New Pentagon Eyewitness
I have recently spoke with another Pentagon eyewitness who saw the plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11.
Steve Storti,
who used work as a fire lieutenant in Cranston , was asleep in Crystal City apartment when he was roused by a phone call from a friend
". . . 'What's going to happen next,' Storti, 46, recalls thinking as he stood on his balcony. Then he caught the glint of silver out of the corner of his eye.
He looked up to see a passenger plane with the trademark stainless-steel fuselage and stripes of American Airlines.
Time seemed to slip into slow motion as he watched the plane cross over Route 395, tip its left wing as it passed the Navy annex, veer sharply and then slice into the Pentagon. 'I remember thinking that whoever is flying this knows what they’re doing,' Storti said. "The plane traveled straight as an arrow.'(sic)
When it had plunged in as far as its tail fin, there was huge explosion"
http://mouv4x8.perso.neuf.fr/11Sept01/A0082_b_They%20saw%20the%20aircraft.htm
Conversation With Steve Storti 06/19/10
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3482275/
Steve Storti has also registered at my forum if anyone would like to ask him questions!
.
- shure's blog
- Login to post comments
I Do NOT Believe This!
"When it had plunged in as far as its tail fin, there was huge explosion"
The Nose punched a hole, and the engines didn't?
WARNING to commenters re insults and accusations
(not you, Joe- I'm just replying to your comment so this is at the top)
"Be civil. There have been disagreements about what happened on 9/11 since it happened. If you feel compelled to point out factual errors in a blog entry, back up your observations with linked documentation. Calling another user a liar or a disinformation agent won't be tolerated. Don't make this site a rallying point for competing factions to battle and waste our bandwidth and time. (If the only comments that you bother making here are to tell others users how stupid that you think they are, your comments will be added to a moderation queue, and your user account may eventually be closed.)"
http://911blogger.com/rules
The 'what hit' the Pentagon debate is one of the most contentious topics discussed at 911blogger.
Refrain from insults and accusations- especially of lying- including witnesses and people that don't post here.
If you can show that a claim is false or an argument is dishonest and you think it's important to point out, back it up with evidence- and keep it civil.
From Pentagon witness Albert Hemphill:
To Craig Renke and Jeffrey Hill:
You gentlemen contacted me regarding my eye-witness account the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. I was kind enough to talk with you. Both of you recorded our conversations without my knowledge, nor with my expressed permission. I’m sure you are versed in the provisions of 18 U.S.C Section 2311(2)(d). I believe the American public, whom you are trying to influence would share my view and opinion that these recordings were obtained by less than full, open and transparent means; and it is less than honorable to do that to someone...and it is simply unethical.
Craig, as one on an endless quest for "truth", I believe you in particular should feel embarrassment and shamed for recording a conversation without my knowledge. Jeffrey, you and I have communicated and I accept your apology; and believe you recognized that such recording is wrong. I do appreciate your pointing out where Craig Renke posted my phone discussion with him.
Craig, I believe you owe me an apology. I have received your CD information as we discussed - I offer no opinion regarding your data, nor will I review it any further.
However, let me state clearly and concisely – for the last time: I witnessed the aircraft impact the Pentagon building on 9/11. The flight path of the aircraft was terminated by its impact with the Pentagon building. I did not see any alteration or deviation to the flight path prior to the aircraft striking the building. The aircraft hit the building – this was what I reported to friends via email after 9/11; this is what I reported to the FBI and this is what I stated to you during our “interviews”.
Even though I fundamentally disagree with you Craig, I was polite and talked to you. Yet, the same courtesy was not returned as manifest by your internet posting. An honest and honorable person would have asked if recording the conversation was acceptable. Therefore, I will not be available to you for any further communications regarding the events of 9/11. Again, let me clearly state that my unwillingness to communicate with you is not because of any external influence, any direction or orders from the Federal Government; nor any fear of reprisal by any group or individual towards myself or my family. The singular reason I will not communicate with you is because you rudely recorded our conversation, and without my knowledge, posted it on the internet. This is fundamentally wrong; and is not, in my opinion, the action of an honest person.
Let me conclude by reiterating: the aircraft hit the Pentagon. Do not ever contact me again. Please feel free to post this email on your websites.
A.D. Hemphill
Manassas, Virginia
I'd like to see a photo of the view from his apartment
where he got such a great look at this event. I truly doubt he could witness the plane plunge in as far as it's tail fin.
Questions Questions
"The plane traveled straight as an arrow."
Oh, but David Marra said the 757 cart wheeled into the Pentagon, and Captain Liebner said the aircraft hit a helicopter on the helipad. Steve Anderson (a USA Today spokesman peering out his office windows in the Gannett towers) saw the 757 dig its wing into the ground (how did he notice that fine detail at such a distance?). How come Steve Storti didn't see those events? And how did the 757 get so close to the ground as its underside would have been buffeted by the massive air pressure associated with a 530 mph 757?
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Why don't you ask steve
Why don't you ask steve yourself here:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3482275/
Hey Brian, who's your
Hey Brian,
who's your source?
Here are my sources that would disagree becasue they saw a plane hit the Pentagon with their own eyes!
Steve Storti:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3482275/
Albert Hemphill:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3369020/
Alan Wallace:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3269928/
Noel Sepulveda:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3340388/
Penny Elgas:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/1757591/
Major Lincoln Lieber:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3269452/
Father Stephen McGraw:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3485532/
Donald Bouchoux:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3485511/
Robert Leonard:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3480236/
.
Thanks for the link to Frank
Thanks for the link to Frank Legge's "What Hit the Pentagon?"
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-01-30/version-7-what-hit-pentagon-misinf...
That was a great read ;)
well
Storti's quote would be an indication it sure as hell wasn't Hani Hanjour piloting the plane wouldn't it?
Are all the other witnesses I linked to above also rehearsed?
Whatever!
You can surmise anything you want, you wern't there!
I wouldn't be suprised if you believed NPT at the WTC too!
other possibilities and witnesses
Dean, you've repeatedly brought up 2 witnesses:
Marra: ""It was 50 ft. off the deck when he came in. It sounded like the pilot had the throttle completely floored. The plane rolled left and then rolled right. Then he caught an edge of his wing on the ground." There is a helicopter pad right in front of the side of the Pentagon. The wing touched there, then the plane cartwheeled into the building."
How do you know he's "lying" and not simply reporting the way it appeared, or even what his eyes/brain fooled him into thinking the wingtip caught the ground and caused the plane to spin- the plane approach and crash was was over in seconds.
Many people reported the wings tipping to one side; it may be that by "cartwheel" he didn't literally mean "end over end." In any case, did anyone other than Marra, and Stephen McGraw (who later admitted he was basing his cartwheel statement on other's recollections), say anything about the plane cartwheeling? This is a minor and ultimately insignificant point; at least several dozen eyewitnesses reported seeing a commercial airliner hit the building, and probably many more did that were never interviewed. Jeff Hill has talked to 9 (above) and CIT has talked to at least 9, including Storti and these http://911blogger.com/news/2009-12-27/south-path-impact-documented-adam-...
Lists of eyewitnesses; note that some of these accounts have been shown to not be eyewitnesses, and in other cases it's not clear if they're eyewitnesses; at least several dozen are eyewitnesses to a plane hitting the Pentagon, as is clear from the context of their statements.
9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Witnesses Described
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html
Eric Bart's Pentagon Attack Eyewitness Account Compilation
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html
Liebner - the helicopter reference isn't a direct quotation of Liebner; "Captain Lincoln Leibner says the aircraft struck a helicopter on the helipad, setting fire to a fire truck." Perhaps the reporter misunderstood him?
You're claiming that these anomalies/discrepancies in these 2 eyewitness accounts disprove the whole official story; don't you find it a bit strange that a false account created to support what you're claiming never happened (plane crash into Pentagon) would include easily disprovable details, thereby giving critics like yourself the ability to debunk both the false accounts and the plane hit Pentagon story? In any case, as I noted above, these are just two accounts out of at least several dozen eyewitness accounts.
In any case, I don't see that you've shown that Storti, Liebner or Marra were lying, i.e. engaging in an intentional deception- you're claim that Storti is lying is based on your unproven allegation that Liebner and Marra are lying, and your claim of having an anonymous source who claims a missile hit the building. I don't see that you've provided any good evidence for your assertion that any eyewitnesses were planted.
review of Dean's evidence and accusations
Dean, why after I posted a warning to comments in the 2nd comment above, and you were personally made aware, have you continued to accuse people of lying?
Now, a review of your evidence:
Eyewitness accounts of events frequently contradict each other and the facts, so interpreting accounts too literally, or saying they have to be 100% accurate or none of it is true is a straw man.
DEAN: "Cartwheeling is cartwheeling, and there is no evidence that a large airliner cartwheeled. Either David Marra was there and is reading a script or he wasn't there and repeated what he heard. Either way he is a liar."
True; there's no evidence the plane cartwheeled, but it may have appeared that way to him, or he could be using a figure of speech, so your assertion that he must be lying is unsupported. One could question whether he's a credible witness, given that his account doesn't square with other facts. Perhaps he did lie, but you've presented no hard evidence he was being intentionally deceptive.
DEAN: "The ABC article says: -- Captain Liebner says the aircraft struck a helicopter on the helipad, setting fire to a fire truck."
Right- the ABC article says this; it's not a quote of Liebner. And if he said it, it may be he was confused.
DEAN: "The reporter would also have to be wrong about reporting getting "one guy out of the [fire truck] cab" also, because there was no such guy rescued! Reporters tape their conversations, so two such errors is impossible. --"
Wrong; any number of errors are 'possible,' and reporters, in addition to eyewitnesses, sometimes get things wrong. Plus, all reporters don't always tape all conversations. In any case, what's your source proving that Liebner's statement is false; "We got one guy out of the [fire truck] cab,"
DEAN: "Steve Storti is obviously lying when he refuses to provide the picture he said he took, and the laughable excuse he gave for having a camera so close by to take that picture is pitiful! Even Superman wouldn't have been so quick to have gotten that picture!"
You initially called Storti a liar and alleged he was paid because you claim to be convinced that a missile hit the Pentagon (how do you know your 'source' is telling the truth?), therefore all witnesses that saw a plane must be lying. This isn't evidence, period; let alone evidence of lying.
Now you claim that Storti is lying, based on your alleged belief that no one keeps a camera handy, and cuz Storti has yet to produce a photo he says he took of the explosion. That's not evidence of lying.
DEAN: "Vin Narayanan: (another Gannetter!); "the nose of the plane curled upwards and crumpled." Impossible to notice that at the speed of Flight 77!"
You claim it's impossible to have seen this, but how do you know that's not how it appeared? Are you suggesting that Naranyan, who was on the freeway next to the Pentagon, was coached to give an improbable story? This is not evidence of intentional deception.
DEAN: "Steve Anderson: Flight 77's wing, "...drug it's wing along the ground." Really? Where's the imprint on the Pentagon lawn? And while we're at it, where are the burn marks on the Pentagon's lawn from the engines, each spewing out, at 400-mph, hot gases with temperatures of 1,615 F?"
Again, how do you know that's not how it appeared? Again, interpreting a witness account too literally, and requiring that it comply 100% with the facts, is a straw man argument. In any case, do you have high resolution photos that were taken from above the lawn- not from the side- that would clearly show whether or not the wing did scrape the ground, or whether or not there were burn marks? (No, i didn't think you did) And why in the world you assume that a plane descending from 50' to impact right at the first and second floors, with the jets pointing up, is even going to leave burn marks, when it's traveling at 400 or so mph? People can jump thru campfire flames and not get burned; not as hot as jet exhaust, but not traveling anywhere near as fast as a plane, either. Again, your evidence doesn't support your claim.
DEAN: "Notice that 400-mph figure each engine was spewing? Well, the traffic on Washington Boulevard was stalled when Flight 77 supposedly flew over the cars at 25 feet. Why weren't any of the vehicles overturned or moved askew? A force 5 hurricane emits 155 mph winds and greater, so Flight 77, one could say, was spewing in excess of force 15 winds!"
Where's the evidence this should've happened? See how low these 747's are getting to the beach? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiWJJulBLjA&feature=related Yes, I've seen the vids where jet exhaust blows cars away; the planes are standing still, preparing to take off; not already in the air, moving, coming in to land. Again, your argument doesn't add up.
DEAN: "Of course, bogus witnesses aren't the only proof that a 757 didn't fly into the Pentagon. At 530 mph a 757 can't get that low to the ground due to the massive air pressure underneath the aircraft. If the pilot pushed the stick forward at that speed and altitude, then the aircraft would indeed cartwheel!"
Source? While you haven't demonstrated that ANY of the named witnesses are "bogus," the claim that 100 or so tons of aircraft can't crash at high speed/would cartwheel because of air pressure is absurd; while ground effect does increase lift, this can be compensated for by turning the nose lower. http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/groundeffect.html
DEAN: "How did the starboard side engine smash through the generator? It would have been sheered off the pylon."
The wings are the strongest part of the aircraft, and you claim that an engine weighing 6 tons is so weakly attached and has so little forward momentum at 400 mph that it will come off when it hits a generator TRAILER? Hardly likely. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html#generator
DEAN: "The Pentagon wall shows damage consistent with a much smaller aircraft, not a 757."
Wrong. The public photos show there was a 90' gash in the first floor, with a hole in the center, on the 2nd floor, large enough to fit the fuselage and the engines http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html
The evidence you've claimed contradicts the OCT isn't evidence of that.
Far better evidence that the OCT is false, is that anything was allowed to hit the Pentagon, after a summer of threat which included warnings of attacks w/ planes on US cities, and that more than half an hour after the 2nd WTC tower was hit there was no air cover over the nation's capital.
It should also be noted
It should also be noted that not only is Loose Nuke's "Thou shalt not insinuate that a witness [i.e. someone who is not a user of 911blogger] is a liar" command patently absurd [after all no one is banned for calling Dick Cheney a liar], it is something that's not fairly applied.
There have been numerous comments on here over the years accusing Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of being liars, frauds and con men. Indeed, such accusations have been made in blog entries which have appeared as front page news, particularly Victoria Ashley's "To Con A Movement" along with Michael Wolsey's interview with Hoffman, and Hoffman's anti CIT essay "The PentaCon: Smoking Crack Version" which is a mean spirited take on CIT's subtitle "Smoking Gun Version."
Apparently it was acceptable to call CIT liars because they had been banned from here and were hence not members of the site.
Just wanted that noted for the record... I hope those folks making accusations against you, Dean, either back them up up with hard evidence, or withdraw their allegations - and the same goes for anyone subject to such allegations!
I Was Suspended For A Day This Week!
nobodyparticular,
I was actually suspended for a day earlier this week for calling certain non-users of 9/11 Blogger liars! I couldn't believe it! I contacted Erik Larson and had to explain the rules to him!
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Be careful - don't get yourself banned
It is indeed hard to figure out what is and isn't allowed here. Calling people liars seems OK one day, but not the next, depending on who is being targeted, and without any accountability or transparency, there's no way of knowing who is being banned/moderated here and why. Dean, If you're interested in listening to two former 911blogger posters who have now been permanently banned for reasons unknown, check out today's Kevin Barrett show at http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Truth-Jihad-32k-062610.mp3
Craig Ranke responds re: reports of missile/small plane
Here is what Craig Ranke of CIT has to say about all this, posted on the Citizen Investigation Team forum at http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1334&view=findpost&p=...
[edited 6/28/10: this comment was originally a repost of the article at the above link; quoting from articles to support points is fine; do not post entire articles in comments- loose nuke]
Geez
spam much?
Misrepresentations by nobodyparticular
"It should also be noted that not only is Loose Nuke's "Thou shalt not insinuate that a witness [i.e. someone who is not a user of 911blogger] is a liar" command patently absurd [after all no one is banned for calling Dick Cheney a liar], it is something that's not fairly applied."
What I said was, "Refrain from insults and accusations- especially of lying- including witnesses and people that don't post here."
As I noted below, I warned both Jeff and Dean by email, June 22. When I got back here on the 23rd I saw that Dean had posted several additional comments calling Storti and other witnesses liars. Dean said that he doesn't check his email every day; apparently, he posts here in between days when he checks email.
I've warned a number of other people to not to call CIT liars, and put at least one person on moderation. Though I've critiqued CIT's claims and criticized their behavior, I've never called them liars or disinfo, and I've specifically pointed out that they may actually believe what they're saying, while acknowledging that I don't know if they do or not. They have insinuated and directly said I am a liar and disinfo.
911Blogger is moderated by volunteers. Not every thread may be reviewed, and not every comment may be read. Sometimes comments are removed and people are warned privately. Sometimes people are warned publicly and comments are left up as an example.
I noticed, nobodyparticular, that you didn't have a problem with my telling Bursill on the Deets thread to refrain from insults and accusations, even though Balsamo was banned some time ago (not by me) because of his repeated violations and infractions of the "Be civil" rule.
np: "I hope those folks making accusations against you, Dean"
What accusations are you referring to?
If anyone notices a violation or infraction of the rules, please contact news.911blogger AT gmail.com
We are doing our best to make it difficult for those who would sow disinformation and cause discord here. That's why the rules are in place, and they will be revised as needed.
You've never called CIT disinfo??
Loose Nuke,
You said:
I've warned a number of other people to not to call CIT liars, and put at least one person on moderation. Though I've critiqued CIT's claims and criticized their behavior, I've never called them liars or disinfo, and I've specifically pointed out that they may actually believe what they're saying, while acknowledging that I don't know if they do or not. They have insinuated and directly said I am a liar and disinfo.
In late December 2009 you promoted the following essay by Adam Larson (I realize you're a different person and of no relation, but you were clearly promoting A. Larson's piece):
http://911blogger.com/node/22239
This essay calls the National Security Alert video a "mockumentary" even though it is nothing of the sort:
I believe they’re claiming 13 such witnesses at the moment, as featured in their latest full-length mockumentary, and sure to grow judging to their rhetoric.
This is the same type of tactic used by the right wingers who hated Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. Any time I see someone kick off a critique by calling the work it's critiquing a "mockumentary" I see a red flag as far as objectivity. And in the comment section of that discussion, Sarns is allowed to get away with calling CIT liars and jimd3100 is allowed to get away with accusing CIT of conning the movement. These people were certainly not publicly warned to refrain from calling the CIT boys liars.
And in another blog entry, this one actually composed by yourself, you used the following tags:
9-11, 9/11 truth, 9/11 Truth Movement, aldo marquis, Citizen Investigation Team, craig ranke, Disinformation, Ed Paik, Edward Paik, misinformation, national security alert, North Side Flyover, PentaCon, Pentagon Flyover, Shinki Paik, what hit the pentagon
While "misinformation" implies that the person spreading incorrect info is doing so with well meaning intentions, "disinformation" implies nefarious purposes. By having that tag on the blog entry you are indeed accusing CIT of being intentional disinformation.
You may never have said the exact words "the CIT guys are liars" in direct succession, but you clearly were very literally attempting to "label" them disinformation by using that "tag".
AND in another piece you wrote, Peter Dale Scott Does Not Endorse the Flyover Theory (and Neither Do I), your very first tag at the top is "9/11 disinformation." You posted that same article - and the Shinki Paik article - on your own little wordpress blog with the same tag ("911 disinformation")
So I think it's actually very safe to say that you have indeed 'tagged' the 'label' of disinfo onto them on more than one occasion. Will you now honestly acknowledge this?
Truthful Lies
nobodyparticular,
Actually "misinformation" means mixing truth with lies. It's more nefarious then straight out disinformation.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
GOTCHA!!! (not)
Loose Nuke: "Though I've critiqued CIT's claims and criticized their behavior, I've never called them liars or disinfo, and I've specifically pointed out that they may actually believe what they're saying, while acknowledging that I don't know if they do or not."
I posted an essay by Adam Larson- I've also linked to other articles by him on other occasions; nobodyparticular is claiming this means I've called CIT disinfo; wrong. I don't agree with all of Adam Larson's word choices, opinions or interpretations- if I'm referencing an article or his website, it's cuz I think it's relevant in whatever context I'm presenting it.
Re: comments made by other users; I'm not responsible for what other users say, and I'm not going to comment on what moderation may have been done in any specific instance, which I may or may not recall, or have been aware of- and I'm not the only moderator, or the site owner (see the About page). As you might know, the Pentagon debate threads are frequently long and contentious; your focus solely on possible bad behavior on the part of CIT critics shows your particular bias. No one has been put on moderation or banned cuz of promotion of CIT's work; people are put on moderation or banned due to violations or infractions of the rules, which are intended to promote civility and productive discussion. People's comments on how the site is being run will be taken into account by the management.
nobodyparticular: "While "misinformation" implies that the person spreading incorrect info is doing so with well meaning intentions, "disinformation" implies nefarious purposes. By having that tag on the blog entry you are indeed accusing CIT of being intentional disinformation."
You are correct about the difference between mis and disinfo, but in error when you say my tag choices mean I'm "accusing CIT of being intentional disinformation." I don't pretend to know the reasons why CIT argues and behaves the way they do- I don't consider CIT credible, and I'm not ruling anything out. By including "misinformation" and "disinformation" as tags, it means my article will come up in searches on that term; that's the purpose of tags.
While you're trolling thru my comments and articles looking for gotcha! stuff, I suggest you consider the info I present, and check the info presented at the links as well.
Also, this article is from 2007, but it's still a very relevant overview of CIT:
CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy By Arabesque
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-an...
PS; you referenced some people as having endorsed CIT's work; you're obviously now aware that PDS explicitly does not endorse the flyover conclusion, as you linked to my article in the above comment- neither does Richard Gage:
Clarification from Richard Gage AIA regarding his review of "National Security Alert"
http://911blogger.com/news/2009-12-04/clarification-richard-gage-aia-reg...
Your admissions confirm my suspicions
loose nuke, you said to me: "Though I've critiqued CIT's claims and criticized their behavior, I've never called them liars or disinfo"
I pointed out - and you were reluctantly forced to admit - that you indeed posted an essay by Adam Larson calling the National Security Alert video a "mockumentary", where comments subsequently accusing CIT of lying and conning the movement continue to stand unrebuked. You further admit you 'tagged' the 'label' of disinfo onto them on more than one occasion, so that, as you put it, the "article will come up in searches on that term; that's the purpose of tags."
Thank you, for acknowledging this, at least, and I will leave it to others to judge the honesty and sincerity of your previous comments to me on this point.
Don't worry, I've already read all that distracting, out-dated and mostly misleading material you posted many times, I assure you. I've also read enough straightforward deconstructions of Arabesque's transparently deceptive "overview" to know that he hasn't subjected his own cherry-picked list of MSM alleged witness accounts to anywhere near the critical scrutiny and fact-checking that CIT's witnesses have undergone. Of course, if you haven't watched their latest presentation, you wouldn't know that (I know you said you prefer written material, as do I, but sometimes good evidence comes in video form). So if you haven't already, I sincerely suggest you do: National Security Alert
While I'm fully aware that CIT supporters Peter Dale Scott and Richard Gage (who have admittedly not heavily researched the Pentagon attack) have been browbeaten into making statements clarifying that they didn't specifically endorse the flyover conclusion, this does not prove to me that they don't find it to be the most plausible explanation, and what's clear to me from their statements is that they have both stood by their public praise of National Security Alert.
However, none of this is relevant to the fact that you were obviously mistaken - and would appear to have misled me (and the rest of us) - about your previous treatment of CIT's work, and I stand by my assertions in the previous post on this point.
pretty slick
nobodyparticular is really creative with his rhetoric; s/he has essentially called me a liar numerous times in the above comment- without actually saying so. This characterization of my reply and Arabesque's work isn't worth rebutting- by replying i'm ensuring the above comment can't be edited.
If someone has time to read only one part of this long article, I recommend scrolling down to the section starting at "CIT: We “Do Not” Personally Attack!"; CIT's own words, with source links:
CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy By Arabesque
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-an...
Not worth rebutting, eh?
I can only assume the reason that my "characterization of [your] reply and Arabesque's work isn't worth rebutting" is because you are incapable of doing so, otherwise why wouldn't you? There is no creative rhetoric here - all I have done is simply proven, for the benefit of anyone keeping track, that your previous declaration "I've never called [CIT] liars or disinfo" is clearly contradicted by your promotion of CIT arch-critic Adam Larson's scurrilous diatribes and your own repeated tagging of CIT-related material as "disinformation." As for how and why you made this clear error or mis-statement, I certainly harbor my own suspicions, but I will leave that up to the shrinking readership of this site to decide for themselves.
"Be civil." Plus, a review of your response.
The rules are intended to promote civility and productive discussion. The spirit of the rules is the first two words in bold: "Be civil." The rules also say:
"Do not post material that promotes hatred ..."
"Post useful information and commentary, not ad-hominem attacks or insults."
You can justify yourself by saying you haven't called another user a liar, but when a user calls someone a liar the spirit of the rules is infracted upon. When someone is accused of lying based on no evidence other than your opinion and interpretation of facts, the rules are infracted upon to an even greater degree.
In addition, as a moderator, I posted a warning at the top not to call people liars, and warned both you and Jeff by email. Are you going to continue calling people liars?
People who make accusations simply based on their opinion and their selective interpretation of facts discredit and shame themselves. When it's done in connection with the cause of 9/11 truth and justice, by extension it brings discredit on the truth movement, as well as sowing discord in the movement.
DEAN: "I don't need to ask Steve what flew into the Pentagon. I already know. My source affirms that it was a missile that set off an electromagnetic pulse when it exploded (that's why the wall clocks stopped throughout the Pentagon)."
DEAN: "I NEVER use my source as evidence (not even in my article on the Pentagon at DNotice.org). I use my source as an interesting aside from someone I know who is always correct, because this person gets intelligence briefings."
"Jet air blast blows out AND downwards. "When modern jet engines are operated at rated thrust levels, the exhaust wake can exceed 375 mi/h (325 kn or 603 km/h) immediately aft of the engine exhaust nozzle. This exhaust flow field extends aft in a rapidly expanding cone, with portions of the flow field contacting and extending aft along the pavement surface.""
This has nothing to do with proving that the jet exhaust would've blown the cars away, or burnt the lawn, which were your claims. It mentions pavement and "rated thrust levels"; this means it's referring to taking off from the runway. Do jet engines leave burn marks on the concrete? Even if they did, this doesn't correlate to the purported path of AA 77, so it's irrelevant.
You claim the ABC article shows no one was rescued from the cab; as far as I saw, the only reference in the whole article to this is Liebner's statement "We got one guy out of the [fire truck] cab,"' so what's the evidence proving your claim? That the truck was damaged in the rear? How does that disprove "We got one guy out of the [fire truck] cab,"'?
Your source to support your claim that the engine would have broken off if it hit the generator trailer is about an engine that fell off a plane in mid-air w/o hitting anything; there was a defect; this proves nothing. The engines are designed to break off before they tear the wings off with them, but you must concede that they're attached strongly enough to the wings to be able to move 100 tons of aircraft thru the resistance provided by air; again, not likely that in all cases an aluminum generator trailer shell will knock the engine loose. And even if it did, 6 tons at 400+ mph, it would likely have kept hurtling forward into the building. I looked at the link to support your claim that Hoffman is "all wet." It doesn't prove that the plane/engine couldn't have caused the damage.
DEAN: "The pictures show that on either side of the hole made by the fuselage the columns are still there! Especially obvious are the columns that the starboard wing should have obliterated."
See this: http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/columns.html
DEAN: "Even a shallow nose down will not prevent ground effect, and all the eyewitnesses say Flight 77 was level. Anything greater than a shallow approach will put Flight 77 into the ground."
DEAN: "As the speed increases, the air pressure under the wings increases, while the air pressure over the wings decreases. The aircraft will naturally move towards the weaker force, which is upwards."
So which is it? You've said ground effect will make the plane go "upwards" and you've also said it would put it "into the ground". Witnesses said the plane was low, diving, hit the Pentagon. Some witnesses may have said it was level, but apparently it was low enough to clip light poles and hit right at the base, so it was on a slight downward trajectory. Again, expecting eyewitness accounts to square 100% with the facts is a straw man. Claiming that a cover story was agreed upon beforehand to describe the plane as cartwheeling and then only one person stuck to that story is ridiculous.
What about the several dozen other eyewitnesses who described the S path and impact, including all of Jeff HIll's confirmed accounts, as well as all of CIT's witnesses who they use to support their N path claim, as well as the ones that don't, who they've accused of being agents and liars cuz their accounts don't fit with their claims?
"Be civil."
ad hominem: "attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad+hominem
By calling someone a liar, you're attacking their character.
DEAN: "My personal attacks are always accompanied by an argument."
And so far, your arguments have been based on your opinion; your interpretation of witness statements for which there are possible explanations other than what you speculate. "Useful information and commentary" would be showing the statements are false. Irrelevant commentary is your going beyond this to personally attack them.
And while you claim to not "hate" these witnesses (despite your acknowledgment you've attacked them personally; not simply their information/statements), given that you're alleging they're protecting the 9/11 cover up, this could well cause others who might believe your arguments to hate them; in this sense your posts are promoting hatred.
But these points are subordinate to the main rule: "Be civil."
VP Cheney Lied About 9/11
loose nuke says, "And so far, your arguments have been based on your opinion..."
Response:
My arguments are based on the evidence of what people say. You are the one putting words into witnesses' mouths. You are the one inserting your opinion for what the witnesses actually said. I don't second guess the witnesses' testimony, I merely recite it.
loose nuke says, "But these points are subordinate to the main rule: "Be civil."'
Response:
Again, civility is a moot point when one defames a third party who is not a part of a conversation. To whom have I had a discussion with here at 9/11 Blogger that I have been uncivil to?
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Physics Rule
loose nuke says, "Your source to support your claim that the engine would have broken off if it hit the generator trailer is about an engine that fell off a plane in mid-air w/o hitting anything;"
Response:
You need to re-read Ricochet's comment again. "Some seven minutes later the #3 engine and pylon separated from the right wing in anoutboard and rearward direction. The #3 engine hit the #4 engine, causing this engine and its pylonalso to separate from the wing." -- http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=13453
The #4 engine was cleanly torn from the wing when it was hit by the #3 engine, which was the engine that simply fell off.
Loose nuke says, "DEAN: "The pictures show that on either side of the hole made by the fuselage the columns are still there! Especially obvious are the columns that the starboard wing should have obliterated."
See this: http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/columns.html "
Response:
See the two intact columns to the right of columns(?) 15, 16 and 17? They are not supposed to be there. Those columns and more would have been taken out by the remaining two thirds of the starboard wing: http://www.physics911.net/missingwings
loose nuke says, "This has nothing to do with proving that the jet exhaust would've blown the cars away, or burnt the lawn, which were your claims. It mentions pavement and "rated thrust levels"; this means it's referring to taking off from the runway. Do jet engines leave burn marks on the concrete? Even if they did, this doesn't correlate to the purported path of AA 77, so it's irrelevant."
Response:
Jet blast doesn't care if its on the ground or in the air, it follows the laws of physics: when the highly pressurized hot gasses exit the engine, the gasses will expand in all directions in the less pressurized environment outside.
Jet blast will break up the runway at full throttle (Flight 77 was at full throttle at 530 mph). Remember the YouTube video of the 747 engine blowing away the car from 150 feet away? The presenter said the 757 could only keep the engine at full throttle for 20 seconds, otherwise the tarmac would break up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJ5ZGV3Vxo8&feature=related
Now that we know that jet blast blows downwards, and at full throttle has enough power to throw cars into the air like rag dolls at 150 feet and beyond, and destroy an airport's asphalt pavement in just twenty seconds, imagine what that kind of energy will do to idle traffic twenty feet below and what that energy will do to grass from inches above the ground.
Hot gasses from the engine cool quickly as they move further away from the engine, so I'm talking about those gases that hit the grass immediately aft of the engine.
loose nuke says: "So which is it? You've said ground effect will make the plane go "upwards" and you've also said it would put it "into the ground". Witnesses said the plane was low, diving, hit the Pentagon. Some witnesses may have said it was level, but apparently it was low enough to clip light poles and hit right at the base, so it was on a slight downward trajectory. Again, expecting eyewitness accounts to square 100% with the facts is a straw man. Claiming that a cover story was agreed upon beforehand to describe the plane as cartwheeling and then only one person stuck to that story is ridiculous."
Response:
The Pentagon video evidence affirms a level aircraft of some sort approaching the Pentagon.
Regarding ground effect, I said that an aircraft so close to the ground, traveling level at cruise speed (Flight 77 was flying at 530 mph, which is cruise speed for a 757) will automatically lift upwards. It has no choice. If commercial aircraft could attain cruise speed on takeoff, they wouldn't need to nose up in order to take off. The aircraft would automatically lift upwards; the aircraft being pushed upwards towards the weaker air pressure above the wings.
Regarding "put it "into the ground"', that would happen if the pilot forced the stick downwards. The aircraft would violently resist the downward push resulting in loss of control of the aircraft and crashing.
We have two witnesses who say cartwheeling. Remember Father Stephen McGraw who initially said the aircraft cartwheeled? He said he said it cartwheeled because he heard that description from another eyewitness! Tell me, why would Father Stephen McGraw provide the testimony of another eyewitness that he knew was bogus?
We don't know the other persons who said cartwheeling (such as the person Father Stephen McGraw quoted) because the media would have been told to stop providing such reports.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
rules of evidence, and the cause of truth & justice
OK, I missed the 2nd part; the #3 fell off when cuz of a defect; the #4 fell off when the #3 hit it. Even so, I don't see that you can declare that this proves that AA 77's engine would have come off when it hit a hollow aluminum generator TRAILER. And, as I already said- how do you know it didn't- and as it would've been traveling at 400+ mph, continued on into the building? It's not like the trailer could've slowed it down much- the trailer was even knocked 45 degrees toward the Pentagon.
Seems obvious that a 757 impacting a steel and concrete building is going to be turned into 100 tons of debris even as it causes major damage to the building. Some witnesses reported that it seemed like the wings folded back and went into the building with the plane. I'm not buying that the speculations of you and others that the damage would look like something other that what can be seen in the available photos. It's certainly not "proof."
You've provided no source for your claims about what the exhaust should've done to the cars and lawn, and I don't buy your speculation on this point, either.
I also don't buy your speculation that ground effect would've made it impossible for the plane to hit the building- see the ground effect link i provided above.
And despite repeatedly calling Marra a liar, you haven't proved that he did, and you haven't acknowledged that he may have used this as a figure of speech and didn't mean it to be taken literally, or that it seemed that way to him. Perhaps he lied, but you haven't proved it, and your accusation without evidence of intentional deception on his part is uncivil and irresponsible. McGraw, when questioned on this point, acknowledged that he was repeating what others said. The vast majority of witnesses who reported seeing a commercial airliner hit the Pentagon did not report this, and you haven't debunked their accounts, or proved they're liars.
There's no actual evidence that AA 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, so while people are justified in demanding the government release all the evidence they're suppressing, these baseless allegations that AA 77 didn't hit are irresponsible and bring discredit on those who make them, and by extension the 9/11 truth movement. It doesn't solve the crime or bring people to justice, and as it has helped the MSM mock the truth movement, it has made getting at the truth and obtaining justice even more difficult.
Physics Rule II
loose nuke says, "Even so, I don't see that you can declare that this proves that AA 77's engine would have come off when it hit a hollow aluminum generator TRAILER."
Response:
The generator was made of heavy corrugated steel, not aluminum. These generators weigh between 15-20 tons!
loose nuke says, "Some witnesses reported that it seemed like the wings folded back and went into the building with the plane."
Response:
I haven't heard that hilarious description in years! The debunkers said that long after the day of 9/11 to explain away the less than expected damage to the Pentagon wall. Then witnesses followed suit, mimicking what the debunkers said. Again, simple physics explains why wings don't magically fold up so they can fit nicely into a 20 foot hole.
See the YouTube link below for how the experts at Purdue University explain the damage inside the Pentagon; the wings don't fold. If the wings had folded, then there is no way for the experts to explain the damage to the Pentagon inside.
Where's your link on ground effect? I don't see it. Does it say something like, "aircraft only experience ground effect at approach speeds"? If so, I've already answered that. The ground effect phenomena increases as speed increases, which increases the air pressure under the wings.
The correct thing to say about ground effect is that it is experienced mostly at approach speeds because commercial aircraft don't approach the runway at speeds much greater than approach speeds.
loose nuke says, "There's no actual evidence that AA 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, so while people are justified in demanding the government release all the evidence they're suppressing, these baseless allegations that AA 77 didn't hit are irresponsible and bring discredit on those who make them, and by extension the 9/11 truth movement."
Response:
There's plenty of evidence, you just won't accept it unless you see it. How do you feel about gravity? Do you think it exists? Tell me, how does science deduce the existence of gravity without seeing it?
loose nuke says, "Seems obvious that a 757 impacting a steel and concrete building is going to be turned into 100 tons of debris even as it causes major damage to the building."
Response:
Not to the experts who actually studied it. However, those experts left out a number of variables when they reconstructed the crash on computer, such as:
1. No Pentagon wall;
2. The engines disapear just before they touch the non-existent Pentagon wall;
3. The tail assembly enters the non-existent wall undamaged: and
4. No second floor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMqgFaNvoP8&feature=related
loose nuke says, "And despite repeatedly calling Marra a liar, you haven't proved that he did, and you haven't acknowledged that he may have used this as a figure of speech and didn't mean it to be taken literally, or that it seemed that way to him. Perhaps he lied, but you haven't proved it, and your accusation without evidence of intentional deception on his part is uncivil and irresponsible. McGraw, when questioned on this point, acknowledged that he was repeating what others said. The vast majority of witnesses who reported seeing a commercial airliner hit the Pentagon did not report this, and you haven't debunked their accounts, or proved they're liars."
Response:
I've already discussed Marra and Father McGraw earlier. As for Captain Liebner, the ABC article says:
-- Captain Liebner says the aircraft struck a helicopter on the helipad, setting fire to a fire truck.
"We got one guy out of the [fire truck] cab," he said, adding he could hear people crying inside the wreckage. --
http://web.archive.org/web/20010914091110/http:/www.abc.net.au/news/2001...
The ABC article quotes Liebner saying he actually got one guy out of the fire truck cab. The only way the cab could have been on fire was:
1. the 757 hit the cab (we know it didn't);
2. the jet fuel explosion set the cab on fire (we know it didn't); or
3. the 757 hit something that caused the cab to catch fire, which is the only conclusion one can come to when the two independent lines (one line not a quote, the other line a direct quote) above are analyzed together.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Still Waiting For An Answer
loose nuke,
you never replied to the impossibility of a 757 engine moving a 15 ton generator without the engine detaching from its pylon. How did the engine do that? Would anyone like to assist loose nuke? Jim Hoffman, are you there? Why the silence? Frank Legge, maybe you'd like to share your opinion on the subject?
I see that Jim Hoffman (the person you seem to believe knows all about the Pentagon) created WTC7.net, 911Research.WTC7.net, and 911Review.com. Very interesting, don't you think?
I found your link for Ground Effect (from Jim Hofman, again! http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/groundeffect.html). Other than the assertion that vortices cause ground effect (they don't! Vortices are phenomena that come off an aircraft’s wing tips when the aircraft is LIFTING: http://www.aviationearth.com/aircraft-theory/wingtip-vortices/), I found nothing to counter what I said. Hoffman says a nose down approach will compensate for ground effect. True, IF the nose down approach is greater than a shallow nose down approach. Unfortunately for Hoffman's analysis, a greater than shallow nose down approach will have Flight 77 ending up on the Pentagon lawn, not the Pentagon! Also Hoffman fails to inform us that Flight 77's nose is LEVEL in all the Pentagon videos and according to all the eyewitnesses!
Also see where Aviation Earth says, "A wing generates aerodynamic lift by creating a region of lower air pressure above the wing than beneath it." Hoffman is merely regurgitating 9/11 Debunkers who came up with the bogus vortices explanation for Ground Effect/lift. Now why would Hoffman do that?
Now, thanks to Aviation Earth, imagine what happens to a level-nosed 757 flying inches off the ground at 530 mph? Assuming the aircraft could get that low to the ground in the first place, the aircraft will actually automatically lift upwards in the dense, ground-elevation atmosphere.
Hoffman also says that the Pentagon generator was damaged by one of the flap track fairings from the starboard wing:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html#generator
Is that so? Even assuming Flight 77 was flying level, then neither of the two outer flap track fairings would have touched the generator: http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/generator.html
loose nuke, you better find someone other than Jim Hoffman to buttress your arguments, and I would suggest that the 9/11 Truth Movement treat Hoffman's research with the greatest of skepticism.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Open Letter to Steven Storti
Well there, Mr, Shure, it seems you and Mr. Storti have a fair bit of explaining to do, as there appears to be some pretty heavy deception going on here. Fellow readers of this blog should take note, especially given the fact that Shure has been involved in some pretty dubious enterprises, including advocating vigorously on behalf on the "no-planers" - the imbeciles who insist that no planes hit the Twin Towers - for years, and I would definitely advise anyone reading to take this latest supposed "revelation" by Steve Storti wit a huge grain of salt. CIT has provided a recorded phone call with Storti along with a detailed explanation of his false accusations - check it out, if you dare:
Open Letter to Steven Storti Re: 9/11 Pentagon Attack Witness Account From Craig Ranke of Citizen Investigation Team
Craig Ranke has blocked me
Craig Ranke has blocked me from posting on his forum so he can control which information is allowed to defend his twisted lies.
Craig's deceptions will be sorted out and shown here: http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3482275/
The more sites block you, the better, as far as I'm concerned
I can completely understand why Ranke has blocked you from posting on his forum. After all, he and others actually took the time and effort to travel to the scene of the crime to conduct detailed videotaped interviews - all you appear to do is call people up on the phone, without any real research strategy or methodology, try and insinuate yourself and befriend them, recording the conversations without their knowledge or permission, and then post those calls on the internet, in the process truly infuriating some of these people and tainting potential eyewitnesses for future investigators - and that's all on the record for everyone to see. It's really amazing to me that you're still allowed to post here. Ranke and a slew of others have long been banned, but you get to post full blog entries detailing your incredibly clumsy, unsophisticated and intrusive random phone calls to unsuspecting witnesses here - that alone ought to make anyone wonder what has happened to the standards on this site..
And to answer your question, the reason (not excuse) I post your unbelievably harassing call to Jay Maisel - the one at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzJ9CMDzKmM - is just to remind anyone reading exactly what kind of person you are - drunk or not - and I consider it a public service to the rest of the truth movement. And that call was hardly an exception: were you drunk when you recently harassed Mrs. Roosevelt Roberts just two weeks ago on the phone? http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/rr1_061010.mp3 - just listen to this woman begging you to stop calling her - have you no shame at all?
I'd like to see you get some endorsements of your work from the likes of David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Peter Dale Scott, Ed Asner, etc, etc. like CIT has. Or publish anything in collaboration with recognized veteran truth activists that gets quoted anyplace. There's a reason that articles by the folks above get quoted so often - it's because they take the time to check all their facts, provide independently verifiable sources to support any controversial assertions in footnotes, run drafts by close colleagues for critique and discussion, and then publish a final version in an appropriate and respected venue.
I haven't published any 9/11 research, but if I was going to, I would follow the above widely accepted scholarly methodology. Whereas you, Jeff, don't engage in *any* of that, so don't be surprised if your fan club continues to consist of anonymous and unsavoury characters like "yougenedebs", "brokensticks", and "achimspok", because the rest of us (hopefully) are after even-handed, invective-free scholarship and analysis, not your particularly unpleasant and unproductive brand of telephone manipulation.
No,
No, I was not drunk! I was pleading with her to let me talk to Roosevelt and get this flyover theory sorted out once and for all. Like his wife said, Roosevelt will not talk about 9/11 anymore. She also said that when she talked to him about that day, Roosevelt never mentioned anything about a flyover.
I don't appreciate your false accusations and attempts to insult and embarrass me, but hey, your free to do whatever you want. I think your energy would be used better trying to find a witness to go with your flyover theory. So far you haven't came up with even one.
Suprise, suprise, again you just had to post that phone call eh!
That's right, you harass people when you're sober too
You seem to expect that this poor woman - a total stranger, who you have no right to disturb like this - will do anything you ask. That speaks volumes about how important you consider yourself to be! And you expect her to say the word "flyover," when you know damn well Roosevelt thought he was seeing a second plane flying low above the Pentagon south parking lot immediately after the explosion. Of course, that doesn't stop you from repeating this mis-characterization because, after all, you're on the record as saying that you have no interest in having any credibility anyway, so you can pump out what ever shit you want at "pumpshitout", and it doesn't mean a damn thing in the big picture. But the minute you start trying to peddle your pathetic excuse for "research" elsewhere, like on this site, you can be sure to get called out on it by decent truth activists wherever you go, so better get used to it.
And it's no surprise that I reposted your incredibly disgusting call to Jay Maisel, and will continue to repost that (along with your most recent cruel badgering of Mrs. Roberts) wherever it's appropriate - not to embarrass you, but to totally discredit you, as both a competent 9/11 researcher and decent human being. It's very important that your unethical, deceptive, and manipulative tactics be exposed for the world to see. And I will continue to do so, until you either stop harassing witnesses, or are somehow otherwise stopped from continuing with this destructive behaviour, which I (and everyone else in the legitimate 9/11 truth movement) hope comes to an end sooner rather than later - for the good of all the people you harass, and the movement in general.
Are you kidding me?
Wow. How does this guy Sure get a pass with this stuff? This is extremely disturbing and damaging.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzJ9CMDzKmM
I'm sure you can find alot on
I'm sure you can find alot on the internet about me advocating NPT becasue I did fall for the BS at one time, but have since learned the error of my ways and admitted I was wrong. Something alot of people seem to have a hard time doing!
That is all just your opinion
That is just your opinion with no proof to back up your claims!
Again, that is only your
Again, that is only your opinion!
hmmm
Brian, you want evidence that Jeff was a rabid (WTC) no-planer? Try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzJ9CMDzKmM
Yeah I was retardedly drunk
Suprise, suprise, how did I know you were going to post that haha!
Yeah I was retardedly drunk that night. Jay kept telling me to call him back or he would call me back for weeks. At the time I believed no planes and thought he was a witness that could confirm it for me. I thought he knew the implications of what he saw and thats why he was avoiding me (like the way the flyover pushers think about Roosevelt Roberts) Turned out that wasn't the case! That night being drunk and frustrated, I decided not to take no for an answer and called him. I called Jay back a few days later and apologised for that phone call and he accepted. "nobodyparticular" I'm sure you've did dumb things that you regret too! Funny you keep spamming that around the internet trying to embarrass me. Just shows the kind of person you are! At least I have the excuse of being drunk, whats yours?
ps: I like how you disabled the ratings and have to approve the comments before they can be posted on the youtube video! I'm sure you will only approve the comments that are negative towards me! I could have the video pulled from youtube, but naaa, you go ahead and post it until your little heart is content.
Now your twisting Steve's
Now your twisting Steve's words into something other than what he said!
Don't think too hard :)
You think you know what Steve meant, like you think you know a missle hit the Pentagon and you think you know the witnesses are plants.
I'll believe a 757 hit the pentagon
when the video is released . Come on Uncle Sam give it up! The plane is 10 miles out do the orders still stand? Of course the orders still stand (head snapping) have you heard anything to the contrary,
Now let's review possible choices for not releasing the videos.
1) they would conflict with the official story
2) they would compromise national security
3) they will be released at a later date to discredit conspiracy theorists.
Well if you support choice 3 then why release the fab five frames and say they support the official story when they don't. Nice try no cigar.
If you choose choice 2 then what's in the video a COG plane perhaps. You bet it is.
My money is on choice one and always has been. No matter what , Hani couldn't have done it, but Raytheon might have.
"The tail fin is black (not
"The tail fin is black (not silver). "
The trees in the background look black too, but you do know the trees are not black right?
The camera was facing towards the sun genius!
How many witnesses will fit on the head of a pin?
What do disinfo/disruption agents do?
What do they want us to do?
It's abundantly clear that some of the witnesses are lying, but which ones?
We just don't know.
Anyone saying that they "know" what happened or who is lying and who is telling the truth is FOS - IMnsHO. ;-)
Shure, I appreciate your efforts and you do a great job of getting interviews but it should be pretty obvious by now that the CITers will attack anyone who goes against their flyover theory with the same venom JREFers use against anyone going against the OCT.
It's all moot anyway. The directional damage to the Pentagon was caused by something other than the plane. NoC does not prove anything.