit what?

Refusing to admit what? None of the previously published witness statements in the entire investigative body of evidence specifically place the plane SoC. This is why you are unable to cite one and prove me wrong. The fact that some witnesses are "dubious" has nothing to do with this. Furthermore none of the firsthand accounts obtained by CIT (or from any independent or mainstream media source) from any witness in a position to see the gas station placed the plane on the south side. If you could demonstrate otherwise I certainly would admit it but clearly you can't so by your own logic you are the one refusing to admit the facts here. If I am "easily and rightly debunked" why don't you do it? It would only take one witness quote yet you are unable to provide it!

The official story isn't correct by default. If you refuse to apply the same level of scrutiny and skepticism to the evidence at the Pentagon attack as you do the WTC then you simply aren't in a good position to make a determination on the evidence at all. Of course you can choose to avoid the Pentagon attack all together, as many have, but don't accuse others of acting like a "crackpot" when you are unable to even cite the evidence to back up your accusation.

You're refusing to admit the truth

Many witness statements place the plane on a flight path "SoC" indirectly, and your fixation on mention of the gas station does nothing to change that fact, but rather only makes you look like a crackpot. So does your false implication that I consider the official story correct by default, particularly as it stands in contradiction to my previous comments here. Put simply, I apply the same level of scrutiny and skepticism to all claims, regardless of what story they support or contest, as that is what it takes to get to the truth.

Show ""Fixation on the mention of the gas station"" by Adam Syed

Please understand

Lack of mention of a particular landmark is not a rational excuse to ignore the many quotes from witnesses mentioning the plane in relation to other landmarks that support the flight path claimed by the official story. I'm not defending the official story in saying that, and quite to the contrary I am skeptical of that story myself, but I'm not going to follow your leap in logic which has you falsely claiming it has been disproved, regardless of how belligerently you defend it. Put simply, if you don't like being told you are acting like a crackpot, stop doing it.

You're grasping here

and it's kind of telling that you actually tried to justify your name calling.

Over and out.

Couldn't resist ;-)

The question is: Is he on crack or pot?

ETA: Adam, I have provided clear evidence of misrepresentation by CIT.

No you haven't. By the way

No you haven't.

By the way I'm still waiting for even one other CIT detractor to back you on your "NoC Fly Into Theory," which as Craig has pointed out, consists of nothing more than an acronym and three words.

I don't claim to have proof

The "NoC fly into theory" is just the alternative to the NoC flyover theory. It is a possibility.

Cit claims to have proof, they do not.

The Pentagon is a quagmire and your continued pushing of the flyover theory is extremely detrimental to the TM. Why don't you focus on the smoking gun - WTC 7 - instead of this diversion?

ETA: Read my Summary and Analysis and site what you disagree with before hand waving it.


It was your "friend," Victoria Ashley aka Victronix, who made the very first Pentagon-related post in this thread. If she hadn't lamented over how Dr. Griffin believes no plane crashed into the Pentagon, this multi-page discussion would have never ensued.

But because she did promote her point of view, and because others here find that POV very flawed, here we are.

Anytime you and her promote your views on the Pentagon, we will be right here back atcha.

This is an excellent idea

The only solution I could see to that dilemma would be to hold a separate investigation about the Pentagon of a different nature at a different time so as to keep the likely internal battle from undermining everything else. It's like a trial that is tainted -- the level of distortion around the evidence for that event is so large that it would potentially do more damage than good if treated the same as the rest of the attack.

It avoids unnecessary acrimony between people who are certain there was no-plane at the Pentagon and people equally certain that NP @TP is disinformation. Perhaps more helpful, it will distinguish the people who have an honest disagreement from the people who want to stir up shite to make sure nothing gets done. People who honestly disagree, can at the same time recognize "The Pentagon" issue is not essential to a new independent investigation, or even to proving 9/11 was a fraud perpetuated by the US government.

Readers will note some "excitement" in this thread. Some of these individuals made a career out of lurking/trolling Truthaction, until their hero Kevin Barrett was proven beyond a doubt to be using crypto-Nazi material Sunday, May 9th by truebeleaguer

If you think someone's arguing in circles and trying to go way off-topic, they probably are.

David Griffin has been consistently reinforcing the assurances that Flight 77 must never have hit there, year after year, with each talk and interview that he gives, and in each book that he writes.

Mr. Griffin also has a habit of using references like "The Barnes Review", and smacks of endorsing Holocaust denial. He's not the only one :

All in all, the issue of the Pentagon is a mess. Vic's idea it one of the better one's I've heard for dealing with it.


>>there has been a concerted campaign by Victoria Ashley through her influence at the journal of 9/11 studies

This is what I'm talking about. The innuendo and personal attacks that will result can ultimately divide the movement and sideline other serious work if the Pentagon is included as part of a larger investigation.

That's why I recommend it be examined separately -- in *any* investigation -- and with preparation and awareness.

Here on this thread it is suggested I have influence at J911Studies. Other's suggest I'm Mossad and CIA (not one, but somehow both!). Still others suggest I work behind to scenes to control . . . everything. On and on. So because I believe AA77 may have hit the Pentagon, I am now, magically, omnipotent.

As a rule, anyone who dares to critique the "no Boeing" and "no plane" theories typically comes under this type of smearing and distortion, unlike any other evidence which is researched about the attack.

Hence my position.

Some good examples of personal attacks against a prominent critic of "no Boeing" are here.


I actually meant to write that you have influence with Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, which is certainly true isn't it? If one sends the scholars an email, you are the one who responds are you not? Since the core of both the journal and s911tj are the same, I still don't feel I have spoken a meaningful untruth.

Nowhere have I called you a Mossad agent or a CIA one, although your attempt to conflate my perfectly valid point with two more "crazy" sounding ones, is a perfect example of the propaganda techniques you have become known for.

There is no innuendo or personal attacks here. I am being explicit and I am being factual.

Some prominent examples of bare-faced propaganda concerning this issue can be found on Arabesque's blog, and in articles by Victoria and Jim Hoffman at 9/11 research.

Don't take my word for it - watch National Security Alert and then read Victoria's article. Decide for your self.


Victoria, you say that it is people's responses to your continual attempts to marginalise the Pentagon that cause division in the "movement"? Do you not think it is fairer to say it is those attempts themselves that do so?

There has been no figures who have done more to divide this online community than yourself, Jim Hoffman, "Arabesque", Larsen and Larsen and a handful of gullible followers over this issue. And there was never any need for it.

You can blame people's reactions to your own aggressions all you like. I think people are starting to grow a bit tired of your nonsense.

Show "By way of deception" by influence device

Vic, I applaud your courage

Vic, I applaud your courage in holding even the highest placed in the Truth Movement to accuracy and factual data. As I have become more involved in the movement, I've experienced that this is a growing problem. A serious one. I agree with you about keeping an investigation of the Pentagon separate. Any investigation that casts a wide net around the events of September 11 is doomed to a problematic quagmire. Keeping it simple is far better. Like just focusing on Building 7 and NIST for a start...the weakest links in the chain of fantasy of the official story.

To those in the movement who feel compelled to defend its leaders at all cost, I say beware that path. We are not about defending personalities, we are about promoting the Truth above all else. If we perpetrate lies amongst ourselves, we seal our own fate and tarnish the movement as a whole. This goes for how we conduct business "within" our Truth organizations just as importantly as how we project ourselves outward to the world. There have been serious infighting episodes in the movement and it's time we acknowledged that and cleaned house.

Thanks Professor Jones!.. Now about CIT...

Dr. Jones I am glad you explained all this so we know the real story.

As to the CIT/Pentagon issue running in this thread let me just add that I find Adam Syed and Stefan's analysis to be right on the money and I also find the counter arguments to fall flat on their face including I am sorry to say Frank Legge’s paper even in it's latest form. I spent quite a bit of time looking at both sides of the Pentagon issue including watching all the CIT videos, P4T videos, and reading/evaluating the VERY lengthy Arabesque critique along with the many many blog entries on the subject here at Blogger, at Truthaction, at P4T, and a few other assorted blogs such as Col Jenny Sparks and others. The CIT detractors simply do not have a case and that is very clear to me at this point.

I refer to the CIT detractors as a group now and refer to them collectively as the credibility police squad. The self appointed credibility police are a very divisive group as a result of their primary assumption which is that they are smarter and know more about the Pentagon (among other issues) then those who disagree with them. I find that attitude both insulting and divisive. Let me state for the record that the credibility police themselves are in my view the destructive force within the 9/11 truth movement that they purport to be fighting against. It is cred cops who drive people away from the 911 truth movement not researchers such as CIT.

I was recently quoted a saying "you shall know them by their fruits" and I think it is the key to unlocking this issue.

CIT's fruits: A wealth of VERY valuable one on one interviews with actual eye witnesses and a wealth of detailed original research and investigation into the Pentagon crime scene which opens up an entirely new avenue of investigation that may ultimately result in exposing the full truth of 9/11 and prosecuting the guilty parties.

Credibility Police fruits: Launching discouraging, illogical, insulting, and May I say, baseless attacks, on legitimate 9/11 investigators which tend to slow down their progress and make their already difficult task that much harder. Spreading misinformation about solid research which tends to confuse people new to 9/11 investigation and divide the movement in general. One of the other "fruits" of the cred cops is their lack of "fruit", by that I mean they do no original research or investigation of their own to advance the cause they instead spend their time and effort attacking other researchers. That leaves a bad taste in my mouth and makes me want to avoid working with them.

Asking questions about CIT's work or anyone's work for that matter is a good thing and serves to advance the movement but that is definitely NOT what cred cops are doing. What they are doing is jumping to conclusions, launching baseless, illogical, emotionally driven attacks against research that conflicts with their own. That isn't science based or logic based and it is destructive to the movement not helpful as they argue. In my opinion if you are going to attack the research of someone else you had better know exactly what you are talking about and be damn sure your argument is rock solid BEFORE you do it. The anti CIT arguments are not solid at all; in fact they are extremely weak and easily countered as has been demonstrated many times.


That was a dynamite post. Expect a ton of downvotes. ;-)

The anti CIT arguments are not solid at all; in fact they are extremely weak and easily countered as has been demonstrated many times.

As I myself did here.

Loose Nuke even had to concede. He basically tried to save face by in essence saying: "Well, you're not done with your homework until you finish the entire list!" But the point is, I don't need to. When you present printed eyewitness quotes as "proof" and then when actual citizen investigators like Craig and Aldo do the digging and find out that they weren't in fact even there and are therefore not witnesses, you're proved yourself as extremely non-credible from the outset.

Stefan's posts on this thread have been dynamite also.

Now with regard to the "cred cops:"

For those readers here who think that term is too strong or inflammatory a label, one only needs to read this and this to see that it's right on the money. Both of those truly read like JREF anti-truth threads.

From Ruff's post:

Credibility Police fruits: Launching discouraging, illogical, insulting, and May I say, baseless attacks, on legitimate 9/11 investigators

I rest my case. Sleep tight Sarns.

Are you reading this, Dr. Jones?

Style v substance

Too many people in the TM judge information by the style rather than the substance.

I give not a rounded rodents rectum about being nicie-nice as you can tell. We must have absolute respect for the evidence regardless of who presents it or how it is presented.

Show "Substance free upleasantness" by influence device

"Doubt is not a...

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." Voltaire

There's plenty of room for healthy discussion- just keep our minds open and our logic keen. We are building a good case for the courts, but there's no need for weak arguments that cloud the overwhelming case for treason and its cover-up. What happened at the Pentagon is still unclear. Until the feds are forthcoming about what took place there, we will never know what happened. Why are they silent after nine years? Release all of the evidence and we'll have something to chew on.

This is not a healthy discussion.

NSA is full of omissions, misrepresentations and assumptions. The same handful of supporters and their sock puppets run the same double talk and claim CIT has proof that the plane flew over the Pentagon.

The flyover theory is baseless. Please read my Summary and analysis. If you disagree with any of the information, please state what you disagree with and why.

CIT's "enemies list*" is repugnant and their habit of attacking anyone who disagrees with them is what an infiltrator/disruptor would do. CIT has caused a great deal of disruption and division in the TM. It does not matter why they are causing all this trouble, the result is exactly what an infiltrator/disruptor would hope to accomplish. The government has been infiltrating and disrupting groups that oppose the government for 50 years. Sunstein had the hubris to tell us this is what they would do. .
I am not accusing CIT of anything but misrepresenting the facts. I just pose the question:
If these guys aren't what Sunstein was talking about, who is?

You will know them by their deeds.

Review before CIT sanitized their enemies list:


"If you disagree with any of the information, please state what you disagree with and why."

Anyone wondering what the results of that might be can probably find some clues here:

Down votes are a badge of honor at this point.

I always open the down voted comments and almost every time they are the most interesting and informative. Sad that a cred cop voting block has figured out how to game the system like Diebold did with the American voting system. Those two threads you listed are very telling indeed and include a whole lot of vitriol towards not only CIT and anyone who values their research but also towards 911blogger itself.

Spot on!!!!

Sad that a cred cop voting block has figured out how to game the system like Diebold did with the American voting system.

That could not have been said any better. Bravo.

Adam Syed blatantly misrepresents the record

Adam has linked to an article by Adam Larson which i posted last December, in which he presents 18 witness accounts which support the S path, including some of CIT's 'verified' witnesses.

Adam made a pretense of debunking 9 of the witnesses in Adam Larson's article, but failed to show that they didn't see what they said they saw. Adam also tried to claim that Mike Walter is actually a N path witness, cuz someone interviewed him on the N side of Citgo (not where he was, but pointing in the direction he saw the plane in; "convenient" for those who defend CIT, but not evidence of N path)

In addition to that article, I posted in the first comment a list of 24 other people whose statements referenced lights poles or the generator being hit, or placed the plane in a location near the S path (i.e. they said it seemed like it was coming up 395; as opposed to being over Arlington Cemetery- perceiving planes as being closer to oneself in relation to the ground than they actually are is a common perspective error). Adam showed that 3 of these 24 people were not eyewitnesses, and i found 1, plus 7 who appear to have inferred the poles being hit from seeing them after the crash. Many of the 20 witnesses say they saw the plane hit the Pentagon, though they may not have noticed it's flight path other than that.

Despite Adam Syed's claims that ALL the witnesses have been debunked by CIT, he failed to show they've been debunked, and failed to debunk them himself. See here for the last update, after which Adam didn't respond:
S or N? Debate status report, Dec. 28

Adam Syed (and CIT and their other fans) continue to make claims like "north path conclusively proven," even though it's contradicted by a greater # of witness accounts, including by CIT's own witnesses who say they saw the plane hit; Sean Boger was right next to the Pentagon. There are close to 100 people are on record saying they SAW the impact, many saying it was an AA commercial jet, as well as the damage path and plane parts, as seen in photos:

That the Pentagon was hit on 9/11, after a summer of threat and nearly an hour after the 2nd WTC tower was hit, is evidence the official story is false and that 9/11 was an inside job. In addition, there's a great deal of other evidence indicating 9/11 was an inside job, and there's an ongoing cover up.

There's been a huge effort to convince people that AA 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. As I've repeatedly said at 911Blogger, it's true that evidence that could conclusively prove AA 77 hit is being suppressed, and people should point this out and call for it to be released. However, some people are instead making unsupported, speculative and absolute claims, like "AA 77 didn't hit the Pentagon!" thus bringing discredit on the 9/11 Truth Movement, driving away sincere inquirers who don't want to be associated with people who promote BS, wasting the time of sincere activists who take the time to counter the bogus claims (and labeling us 'cred cops'), and frustrating the efforts for truth and justice. That the "what hit" debate about the Pentagon has been so successful in disrupting the 9/11 Truth Movement may be the real reason hard evidence of AA 77's impact continues to be suppressed.

Its worse than that...

Despite Adam Syed's claims that ALL the witnesses have been debunked by CIT,
There's been a huge effort to convince people that AA 77 didn't hit the Pentagon.

Put these two together and they match the long term strategies of isolating 911truth by attacking witnesses and victims--and anyone defending them-- as "agents". And making excuses for those attacks under the rubric of "free speech".

That many of these people appear to be supporting a crypto-Nazis agenda is even more cause for alarm:

Question the Pentagon is not the problem. Acting like a criminal arsehole while you're doing it is a problem. For the record, I personally have serious doubts a jumbo jet hit the Pentagon. HOWEVER, that does NOT change the fact the people who were on Flight 77, where ever it went, are dead.

Show "Erik does this not show a serious problem with your evidence?" by Stefan

Well said. I agree.

Adam Syed proved that several on Erik's list of witnesses were not even there at the time bringing the entire list into question. It is NOT his job to now painstakingly critique each and every witness on the list but rather it is Erik's task to now show us why any part of his list should be trusted.


Very well put.

I'm dumbfounded that some people don't seem to be able to see this.

I don't think there are any people who can't see it

It's as absurd as when Erik went and spoke to CIT witnesses, and they told him exactly what they told CIT and then he worded his write up as though he had exposed lies on CITs part., without demonstrating a single one.


He throws up a list of "SoC" witnesses all of which are actually nothing more than tenuous arguments as to why so-and-so could be a SoC witness if you interpret their testimony this way...

And when Adam only shows a few of them to not even have been witnesses let alone SoC witness he declares it a victory?

Truly, this is the strength of CIT detractors arguments laid bare for all to see.

They make a mockery of 9/11 truth and all of its values.

They clearly have no shame.

Counter this

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.

NSA is a lot of assumption, omission and double talk.

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."
"ALL of the north side witnesses were deceived into believing the plane hit the Pentagon."

Show "They believe the plane struck because of misdirection." by Adam Ruff
Show "Nice catch Adam. That's" by Adam Syed


Sgt. Lagasse and Sean Boger said the plane hit the building and THEN there was a fire ball. Either you believe them or you don't. Sgt. Brooks and Mr. Wheelhouse said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Seeing a plane hit a building is not something they would be "mistaken" about. Claiming that these witnesses were mistaken is asinine.

I am not claiming they were mistaken

I am not claiming they were mistaken I am saying it is very possible they were deceived through misdirection (big loud bright scary powerful explosion) just like the audience was for the Criss Angel video by the smoke and noise from the fire extinguishers. You are claiming in your above post that it is not even possible they could have been deceived while you have to admit the audience in the video WAS deceived. See this is the problem Chris you confuse your opinions for actual hard facts. People can be fooled with simple misdirection and they often are. Claiming people can't be mistaken about traumatic split second events involving mass destruction and death is just plain wrong. For the record I will NOT be using insults about your dubious claims as you did above by calling me asinine. Have a nice day.

No way

"See this is the problem Chris you confuse your opinions for actual hard facts"

Hard facts? Saying they were deceived is an opinion. You continue to ignore Lagasse and Boger saying the fire ball occurred AFTER the plane hit the Pentagon.You hear what you want to hear and disregard the rest.

I said it is POSSIBLE they were deceived by misdirection.

You said it is NOT POSSIBLE they were deceived. I have no desire to discuss this any more with you.

Chris, what is the more reliable recollection?

1) The sight of the plane flying through the air, which in some cases lasted around ten seconds, and a judegment on whether it was to the left or the right of the witness?

2) A single second, if that, acomapnied by a deafening explosion, a huge fire ball, black smoke and flying debris?

If a witness described two things, one based on scenario 1) and one based on scenario 2) - and those two claims were incompatible - which would you consider the more reliable?


"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. NSA is a lot of assumption, omission and double talk."

How about 'The directional damage could not be caused by something else in the fly into theory because there was no other damage for the plane to have caused'.

Thank you, Chris

There is absolutely *no* proof of a flyover, just very poorly grounded speculation.

There is ample verifiable proof that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

It's absurd that this "discussion" is actually taking place. We have strong evidence, and then we have "evidence". Let's concentrate on the former.

FYI Vesa,

This discussion would not be taking place if a certain Pentagon 757-impact defender whose name begins with "V" and ends with "ictronix" had not hijacked the thread and woefully lamented how totally "sad" it is that David Ray Griffin (correctly) asserts in his books that AA77 couldn't have crashed there.

Even though the thread had nothing to do with DRG or Pentagon.

At the very least, you have to concede that the CIT supporters were not the ones who de-railed this thread.

Sometimes agreeing to disagree is the name of the game. We simply don't see eye to eye on this issue. I do believe there is absolutely proof of a flyover. The North of Citgo path proves it.

Any time that Victronix puts forth her (imho misguided) position on the Pentagon, myself, Bruno, Stefan, Ruff, and others will be right here to present ours.

ETA: Even if, in absence of a video showing a flyover, you believe that the flyover conclusion is "speculation," that is one thing. But to say that it is "poorly grounded" speculation is disingenuous at best. It is the most logical speculation given the extreme level of corroboration of the NoC approach.

JREFers or CITers

There is no difference. They talk in circles and you just can't pin them down. They will NEVER concede a point.

NSA is a pack of lies, misrepresentations and omissions as I have noted in my Summary and Analysis.

I have asked Adam in all his incarnations [sock puppets] to dispute anything in the Analysis but he will not.

He just keeps repeating the CIT mantra "NoC = flyover" without offering any real proof whatsoever.

There are no flyover witnesses. That is a lie.

The directional damage to the Pentagon does not prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon because it was caused by explosives. [in the flyover or the fly into theories]

The lack of plane parts has nothing to do with which path the plane took.

Only an expert could determine what directional damage a plane on the NoC flight path might make.

The possibility that the plane exploded on contact cannot be ruled out. Adam will call that crazy but he is not qualified to make that call.

Yes, it is a lie

that there are no flyover witnesses. ;-)

There is no difference. They talk in circles and you just can't pin them down. They will NEVER concede a point.


The directional damage to the Pentagon does not prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon because it was caused by explosives. [in the flyover or the fly into theories]

Notice how Sarns says "fly into theory" as if it's widely accepted. Heck on another post he said even he doesn't believe his own fly into theory.

Only an expert could determine what directional damage a plane on the NoC flight path might make.

Umm, no. Logic and a basic grasp on physics dictate this.

The possibility that the plane exploded on contact cannot be ruled out. Adam will call that crazy but he is not qualified to make that call.

Problem is, we're lacking this thing called debris and damage to the lawn. So yes I do call that.... drumroll... crazy!

No flyover witnesses

Roosevelt Roberts describes a plane flying away back over Hwy 27 which is to the west of the Pentagon. A airliner approaching from the west cannot turn any where near that tight.
The plane Roosevelt Roberts described could not be the plane approaching from the west. Roberts is not a flyover witness.

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

CITers claim that "only first hand witnesses count" and then try to use what someone overheard as being a witness.

Maria de la Cerda is not a flyover witness. Here is the double talk and omission CIT uses to justify calling her one:
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
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".
“My sense of it was not that it was a side impact but rather that it was on top”.

In other words, she did not see an impact or a flyover with her eyes, she just thought it hit top.

High Scores (off topic)

Before Blogger was recently updated, the subject line could be seen in the 'downvoted' comments. Now the whole comment is hidden.
Have the parameters of debate been decided by a software quirk, or was this a deliberate decision that just so happened to coincide with the upgrade? Can't some kind of user option be provided that lets me toggle hidden comments on and off, it's a bit irritating having to click on them (and then click 'back') when I want to read them.

"Are you reading this, Dr. Jones?"

Yes. Enlightening discussion, overall.

Let me say -- there may be a way to counter the elite powers-that-be other than an investigation into the events of 9/11. I certainly hope so given the dis-unity in our community evidenced by the acerbic discussion on what hit the Pentagon.

I am coming around to this more and more-- that the elite schemers seek to control us largely by controlling public opinion, yes, but also by controlling ENERGY. Think about it -- even our media and the internet we rely on for exchange of facts regarding 9/11 depend on reliable power -- the grid.

I am very concerned that the electric grid will be brought down (by whom I cannot predict for certain) and that will be traumatic, incredibly traumatic, for our countries. We will suffer.

I have a HOPE that by shifting the focus of my research to alternative energy (I know something about this), I might be able to help THAT community find an alternative ENERGY source more quickly -- one that will counter the elite's control of fossil fuels and thus undercut their death-grip on our countries (or most of them). My concern is that time is so short....

That's the conclusion I'm coming to. The decision I'm reaching. Thanks for the discussion.

PS -- IMHO, arguing incessantly over just what hit the Pentagon is like arranging deck chairs on the Titanic as it sinks...

Show "That sinking feeling" by influence device

Hasten to add

Notwithstanding what I said about the importance of alternative energy studies, I hasten to add that I would strongly support a serious re-investigation of the events of 9/11. The two are not mutually exclusive.

And the goal of my alt-energy research will be to make this freely available to the public if I/we can -- not under the control of the elite PTB, and not to make a lot of money.

Alternative energy

For anyone connected to natural gas there is an alternative getting very close to commercial availability. Fuel cells exist which run on natural gas with an efficiency of 60%, much higher than any existing power generation. The units are envisioned to be single-household size. The waste heat can be collected to provide water and room heating giving an overall efficiency near 80%. The device can be an investment, with surplus electricity being sold to the grid.

If one had both electricity and gas the probability of both failing at the same time would be much lower. Gas is also cheaper then electricity per unit of energy. Furthermore the pipework of a gas delivery system is a huge reservoir, thus it would provide a long period of operation after supplies were shut down.

The company involved is Ceramic Fuel Cells (CFU). They have units in several countries being evaluated by authorities.

finite resources will run low

peak oil

peak uranium

peak gas

peak coal

alternative energy:

it's all about the EROEI (I have Ruppert's book 'A Presidential Energy Policy')

the world will switch to geothermal for higher EROEI than other sustainable energy sources:


oil is on the way out and represents an opportiunity for the one superpower to dominate more then ever by cornering oil and key transportation routes and placing key region-dominating superbases at key oil locations like Iraq and Wheelus in Tripoli (eg 9/11 enabling iraq invasion, also eg think where alCIAda now has gone to prepare the legend for direct or proxy empire expansion in Yemen- remember the underwear bomber?) to leverage other countries

This from the BBC:

As far as we know there is rare earth ore in California, Canada, South Africa, Brazil, Vietnam and Australia. There's even some in Greenland.

But the mother lode is sitting under the mountains 50km (30 miles) north of the Inner Mongolian city of Baotou, in the Bayan Obo mine.

In addition to Bayan Obo, China has also found massive deposits in Sichuan.

As Deng Xiao Ping presciently commented, at a time when electric cars and wind power seemed like ecotopian wet dreams:

"Arabia has oil, China has rare earth".



switching en mass to electric means a need for some way of storing the electricity

graphene ultracapacitors use essentially cheap and globally available materials

you could charge your car quicker than you could fill a car tank full of petrol

as this relpaces oil in cars then before the finite amount of rare earth minerals runs low, graphene ultracapacitors will be useful and clean :)

Thanks Steve. I think this

Thanks Steve. I think this Pentagon discussion is a testament to the powers of dis-info campaigns. The CITers have managed to get high level endorsements form folks like Richard Gage, who admits he has not the time to scrutinize the factual evidence put out by former AE member Chris Sarns. Too bad.

I think you're right about some type of interrupt strategy, though I think that will come in the form of internet censorship, ala the mode of China. Time to investigate GB-Gan and short wave modems as an alternatives to logging on.

Activists everywhere must start investigating this asap.


Show "Actually John," by Adam Syed

Another blatantly false statement

I asked DRG about this and he said he does not have time to review the rebuttals to NSA.

Ask him yourself before making statements about what he has researched.

DRG and I have e-mailed at length on this subject

and while he may not have read YOUR essay, he is very well aware of the CIT detractors' basic arguments.

Your hit-piece came out long after the endorsements. What I meant is that he had heavily researched this topic BEFORE making the endorsement as well as before NSA was created. How do I know? He referenced The PentaCon in Debunking 9/11 Debunking, released in 2007. All of his books are heavily and methodically researched so it's clear he was no stranger to this topic, like you were when you immediately flew off the handle and started your ill-conceived campaign against CIT personally in favor of your non-existent "NoC fly into theory".

But virtually NOBODY has time to read the alleged "rebuttals" to NSA because they amount to nothing but bloated out "TiNRAT's," as coined by Kevin Ryan regarding the NIST report. That stands for "They'll Never Read All This" meaning the author deliberately makes extra long articles that are too convoluted and time-consuming for anyone to pay attention to, with the hope of simply casting doubt or giving the appearance of a heavily researched explanation/rebuttal.

The fact is that DRG and many other respected researchers/activists/journalists/scholars etc were able to view the evidence and easily see the value in it on their own. He had been researching this topic in detail long before you even knew NSA existed.

"This part of the film's thesis (NoC flight path) is now established beyond a reasonable doubt."


This means he came to this final conclusion after realizing the extreme level of corroboration that CIT continued to obtained since the release of The PentaCon.

The level of gall required for you to suggest that you are intellectually superior and able to see through this alleged "con" while more credentialed, researched, and respected people like DRG and literally thousands of others are somehow oblivious to it is quite amazing.

What DRG does not know

Since he has not read my analysis, he does not know about the omissions and misrepresentations in NSA.

DRG and RG do NOT think you have made the case for flyover - they do NOT believe the flyover theory and your implying that they do is disingenuous. When you quote DRG and RG in the future, please make this distinction.

Show "Chris, don't forget that you are unqiue." by Stefan

Thank you God

God only knows what everyone it the world knows. ;-)

I'll let Brian know what you said.

You're not being disingenuous, are you God?

BTW: None of those people believe the plane flew over the Pentagon.

This battle will be decided in the court of public opinion.


An international investigation will help in that effort and I encourage you to work toward that goal. Neils Harrit has credibility in Europe and the MSM there is beginning to acknowledge the thermite paper. Please ask Neils to publicly call for a panel of qualified experts [who are not dependent on the government for their livelihood] to conduct a real investigation into the demolition of the Trade Towers and building 7.

The Pentagon is a quagmire and a diversion from the hard evidence of CD. The persistent push for the flyover theory is extremely detrimental to the TM and benefits the PTB. Those who persist in claiming that there is proof of flyover should be considered in a class with Judy Woods and Jim Fetzer.

Like I said Chris

I'm still waiting for Victronix, Hoffman, Arabesque, etc. to back you on your "North of Citgo Fly Into Theory." ;-)

Everyone from Hoffman to the Screw Lucy crowd realizes that a North of Citgo approach = Flyover. This is why there has been such a hard core effort by the detractors to 'prove' the north path wrong.

The north path has been proven and for that matter, in the future you can expect more forthcoming witness interviews who confirm the north path.


Saying that Hoffman "realizes that a North of Citgo approach = Flyover" is a blatant lie.

Site where he says that or admit you are lying.

Care to respond?

Before my comment gets downvoted away again?

You asked for someone to counter this:
"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. NSA is a lot of assumption, omission and double talk."

How about 'The directional damage could not be caused by something else in the fly into theory because there was no other damage for the plane to have caused'.

Nice piece of double talk

But it does not make any sense. Perhaps you could re-phrase it.

If you believe the flyover theory then you believe the directional damage was caused by something other than the plane. In other words, the directional damage had nothing to do with the plane hitting or not hitting.

During my investigation of NSA I was often struck by the similarity in obfuscation between the NIST reports and CIT. They appear to be from the same writing team. The way they couch their words so as to avoid clear lies is most eloquent. Just an observation.

I think I'm beginning to understand

"Perhaps you could re-phrase it."

I think you can understand, if you really try. Let's try again...

This statement of yours is false:
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.

It could not be caused by something else in the fly into theory, because there was no other damage for the plane to have caused.

This is the JREF denial merry-go-round ;-)

"because there was no other damage for the plane to have caused"

This appears to be a subject shift to other damage. We are discussing the directional damage as noted at the end of NSA.

CIT is using a double standard when they say the directional damage proves the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

If: The directional damage was caused by something other than the plane in the flyover theory.
Then: The directional damage was caused by something other than the plane in the fly into theory.

The directional damage had NOTHING to do with the plane in both theories.

Who the hell do you think you are kidding?

PS: I do not believe my own theory any more than I believe yours. I don't know what happened at the Pentagon and neither do you. You and CIT claim to have proof. DRG and RG do NOT think CIT has proof.

Show "..." by influence device

He did and it's not just him

First of all it's not just Hoffman. ALL published CIT-detractors such as Legge, Arabesque, Adam Larson, and everyone else fully agree that a south side approach is REQUIRED for an impact.

But it's quite clear from Hoffman's published research AND his comments on this issue that he agrees the plane MUST be on the south side to hit. Yet he has certainly NEVER indicated that it's possible for a NoC impact. Have you asked him? Why don't you give it a try?

In his interview with Wolsey he described the damage as equaling the "fingerprint" of the flight path:

"What CIT promotes is their so-called north flyover theory. That -- That's the idea that the plane flew north of the Citgo station instead of south of the Citgo station as is, um, as is held by the official, the so-called official story and also the entire damage pattern. As the plane... a, um, tha, um, there's, uh, basically a straight line of, of damage that starts with the light poles, um, as, as it comes over the overpass, and then as it crosses the construction yard, um, um, there's damage to the trailer that fits the engine, there's damage to the trailer that fits the engine, there's damage to a, uht, uh, retaining wall that fits the other engine, and then the puncture to the, to the facade, and the path of debris through the facade. That gives you the the, like the fingerprint of the path, and also fits the shape, and uh, everything else about a 757".

- Jim Hoffman, Interview With Michael Wolsey, Starting around 24:40 source

Here is an image that HE published indicating this flight path:

So if you think he believes that your ridiculous unsupported and unstated alleged "NoC fly into theory" is possible it's up to YOU to provide the quote to prove it because everything he has ever published or said demonstrates otherwise. He argues strictly against the veracity of the north side approach, not the implications.

If I were you I'd be working hard to find endorsements for this alleged theory of yours because as it stands there is not another Pentagon attack researcher on earth who has expressed a lick of support for it and virtually all have made explicit statements that such a thing is NOT possible.

Put up or . . . .

"First of all it's not just Hoffman. ALL published CIT-detractors such as Legge, Arabesque, Adam Larson, and everyone else fully agree that a south side approach is REQUIRED for an impact."

Please post the quote and source or stop making that claim.

Jim Hoffman does not believe the plane flew NoC so he does not have an opinion on whether or not it could hit the Pentagon on that path. You are playing word games.

As I just said in another post, I don't believe my NoC fly into theory. It's just the alternative to the NoC flyover theory.


Show "You being blind intentionally or on purpose? ;-)" by Adam Syed

More double talk and circular logic

Jim thinks the flyover theory is absurd and so do I.

I'm getting off your silly little merry-go-round. ;-)

Vaya con Dios

Dr. Jones, I appreciate your input

Though I don't think that the 9/11 truth cause is sinking like the Titanic.

Thanks to AE911truth we do have a juggernaut strength movement regardless of how much or little debate goes on about the Pentagon.

For that reason, even if theoretically the Pentagon did release a faked but clear video showing a large plane crashing into the building, it would NOT neutralize the movement's potency. I think the so-called precautionary principle had more validity in 2006 when the movement was largely defined by the success of Loose Change, but not now.

Also, I've seen many online political forums where general anti-war activists make the same argument against 9/11 truth as a whole. They'll claim 9/11 truth is a distraction from ending the war. For example:

"Every minute arguing about trivia like the melting point of steel takes away from a minute not standing on a street corner holding a sign saying BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!"

Whether or not we ever have an official new investigation with subpoena power, there will continue to be citizen investigating on this subject for generations to come, and doubtless, a continuous stream of books and video presentations will follow. The cause of truth is all the better for it.

Indeed, a lot of the anti-CIT arguments I've seen are very analagous to the arguments that non-truthers or anti-truthers use against the movement in general.


At this point, since the majority of the comments are Pentagon related, it is important for everyone to remember that it was not the CIT supporters who derailed this thread into the Pentagon and away from Prof. Jones and BYU. Rather, it was none other than Victronix, who just had to bring up the Pentagon when she cried her lamentations over the fact that Dr. Griffin firmly maintains that no 757 crashed into the Pentagon. If she hadn't done that, this conversation would have never ensued. But she did bring it up, and any time she and other 757-impact advocates do bring it up, those who disagree will be right here to counter them.


1. I support an international investigation regarding 9/11 in those areas where research which has been published in established peer-reviewed journals. Namely, the Environmentalist (Ryan et al.), the Open Chemical Physics Journal (Harrit et al.), Journal of Engineering Mechanics (Gourley and Grabbe), and the Open Civil Engineering Journal (Jones et al.) If anyone knows of other such papers, pls let us know.

2. If ANYONE has sufficient evidence regarding what hit the Pentagon to merit such publication in an established refereed journal, go for it -- ONLY THEN would I recommend inclusion in the proposed international investigation. I do not find the evidence sufficient in this "Pentagon-hit" arena; in any case, there are no publications as specified for the Pentagon-hit issue.

3. I do not think that "that the 9/11 truth cause is sinking like the Titanic" and I resent the implication that I would say any such thing (Adam). What is sinking is our economy and our entire system of a democratic REPUBLIC in the US (and elsewhere IMO) and the freedoms vouchsafed in the US Constitution. And we can do more than endlessly debating an issue where the data are lacking as shown by the fact no serious publication on the topic has emerged in an established journal.

4. For me personally, my forte is research and as I stated, I have done what I could to bring forth evidence regarding 9/11 and get it published in established journals. Now I am turning my attention to alternative energy.

Show "Ah, my bad" by Adam Syed

Prof Jones

was referring to you and me with the rearranging the deck chairs comment. Actually, playing a spirited game of badmouthing while the Titanic sinks would be more appropriate. The point is, we have better things to do than perfecting our badmouthing skills over questionable theories while the whole frikin world goes down the toilet. If Steve could find a way to channel our energy into some positive energy, we could power up the transporter and get off this stinking ship.

I would certainly add David Chandler's research and videos to the list of journals you mentioned, Also the FEMA C report, the USGS and RJ Lee Group studies and excerpts from the NIST reports like this one:


Show "Pentagon issues needing a physics expert to analyze." by Adam Ruff
Show "Excellent post Ruff." by Adam Syed
Show "Very good question" by Stefan

Alternative Energy

Hi Steve:

On a long-term macro-economic scale, providing inexpensive and portable alternative energies seems to be a major critical component to the freeing of the public from the elite's economic control over the public.

Obtaining alternative energy in the long-term is very important.

Thanks for your hard work.

investigation where?

I would like to add my view that while an international investigation might bear fruit, if the people of America really want to clear their name in the eyes of the world, they will have to initiate the investigation in the USA. Only that way will they be able to tell the world that it was not they but their lying leaders that got them into invading other countries.


Very good! It's too bad that BYU administrators refused to be interviewed for the film. I would have liked for them to explain exactly what "accusatory and speculative " comments they were referring to, which resulted in your administrative leave.

They went out on a limb as it is

It's enough that they gave the thermite paper a thumbs up and they are no doubt taking some flack for it. A well worded thank you note the BYU might help them whether the storm.

Show "The Bottom Line" by Stefan
Show "Hands up" by Stefan

Stefan, you are absolutely amazing!!!!!

It's so clear, this whole Pentagon thing. Your posts leave no stone unturned. I was wondering . ... I look at most things from a deep perspective.. I have wondered why within the TM there is so much fear and resistance on the Pentagon. Could it be this: nobody wants to wonder what happened to those people if the plane DIDN'T disintegrate into the building!!! Nobody likes the idea of swapped planes ( which could also have occurred with flight 93), because it makes it all way uglier, more bizarre, absurd!!
We don't want to wonder what happened to those people, it's so much easier to bury them within buildings or in deep holes of the earth!! Why do we not want to stay open to all possibilities and not refuse evidence just because it is so absurd? I found the blog on Barbara Olsen very interesting, could she still be alive? The perpetrators must be laughing at these arguments and the overall fear of the truth seekers!
Thanks to you Stefan, and to Adam Syed, Adam Ruff, Alison and those others who remain fearless in their quest for truth.
And I have appreciated you even more, Dr. Jones through these dialogues. I can feel your patience and love as we proceed in this difficult process. Thankyou!!!! You are humbly working for the world in ways we aren't even aware of. We all are, I like to think!

Show "Yes," by Adam Syed
Show "Thank you Lilyann, that's very kind of you" by Stefan

Yes I agree with your conclusions and...

Concerning point #4 we already have evidence of planted evidence at the WTC on 9/11. Does the magic fireproof passport ring any bells? Of course the government is willing to MFG evidence and plant evidence, to believe otherwise is naive to the extreme. They used misdirection at the WTC to hide the CD so why not use misdirection at the Pentagon?

Show "So you all want to remain anonymous?" by Stefan

Stefan, is a joke. Ironically, on that point alone, I am in complete agreement with Jon Gold.

Show "I certainly agree the voting system need a serious looking at" by Stefan

Amen brother.

Amen brother.

It's been, what, a couple months since the site upgrade, and when it was happening, a blog entry was posted which asked for people to leave comments containing suggestions on how to improve the site. I started the thread (as we all know the first comment is always the most read), and my suggestion was that the vote system could be modified so that we could see how many ups and how many downs a person receives, not just the net. Interestingly, THAT comment of mine was heavily upvoted, and quite a few people chimed in, saying "I agree. Show total ups and total downs." There was not one person who chimed in to keep the current system.

Well that discussion seems to have gone down the memory hole. What exactly is the point of hiding a comment anyway? "Ooooooh, five people didn't like it! It must be a dirty comment! Better shield the reader's innocent virgin eyes!"

Honestly, this all reminds me of and Right after the 2008 election, Obama's transition team told Americans to go to and submit their ideas for change. The initial top rated idea was to re-investigate 9/11, but it was censored out of the discussion and deleted. After that was censored, the next most top-rated idea was marijuana legalization. That was the message from the people. The transition team's cold response: "President elect Obama is not in favor of legalizing marijuana."

Not even a reason given. Just a cold "No. Next question please."

I pick up on that same cold feeling here sometimes.

They asked us for our input into how to make the site better and a large number of people agreed with the suggestions I made but it seems now it's all been forgotten.

User interfaces

Maybe the site update was just a Drupal version upgrade. The only changes I've noticed are that now the subject line is hidden with the comment on a separate page, and all scores on threads created before the update were reset. I don't see why users can't choose to see hidden comments. It didn't bother me too much when I could just expand the comment. We can see them anyway, it's just a hassle going to a different page now, and it's not like there aren't moderators.

That's getting fixed.

Comments will soon behave as they used to before the upgrade, which was a Drupal 4 to 6 upgrade, with other technical and back-end improvements.

Not good enough

Justin, the comment system was already poor enough prior to the upgrade; now that it's worse you expect us to be happy that it's going to be "improved" back to what it was? Are we supposed to be happy that it now takes five downvotes to collapse a comment instead of three? There is absolutely no value whatsoever in hiding comments at all. As Alison said, we're not children, peoples' innocent virgin eyes are not going to be psychologically traumatized by a post they might see by accident. When LeftWright posted a blog entry requesting user feedback into how to improve the site, I suggested that if we're going to have a vote system at all, total ups and total downs should be shown, in the name of transparency and simply to gauge how much interest a comment generates. Quite a few agreed with me (and ironically enough those posts of mine were heavily upvoted), and others have made the same suggestion in this thread.

I don't think that will be an improvement.

I see the hiding of down voted comments to be undesirable in a site devoted to the free exchange of information. So, 3 down votes, 5 down votes - this is all irrelevant. Please, let the comments stay visible. Popularity has very little to do with worth. We 9/11 truth advocates are already a marginalized group, and the comment policy seems to be designed to further marginalize those within the already marginalized group. It does not stand up to scrutiny.


Show "Very astute remark Mike." by Adam Ruff
Show "It sure does seem like censorship..." by Adam Syed
Show "I have yet" by bbruhwiler8

Bruno, that's dishonest.

re: "I have yet to meet anybody in Southern California that doesn't support CIT and Pilots for 911 Truth."

Bruno, I'd like to think that you are just kidding, but you probably aren't. I'm from Southern California. Not only is it safe to say we have met before, but we have specifically talked about the fact that I do not support either of those groups. You know that. As a matter of fact, there are a few people in WeAreChangeLA that certainly do not support them either. I'm wondering why (...not really...) you would say something so false.

Show "Have you considered" by Adam Ruff
Show "An excellent question you won't get an answer to." by Stefan

The answer to your question is ...

... Yes. Yes, I have considered that I am not right. In fact, that is why I have never claimed that I "am right" about anything at the Pentagon. Neither should you. You don't know for certain what happened there either. I think anyone who thinks that a plane did not hit the Pentagon has a valid argument, and I have no problem with them making that argument. Obviously, the crash site raises many alarm bells, especially if you just go by some of the very misleading photos. So, all this business about "being sure" and "attacking" and "ridiculing" and so forth is just more dishonesty from you. I don't support CIT because their evidence did not convince me. As for your evidence, I think that's great. Can't wait to see it. Hopefully, you are a better researcher. I hope you clear some things up. I'm sure Steven can give you some pointers about getting it peer-reviewed. But, I won't wait for that to happen before I look at it. If your evidence is solid and convinces me otherwise, I'll have no problem supporting it. If I do, I won't be "eating crow" either. I'm not interested in being right, I am interested in the truth.

I really don't think the 9/11 Truth movement is going to fall apart because I disagree with CIT. So, I'm not sure what this terrible looming injustice and harm is you describe, but it is obviously just a bunch of drama.

You are just being divisive, which from my perspective is nothing new. You use these terms like "faction", "detractors" and "Credibility Police." Plus, you are just rude and break any of the forums rules whenever it suits you. You guys are acting like bullies, not me. If your Pentagon evidence was solid, you would not have to bully people to look at it, you wouldn't have to try to guilt me into believing it (see above) and Bruno wouldn't have to pretend that there is more support for it than there is. So, if you have a credibility problem, it's not because you are being chased by imaginary "cops", it's because of your own behavior. Which, BTW, is extremely transparent and really leads a thinking person to believe you are this way on purpose.

Bruno is welcome to just admit he was exaggerating to make it look like everyone is on board with CIT when that is not the case. I'm sure he will because that is clearly not the case and he knows it.

I challenge you to respond without insulting me and others who disagree with you. For reference, I won't be baited further into some nonsense about "being right" or "attacking" people. But, I'm not going to be quiet when I see people ... let's just say ... stretching the truth.

Show "Where to begin?" by Adam Ruff

I'm not suppressing your smelly theories ...

I'm not keeping anybody from researching them. You will find CIT info on my site ... being ripped to shreds and totally exposed as dishonest ... but it's there. (Sure you're not mad at that part?) People can make up their own minds. I'm not your gatekeeper, crybaby.

Look, I'm just being a gentleman trying to find a way to politely point out what you guys are doing without calling you a bunch of lying liars. Oooops. Until now.

Show "So if CIT is dishonest as you claim they are" by Adam Ruff

Thank you for admitting ...

... that I am not suppressing CIT's information. Now you can stop calling us the credibility police. It's offensive. No, I don't want to debate you in public or in private. You just make shit up. The bottom line is I'm fine with the fact that you disagree with me. If that's not fine with you, you have an agenda.

Show "I didn't think you or the faction would accept a debate." by Adam Ruff



Public debate

Debating with someone who uses JREF tactics is a waste of time. Richard Gage debated Mark Roberts and learned this lesson. He will not make that mistake again.

Like Mark, Craig talks about many things at once making it impossible to counter all the points. I agreed to debate him if there were rules that would prevent this. He refused to be restricted by rules and insisted on a free for all where he could confuse the issue by talking it to death.

To be coherent, it is necessary to debate one point at a time and restrict the amount of time for statements and rebuttals.

I exposed the dishonesty of CIT in this summary and analysis:
I laid out the facts. If you can refute anything in this summary and analysis then please do so.

You speak of "factions", "cred cops" and "backstabbing". It is the desire of the government to divide us into factions engaging in acrimonious arguments. CIT and their supporters have accomplished this better than any government agent could, thus saving the government a lot of money.

Show "Could you direct me to the post where" by Adam Ruff

Debate at Loose Change forum

Adam, here it is:

Note that he accuses me of making personal attacks while making personal attacks. I made no personal attacks on this forum despite the many personal attacks against me.

The crux of the debate is on page 3.

At one point Craig admits that the directional damage does not prove flyover:
"The staged [caused by explosives] directional damage to the Pentagon has nothing to do with the plane and therefore it does not prove flyover.

"We have never claimed that it does.
Staged damage does not prove a flyover. The existence of a plane in a location that is irreconcilable with the physical damage is what proves a flyover."

This is double talk. He just substitutes the word "physical" for the word "directional".

He wants a live debate with no rules so he can get by with his very professional obfuscation. He talks fast, talks down to his opponent and makes many points at once, some of them false but worded in such a way that it takes time to unravel the sophistry. He uses all the plays in the "How to win any argument" playbook.

ETA: Pres Ford's following comment is a response to "Public debate" above

Show "I checked the thread you just posted" by Adam Ruff
Show "Damn, Ruff, good post!" by Adam Syed

NoC does not prove flyover

"You represent his statement as an admission that the directional damage does not prove flyover."

"He is clearly saying the directional damage was staged and has nothing to do with the plane and therefore because one has nothing to do with the other it follows that the "staged" damage does not prove a flyover occured."

So how is that a misrepresentation of what he said?

"He also states he never even suggested the direction damage proved flyover in the first place."
Yes he did in 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 . . . . cause the directional external and internal damage leading to the curiously round C ring hole."

The light poles were also stage and had nothing to do with the plane.

The surveillance video is not definitive.

That leaves the directional damage which he admits was staged.

OK, we now all agree that the directional damage to the Pentagon was staged and therefore it does not prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon.
NoC does NOT prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon and therefore does not prove flyover.

Show ".." by influence device

'double talk'

"We have never claimed that it does. Staged damage does not prove a flyover. The existence of a plane in a location that is irreconcilable with the physical damage is what proves a flyover."
This is double talk. He just substitutes the word "physical" for the word "directional".'

No, he also adds "The existence of a plane in a location that is irreconcilable with.."

Same thing said a different way

This is the double talk slither.

"The existence of a plane in a location [NoC] that is irreconcilable with [the directional damage to the Pentagon]."


Is your presumed scenario that the plane flew NoC, hit the Pentagon where we see the damage on the E-ring, but didn't cause the damage to the lightpoles, or the C/D-rings?

I think a source of confusion here is your definition of the 'fly-into' theory - it's not the official story, right?

The confusion is yours

As I have stated many times, the NoC fly into theory is just a possibility. The P4T video proves it is possible for a plane on the NoC flight path to hit the Pentagon.. See my analysis above.


Chris, as far as I am aware nobody has ever claimed it was impossible for a plane on the NoC flight path to hit the Pentagon. The question is over the cause of the directional damage. Simply saying 'it could have been explosives' is not sufficient, as that just leaves the question of what damage the plane did in fact cause.

great point, Chris

Perfectly on point. Thanks for spelling that out, I could not have said it better. I will only engage in an honest debate. Adam, sloppy job of trying to stand on the Constitution. I already told you you are free to think and say what you want, so just more deceptive nonsense from you. We have already given CIT way too much free publicity by debunking them. And, every 3 months a different one of you guys practically beg for us to give you more attention. The reason why that is never going to happen is what Chris just pointed out -- you are clearly not capable of an honest debate. You cannot even carry on a respectful conversation here.

If you want to promote CIT or whomever you support, then go ahead and start you own web site and do it. That's what I did. There's your First Amendment, buddy.

Show ""We have already given CIT" by Adam Syed

"anti-CIT" blogs

BTW That's basically everyone in the 9/11 Truth Movement but you.

Show "Shall we say "stretching the truth" a bit President Ford?" by Adam Ruff

Need for debate rules

Craig monopolizes and controls the conversation by doing most of the talking and constantly interrupting, keeping his opponent off balance. He spent almost all of the time talking about his opponent rather than the evidence. He is speaking politely but he keeps questioning the integrity of his opponent. Craig often indicates disdain by lightly laughing as he is asking a question. This is a subtle insult.

Craig keeps putting his opponent on the defensive. He asked "They were all liars is what you thought?" [as if this were a terrible thing to do - this is hypocritical because he thinks all the south path witnesses are liars] Then Jeff says "That's irrelevant now because I don't believe that's what happened." Craig says "It's kinda relevant as to not only this but how you present yourself to the witnesses now. That's why I established this is exactly what your mindset is and what inspired you approach the witnesses the way you have. Frankly I think that's damaging to the TM. That is a direct attack on Jeff's character. Then Craig says "You are not being honest." That is a blatant attack on Jeff's character.

I'll listen to the rest later but what I pointed out so far confirms the need for the rules I suggested.

We will discuss the claims made by CIT in NSA
We will not talk about each other.
We will discuss one point at a time.
We will take turns asking questions
We will answer questions directly.
There will be a 1 minute time limit for answers. [some flexibility]

Points to be debated:
CIT claim that a plane on the NoC = flyover
Flyover "witnesses" Roberts, Dihle and de la Certa
Other points as time permits

This is not complicated. There are many simple facts. Most points can be made in less than one minute and it does say that there is some flexibility.

You must first establish that something is a fact before you can talk about how other things relate to it. That’s why I included "answer directly"

After "debating" at the JREF forum for over two years, I know the "How to win any debate" playbook and Craig plays by the book. The rules I proposed are necessary if there is to be a real debate and not lot of double talk and personal attacks by a master manipulator.

Show "Interesting and revealing Chris" by Adam Ruff

You must first learn how to comprehend what you read

"We will discuss the claims made by CIT in NSA"
I don't make any claims. I just note the fact that a plane on the NoC path COULD hit the building.

"We will take turns asking questions"
No one controls the debate when the parties take turns asking questions and each get equal time.

Craig controlled the debate with Jeff by interrupting which is not allowed. Craig also controlled the debate by doing most of the talking.

Questioning you opponents honesty is not allowed and that's why i included:
"We will not talk about each other"

From the rules you linked to:
4a Debaters should always . . . . be courteous. They should not make personal comments about their opponents.

I sited several instances where Craig made personal comments. Craig makes a lot of personal comments. Perhaps you should show these rules to Craig.

4b Debaters must not disturb the speaker with interruptions.

Craig interrupted a lot.

Not acceptable

I'd like to add my voice to expressions of frustration with this new comment voting system. The complete hiding of comments makes it practically impossible to follow a thread. This is too much like censorship and no-one can tell what is really going on. I don't understand why the system had to be changed from the way it was before. Surely we are not children and can decide for ourselves what is information we want to look at. It appears to make it possible for a silent hidden voting bloc to completely censor the debate. This is not acceptable.

Show "The voting is not reflective of the blogger communities views" by Adam Ruff
Show "It reminds me of the 2004 election." by Adam Syed
Show "I don't see a lot of support for the official Pentagon story" by mikezimmer

Complete comment hiding

Is a side effect of the Drupal upgrade, and we are going to return the comment behaviour to the way it was before the upgrade, where the title of comments that are hidden is shown, and clicking on the comment expends it in-place so it can be read in context. We do plan to leave the threshold at -5 instead of -3.

CMS mods take time and $$$$, please have patience. We hope to have this change done soon.

Show "The question does remain" by Stefan

Reason for comment hiding?


A number of us have suggested in a well-reasoned fashion that there is no rationale for the hiding of comments.

Comments that are clearly offensive can be removed, just as is done at far more heavily trafficked sites.

Comments that are off topic can be managed, as long as it is done even handedly, and not according to personal biases.

Comments that are unpopular should not be hidden - there is no reason for it. Truth does not co-vary with consensus nor conform to popularity. If it did, none of the 9/11 truth advocates could be right. If we want suppression of unpopular views, we have the mainstream media to do that for us.

I have yet to see any clear reason given for the hiding of comments.


Show "The absurdity of it is..." by Stefan
Show "There is something not right" by mikezimmer
Show "The simple fact that..." by Stefan
Show "What. A. Farce." by Adam Syed
Show "Looks like Diebold is running the vote system here." by Adam Ruff
Show "I agree about the voting" by bbruhwiler8

Hey Bruno!!

Great suggestion - please don't hide the down - voted comments!!!
Leftwright, I keep looking for your response, you always try to be fair.
I have never cared to vote for anything, but I care even less for "hidden" agendas!!!
The most intelligent posts, to me, are the hidden ones, excepting Prof. Jones.
I feel honored to be a part of this "hidden" group. Stefan, Adam Syed, Adam Ruff, Alison, and Bruno, your courage and authenticity is my inspiration. Thankyou!
Are they trying to get rid of us so that Jon Gold can come back home???
I am serious. I love to come here to learn and to exchange ideas and mostly to uncover the raw truth of September 11th, 2001!!!!!!

Show "Great question, are they trying to get rid of us?" by Adam Ruff
Show "Of course!" by Lillyann
Show "The above list of hidden comments is an absolute joke." by Adam Ruff
Show "I get voted down for " by Lillyann

Great straight line ;-)

They got voted down because they were joke. ;-)

Seriously Adam, It's just the consensus opinion of the people who feel strongly enough to vote on a post. Theory being: We don't want the thread cluttered up with the same old tired double talk and your chatter back and forth. Your inability to "take a hint" is most profound.

Show "Chris a few sock puppets doesn't a majority make." by Adam Ruff

911blogger censorship farce exposed on the Kevin Barrett show

Adam Syed and Adam Ruff have exposed the 911blogger Pentagon censorship farce on syndicated radio.


It should be noted that in addition to the farcical naure of the comment voting/hiding system, 911blogger has purged at least four people that I am aware of who are supportive of CIT, this past week. Adam Syed, Adam Ruff, Onesliceshort and Stefan. And they have received absolutely no explanation whatsoever. Alison and Bruno, can you still post??
It is quite apparent that this is a transparent attempt by someone controlling this site to simply shut down any further discussion of what happened at the Pentagon.
I don't get any of this, I have been here nearly half a year! Most of my comments are hidden as well. In the thread about Eyewitnesses at the Pentagon in the last few days, I have been called insane, a nutter , a posing flower child, a possible agent and a flake by jbax. And he didn't let up even though one post was deleted.
Anyone out there unhappy about this situation?

This issue needs addresssing by the moderators!

I listened to the two Adams on the Barrett show, and Barrett has invited anyone on the moderator team to come on his show in a future episode and respond to the controversy. If what they are saying is true, perhaps the moderators should take this opportunity to step forward and explain why this has been happening, i.e. why everyone who expresses the slightest doubt over the government's official story about what happened at the Pentagon - no matter how civil their tone is - seems to be either voted down, placed in a moderation queue only to have their comments later vanish into the memory hole, or banned altogether? Is this really a 9/11 Truth site?

Moderators, please respond and put us all at ease! I don't want to believe this kind of censorship is going on here.

Getting down-voted now - how ironic!

As if to prove my point, I see both my comment and LilyAnn's above are now getting down-voted, and - if history is any guide - will soon disappear from visibility, as will this one. Now this isn't necessarily the work of the moderators, but if these two comments get down-voted out of existence, and the moderators do nothing to intervene and/or address this legitimate concern, then this board will obviously be seen to be seriously compromised. I understand one of David Ray Griffin's close associates is also concerned about this and is planning to make inquiries of the moderator team here, and I sincerely hope those efforts are successful and clarify any misunderstandings over this issue.

Mostly hidden

Thanks for the info Lillyann. I guess claims of 'disruption' have been bootstrapped by engaging in censorship through tactical down voting.

"Knowledge of what is possible is the beginning of happiness."
George Santayana

911Blogger has become a joke

I wonder who got to them?

It is a joke

But I'm not laughing. It's a shame that we are losing this place as the last forum to share dissenting theories and information. You people that are allowing this should be in the same category as the gatekeepers in the MSM. This is almost complicity at this point. What onterest do they have here in shutting us up about certain things?? CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR

My comments hidden for questioning the voting and hiding

Several of my comments have been hidden on this and other posts, merely for questioning the commenting system, including the voting and down hiding. At the least, it makes a mockery of free and open inquiry.

If we want gatekeepers, we have the mainstream media to do that for us.

This thread is mostly dead now, and only the die hards continue to post.

I have been invited to give a Physics Dept. Colloquium at BYU...

March 7, 2012. SEE for details:

Frankly, I was a surprised by the invitation which came last year, but glad to be back speaking to Physics students at BYU once more.

The Colloquium is open to the public.


Sounds good. well done

Great News Prof. Jones

This is really good to see, I hope it goes really well. Perhaps posting this to the front board may be in order? Really glad to see you back at BYU. Congratulations