Citizen Investigation Team (creators of Pentacon and National Security Alert) to tour Europe in September

Citizen Investigation Team European Tour - September 2010
Posted Tuesday, Jul 6, 2010, 4:43pm

This year for the 9th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Craig Ranke, co-founder of Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), will be screening their presentation National Security Alert throughout France and other locations in Europe.

The purpose of the tour is to raise awareness regarding the critical eyewitness evidence CIT has gathered and presented during the course of their on-going investigation into the Pentagon attack. As seen in National Security Alert, the plane has been conclusively shown via detailed video and audio-recorded interviews with eyewitnesses to the event to have been on a flight path that is irreconcilable with official reports, official data, and the physical damage, making it physically impossible for it to have struck the downed light poles or to have caused the anomalous directional damage to the building itself.

The main event on Saturday, September 11th will be held in downtown Paris, with screenings scheduled throughout the day. In the evening a "prime time" screening will take place, which will include a question and answer session with Craig Ranke.

The following dates have been confirmed. Times, venues, and additional dates to be announced.

September 7th - Paris, France (Radio Ici Maintenant, special three-hour program featuring CIT)
September 9th - Grenoble, France (National Security Alert screening)
September 11th - Paris, France (all day event with multiple screenings of National Security Alert)
September 14th - Lausanne, Switzerland (National Security Alert screening)
September 17th - London, England (National Security Alert screening)

For more details and/or booking information contact:
europeantour2010@citizeninvestigationteam.net

Source: http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/news/2010_07_06_euro_tour.html

Bad news for Europe and 9/11 truth

To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT's PentaCon 'Magic Show'
http://911review.com/articles/ashley/pentacon_con.html

Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentacon/index.html

The CIT Deception

This video makes the case against CIT in a humorous manner. It's good to have a laugh at this stuff.

I found it at CIT Watch.

More...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft5zjNtHANg&feature=related

Being reasonable is where this campaign will be won!

Regards John

"Being reasonable is where this campaign will be won!"

I agree. Being reasonable works with reasonable, sincere people, and is absolutely necessary for connecting with anyone with any social status/influence in society. Being unreasonable disaffects and discredits.

Depending on the context, i might refer to AA 77 having hit the Pentagon, cuz there's no hard evidence it didn't; CIT's work isn't proof of N path or flyover (links below). Also, the plane that hit may well have been AA77; according to the govt, passenger bodies were recovered (there's at least one photo of a charred body in a plane seat), DNA was matched and passenger personal effects were recovered; no one has proven these claims are false. Sure, the govt should produce this evidence; they haven't yet, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, so why go out on a limb?

In addition, there are a number of photos that show parts matching a 757, and the damage path and damage to the Pentagon isn't inconsistent with what could have been created by a 757 on the alleged flight path.
The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows by Jim Hoffman
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

As I've pointed out many times, the govt may have photos/videos that could prove it was a 757 or even AA 77, they have the recovered plane parts, and there should be documentation related to the recovery/ID of the parts/bodies/effects. Aidan Monaghan's FOIA's apparently show that the standard NTSB investigations of aircraft crashes weren't conducted in the case of the 9/11 aircraft- but that doesn't mean the claimed aircraft weren't the ones that crashed- perhaps something else is being covered up. To my knowledge, Aidan hasn't gone beyond raising questions about this; he hasn't claimed the official story about the crashes is false, just pointed out the govt hasn't provided certain evidence that could back it up.

It may be this evidence is being suppressed in order to fuel controversy; certainly, the 'what hit' debate has been extremely divisive. My debates w/ people are generally aimed at debunking absolute claims AA 77 didn't hit; presenting the evidence it may or could have; cautioning people against making absolute claims based on limited, incomplete or contradictory evidence, or evidence with more than one possible interpretation; and encouraging people to focus on raising awareness of the hard evidence of 9/11-related malfeasance, including the cover up, which includes the suppression of Pentagon evidence.

Excellent resources:

The Complete 9/11 Timeline
http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

9/11 Research
http://911research.wtc7.net/

9/11 Review
http://911review.com/

More info on CIT (also see the article YT linked above):

CIT/PENTACON {Masterlist}

http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/03/video-review-pentacon.html

CIT search tag
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/search/label/CIT

Agreed 100%

I think the owners of this site know that CIT is garbage but they're bullied by all the CENSORSHIP!!! screaming. Fetzer, Wood and the spacebeam TV Fakery crew did the exact same thing a few years back. Once enough people got their head around what was going on, all the responsible sites banned their nonsense completely. You don't hear much from those guys anymore - now all the energy is put into pushing CIT as hard as possible. Do we really want 9/11 truth to be known as the movement that attacks an old cab driver for being complicit in 9/11? Really?

The post above was in response to Chris Sarns

The post above was in response to Chris Sarns, who expressed his well-founded opinion that the CIT material has no place on this site. I think his comment was 100% accurate but it was removed due to it containing some controversial language. I just wanted to clarify that because my comment looks a bit out of place in response to loose nuke, whose comment I also agree with.

Being reasonable, huh, John?

Absolutely, John, I couldn't agree more with your statement that being "reasonable" is where this campaign will be won.

And when I listened to you debate Craig Ranke for two and a half hours last December, I thought much of what you said in response was most "reasonable" indeed.

Let me remind you again, since you don't seem to be responding to my other comments on this debate, exactly what you said back then, a mere six months ago:

You admitted the official flight paths that have been supplied are all in error, and that the north side approach is the most well supported by independent and clear witness testimony. Furthermore, you agreed that Hoffman, Wolsey, et al, have not put out any definitive evidence contradicting the evidence that the plane was on the north side, and that both a flyover and staged after-the-fact photos were certainly possible.

You agreed that the plane has to be on the south side of the gas station in order to hit the light poles, the generator trailer, and cause the directional damage to the building as reported and photographed leading to the C-ring hole, and that a path flying north of the gas station is NOT consistent with the damage field approaching and seen at the pentagon.

You conceded the only evidence you've ever cited to suggest that it was in fact a 757 that hit the building are photographs that were presented after the fact by the government - the very suspect that you believe perpetrated this crime, and later admitted that "there is no verifiable evidence due to it's nature [i.e.] being supplied by the Government."

You said to Ranke "I accept your research it’s interesting and well founded and your video was well produced". And not just once - at another point in the debate, you called CIT's National Security Alert DVD "impressive" and "very interesting" and said "I think that the 14 witnesses is plenty to put it on that side of the [gas station], uh, to have an investigation." You further added that CIT's eyewitness testimony "is definitely um, you know, courtable and it would be very interesting to see anything go to the court", that "it adds to the weight of why we need a new investigation", and that "if people want to know about what happened at the Pentagon I am happy to point them to, you know, to your video."

You admitted that "the majority of people probably support um a lot of what you [CIT] say" - a fact that stands in distinct contrast to the misleading impression one might get by reading the entries in this thread - and told Ranke "you’ve made your points very clearly and you’ve demonstrated that you’ve probably been dealt with poorly." Afterwards, you wrote "Resistance to the CIT evidence is due to a dogma in some cases", admitting during the debate that "I definitely could have got caught up in some of that dogma."

You admitted during the debate that you personally attacked Ranke inappropriately, and in an unprovoked fashion, and that you were the aggressor, which is why Ranke had called you out for this debate. You later wrote "I have acted in an aggressive manner and have discouraged support of CIT's "fly over".

Reading all these admissions of yours, John, I have to wonder what some of the other vocal and aggressive posters on here like "YT", "loose nuke", and Chris Sarns surely would think of your positions here. Would they agree with you that the official flight paths that have been supplied are all in error?

Are they on the same page as you when you state that the north side approach is the most well supported by independent and clear witness testimony?

What would people like YT or loose nuke make of your statement that Hoffman, Wolsey, et al, have not put out any definitive evidence contradicting the evidence that the plane was on the north side?

You admitted that both a flyover and staged after-the-fact photos are certainly possible - a perfectly reasonable position - as was your "accepting" CIT's research, calling it "interesting and well founded", and that it "adds to the weight of why we need a new investigation".

I guess you never thought anyone would end up quoting your own words back to you, from what was a very public debate, and a very public document you issued yourself afterwards, where many of those quotes were lifted straight from.

But I think that some of your friends - including those listed on your Facebook page, people like Jim Hoffman, Chris Sarns, Jon Gold, Frank Legge, Michael Wolsey, etc. - might take exception to your hearty CIT recommendation "if people want to know about what happened at the Pentagon I am happy to point them to, you know, to your video" - but I guess you have already heard from your friends about that. It's funny, though, I don't see any of them directing any insults or criticism your way - only at me, johnscriv, vert and the now-banned users jpass and LillyAnn, who have come under fire here from the little anti-CIT brigade. But despite your obvious support of many - albeit not all - of CIT's positions, I find it amazing that none of the CIT bashers here have uttered a single comment or down-vote in protest towards you and your "reasonable" views.

But I guess the thing that bothers me the most, John, is the fact that you committed yourself to laying down the sword here: You said back in December, "I think that we just need to stop fighting about this issue and I will refrain from attacking you guys" and then wrote "I will no longer discourage people from taking CIT's work seriously but will be silent on the matter from now on"

How is anyone to now take you seriously when you then go and post garbage videos, like the one above, belittling CIT's efforts? I certainly won't be taking you at your word any longer, and I can't honestly see how anyone in their right mind would either, given your-ever shifting positions and broken promises here. So much for being "reasonable", eh?

I posted the other side of the debate because I see many going..

..for the CIT "flyover" as a proven thing!

The "flyover" is definitely in the mix of ideas worth entertaining and I agree with all I have said. I tell people to check out CIT but I encourage them to not adopt the "flyover" as an fact and then I point them to Dr Legge's work as the best representation of the movements position of the the Pentagon.

Recently the fierce support of Craig and CIT of Balsamo (Pilots for Truth?) erroneous and misleading research into the WTC Attack has now forced me to more vocal about theories that are declared facts with out clear evidence.

As you will also see nobody is that I am not attacking CIT here merely pointing out the nature of their post film campaign to mislead the 911 Truth Movement into a position that is not well founded and possibly dangerous for our credibility.

You really have no idea like Craig and CIT about being reasonable do you....now your attacking me for being fair and balanced? Jim, YT, Victoria et al have there views on this research and the sometimes immature and upsetting methods CIT have used to force their message down our throats, that's there right to do so abut if I see them "cheating" I will call them on it as I have done before:)

John

the issue of the flyover

whether you want to refer to the "flyover" as a theory, a deduction, an hypothesis, a logical inference ... it's not a really big issue, as far as I can see.

To relentlessly attack CIT, to attempt to discredit the eye-witnesses and their eye-witness testimony on the basis of an interpretation of the meaning of a particular phrase, is, to put it mildly, unfair.

The important thing to acknowledge is that CIT have provided credible, legitimate evidence that supports the truth movement's fundamental premise, that the official account is wrong.

Hi John...

It's is as you say it is NOT THE ISSUE...the problems they are hell bent on it BEING A FACT!!

If Ranke and Aldo were fair and could (God forbid) concede that there would be NO ARGUMENT!

People just don't seem to get that CIT believe the very unlikely flyover is as proven as the destruction of WTC7 by Controlled Demolition? Does that not worry John?

Regards John

John, I don't entirely disagree with you

If CIT were as hell-bent on claiming the "flyover" is a fact as their detractors are at calling CIT disinfo, deception, liars, idiots, etc, I would agree with you 100% ... there is absolutely no need to make a mountain out of a mole hill over this ... obviously, the flyover is not a proven fact, from a scientific point of view, but it is a reasonable deduction, a logical inference, a credible hypothesis, on the basis of the eye-witness testimony. But let's not pretend CIT are scientists, they do not claim to be scientists, they have not presented their findings in a scientific paper to a peer reviewed journal ... so does that mean the evidence they have produced is irrelevant or inconsequential? Should we disregard, disparage and discredit their findings simply because they use the wrong word to describe the hypothesis they've presented to explain the discrepancy between the official account and the eye-witness testimonies?

Remember, there is a big difference in standards of proof between the scientific community, the legal community and the court of public opinion.

The standards set by scientists are much stricter than those applied in law or politics.

On the basis of the CIT eyewitness testimony

The plane hit the frikin building. ;-)

yeah right

whatever

Um...

Um...they DO say that...not sure why you're so "meh" about it.

yeah right, whatever

it means, like, "if you say so" ... in other words, I don't agree with you, but I'm not going to bother arguing about it.

I made a few reasonable points above, but you're not interested, you probably didn't even read them, you just have to jump in, with an irrelevant quip intended to belittle and deride ... I'm not interested.

You're giving way too much credit to CIT

That CIT hasn't published anything in a journal does more damage than good, as it shows they're not experts on the subject. More to the point though, it doesn't matter if it's been published or not. Bad evidence is bad evidence, and faulty conclusions are faulty conclusions. CIT's lack of credibility only hurts them.

Hi John...

...thanks for replying.

Well this is a position I can deal with. I agree with much that you say, unfortunately we seem to be throwing the baby out with the bath water because the baby has now become the "dirty" bath water!

CIT and it's "flyover" are NOT NEGOTIABLE! Do you understand...that is why people are speaking out!

If Ranke and Aldo get their platform...they will use it as they have to ram, jam and push the"flyover" down the publics throat and they will take NO PRISONERS!

They will not be happy until the leaders of our movement are using the CIT sound bite "flyover" in every minute on the MSM.

This is the REALITY John!

Regards John

Mr. John Bursill: Are you a man of your word or not?

John Bursill, you specifically promised back in December - on the record - that you were wrong for attacking CIT, that you would recommend their video, and remain silent on this issue.

Now, your excuse for going back on your word is that you disagree with their assessment regarding a completely different issue?

Sorry, but that's not a valid excuse: you are either a man of your word or you are not. How is anyone supposed to believe you in future, when you reserve the right to abandon whatever endeavours or commitments you publicly make to people at your whimsy?

If you decide, upon further reflection, to acknowledge that you got caught up in all the excitement, and made a mistake by not remaining silent on the matter as you'd promised - while renewing your original promise and holding true to it this time - then that would strike me as a reasonable, face-saving way out of the obvious ethical predicament you find yourself in, and I'll leave that up to you, I really don't care - it's your reputation at stake here, not mine.

But, the way I see it, it's either that - or else, Mr. Bursill, you are not a man of your word, simple enough.

I am not attacking CIT!

I am exposing to the audience the "flyover" is not negotiable, which Craig and Aldo agree with...so I'm simply stating what they want all to know?

Show me where I've attacked them or their methods?

Show me please...

I did not want to get back into this period but then you see this at blogger with this nobody guy goin to town with misinfo and attacks against people I greatly respect...so then I make comment on the comments.

I posted a link but offered no opion, it was more of the debunking of CIT yes. I was providing balance in my view.

I will be silent in way of making peace but I could care less what you like.

This is my last post...

John

I'm not the one pushing CIT and their flyover fantasy

You are. Similarly it's not my job to prove that cab driver Lloyde England isn't complicit in 9/11. I appreciate that you want me to waste as much time as possible, but I'm going to waste as little time as possible.

I'm not the one pushing the govt. story & accusations of disinfo

You are. Similarly it's not my job to prove that cab driver Lloyde England is complicit in 9/11, as I've never brought him up in any of my posts. I appreciate that you want me to waste as much time as possible - by engaging in anything that diverts from a rational discussion of the eyewitness evidence and its implications - but I'm going to waste as little time as possible by only slightly modifying your own words and shooting them right back to you, as that seems to do the job with a minimum of effort.

"I've never brought him up in any of my posts"

Yet you aggressively promote CIT and CIT claim that cab driver Lloyd England is complicit in 9/11. Are you saying that you disagree with CIT? Or are you just avoiding that part of their material because you know how despicable it is? Do you believe Lloyde England is complicit in 9/11?

Who do you believe, YT?

A better question to ask is do YOU believe the witnesses who place the plane on the north side?

If no, I'd like to know why not.

If yes, then you can not also believe the plane hit the light poles, especially the one that allegedly speared the cab without damaging the hood.

When faced with mutually exclusive claims, honest investigators are eventually forced to make a choice as to which claim is the credible one.

You can either choose to believe the 13 north side witnesses or Lloyde, but you can not believe both. Lloyde's story is clearly questionable on its face yet he supports the OCT. However the 13 north side witnesses are clear, concise, and corroborate each other while contradicting the OCT.

I think it's obvious which mutually exclusive claim a reasonable 9/11 skeptic would choose to accept.

I don't think "belief" has anything to do with the truth

If you think that CIT has sufficient evidence to accuse an old cab driver of being complicit in 9/11 and you want to continue promoting the material that accuses him of such, that's on you. I think it's disgusting and I will continue to speak out against it.

And I don't think you are capable of answering my question

Are you?

I just did

"I don't think "belief" has anything to do with the truth. If you think that CIT has sufficient evidence to accuse an old cab driver of being complicit in 9/11 and you want to continue promoting the material that accuses him of such, that's on you. I think it's disgusting and I will continue to speak out against it."

The onus of proof is always on the accuser

I've never accused Lloyde England of anything, so I have nothing to prove here. But if you think that you have sufficient evidence to accuse CIT of "manipulating evidence", but refuse to cite a single example yourself on this thread, only compulsively linking to posts by others (as if that's supposed to make your point or something) - well, that's on you, YT, and I think your tactic of smearing fellow 9/11 truthers, without backing up your charges and being willing to defend them, is disgusting and I will continue to speak out against it.

Craig Ranke and CIT

Craig Ranke and CIT have accused an innocent cab driver of being complicit in mass murder and told the world that he "virtually confessed". I have not falsely accused CIT of anything, but even if I did it would hardly compare to that.

Truth Squad

That was one of the best hidden camera truth squads ever! The 'innocent' cab drive admitted that he was hiding the truth. How do you figure he is innocent?

Oh Bruno

You're making me regret donating to your legal defense. Not that I wish you anything but the best outcome on that, and I'm grateful to you for all the good work you've done for the movement, but claiming that recording as an admission of guilt is absurd.

What about the Lightpole?

Do you really think 2 guys one of them this cabbie could move it off the car? What about the limited damage to the hood of the car? Does it look like a lightpole fell on it? Would like to know what you think?

What the Heck?

I am just asking a question here. Why the down votes? I have emailed directly a couple of the anti-CIT folks on this site and left this comment and nobody seems willing to discuss it. Perhaps I am in the dark on the specifics and this question is rubbing some folks the wrong way but I meant it sincerely. What's going on here?

Oh the old mutually exclusive argument...are you sure....

...that;s a good idea? Because there are many mutually exclusive arguments against the flyover theory....

All of CIT"s witnesses think the plane hit the Pentagon and even their so called "flyover" witnesses thinks 77 a 757 hit the Pentagon, but your saying their testimony is ROCK SOLID?

Or the "no" witnesses that saw the "flyover" reported anywhere in the media at the time of the attacks?

Or like the 757 gear assy and all the other hard parts of the 757 at the Pentagon?

Like the many, many witnesses that actually saw the plane hit the building including many of CIT's own witnesses?

And how about those airtraffic controllers watching it hit on their screens?

Not to forget those Firfighters that all reported a plane had crashed there and they found those childrens bodies, seats and the DFDR etc?

And those videos of the impact that DON'T SHOW THE PLANE FLYING OVER?

Now nobody is there ANYTHING MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE THERE??

Also a sane rational person might conclude caution is warranted because so many scholars and many, many other long time researchers like me that simply do not know what happened at the Pentagon after reviewing the evidence.

No, no of course your right these don't count because it was all faked (sarc)!

Hang on...to use the faked argument to question the known evidence...thinking....I would have to prove that first....oh...mmm...my brain is thinking that there could be a little bit of a problem there (sarc)?

You have to ask yourself a question nobody...are you really serious about "mutually exclusive" as a pro CIT argument?

John

Wow, so you now believe all the government evidence again?

6 months ago, after your debate with Craig Ranke, you admitted in a summary you wrote afterwards that "there is no verifiable evidence due to it's nature [i.e.] being supplied by the Government."

But now, it seems, you trust all the "media" information and reports of 9/11? I wonder what's happened to you in the six months since you wrote that.

Have you seen the documentation for ANY parts - or are you happy with the FBI pics and government reports?

The RADES data has been proven to have been manipulated. Do you think that it is beyond the realms of possibility that the "Flight 77" blip was added - given the wargames scenario had done just that that very morning?

Do you have any documentation for these seats? Were all of these seats recovered? How did these seats survive when the plane apparently blew to smithereens? The engines?

Relying on government released grainy video footage, are you now? Even though the accounts of the witnesses themselves - both the NOC witnesses and others - obviously debunk the "five frames".

Back in December, you went on record as saying the north side approach is the most well supported by independent and clear witness testimony. Are you trying to tell me Lloyde's account is consistent with this testimony or not? Are these not mutually exclusive or not?

Or, as it appears, you are now believing everything you are told by the government without proof, yet ignore the only independent, non-biased evidence we have available in the entire saga?

Oh, and you vowed in December. John, that "we just need to stop fighting about this issue and I will refrain from attacking [CIT]" and wrote "I will no longer discourage people from taking CIT's work seriously but will be silent on the matter from now on".. I see you're a man who really keeps your word, eh?

nobody your aren't really getting it are you...

The official story stands in the eyes of the public until proven otherwise...end of story.

Yes we know the government can fake things derrr...

Yes the evidence supplied was from derr government but others have verified it in their testimony etc so it stands until proven otherwise.

CIT went out and did what the MEDIA should have done, whether they did it fairly across the whole area is definitely in question. The exacting way they interviewed their North of Citgo witnesses is what I am talking about.... If the MEDIA had done what CIT did at the time (on the North of Citgo approach) at the Pentagon and it's complete surrounding area we would KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, but derr...they did not!

This debate continues to go nowhere, I give credit where it is due and support CIT's primary work. You are only here to disrupt...goodbye!

John

Air Traffic Controllers did NOT see the UNIDENTIFIED airvehicle

...crash on their screens. From what I have been able to discover, there is no testimony as such.

And, the air traffic controller at National Tower [Stephenson] stated that the airvehicle dropped down behind a building...and THEN he saw a fireball.

FYI...ATCs at National Tower CANNOT SEE the Penatgon proper...because there is "stuff" in between.

So, if you have any information stating that an air traffic controller has submitted evidence stating that he or she DID personally "see" the UNIDENTIFIED PRIMARY TARGET actually HIT the Pentagon, I'd love to get linked up...because there is SOOOO much more to learn about the AA77-Penatgon-PEOC-SS-NORAD story.

Thanks

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

The air traffic controllers were all fake too . . .

After seeing the explosion from the attack on the Pentagon, air traffic controllers at Washington’s Reagan National Airport promptly alert others to the crash, with a supervisor reporting that the crashed aircraft was an American Airlines 757. [Federal Aviation Administration, 9/18/2001; Spencer, 2008, pp. 158-159] Reagan Airport is less than a mile from the Pentagon. [St. Petersburg Times, 9/19/2001] In its control tower, supervisor Chris Stephenson had looked out the window and seen Flight 77 approaching (see (9:36 a.m.) September 11, 2001). He watched it flying a full circle and disappearing behind a building in nearby Crystal City, before crashing into the Pentagon. Stephenson sees the resulting fireball and a mass of paper debris that fills the air. He calls the airport’s Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) and reports: "It was an American 757! It hit the Pentagon. It was a 757 and it hit the Pentagon. American!" [USA Today, 8/11/2002; Spencer, 2008, pp. 158-159] Other controllers see the fireball from the crash. One of them, David Walsh, activates the crash phone, which instantly connects the control tower to airport operations, as well as fire and police departments. He yells down the line: "Aircraft down at the Pentagon! Aircraft down at the Pentagon!" [Federal Aviation Administration, 9/18/2001; McDonnell, 2004, pp. 19-20 pdf file; Spencer, 2008, pp. 158-159]
9.36 a.m. September 11, 2001: Military Cargo Plane Asked to Identify Flight 77 HistoryCommons.org
http://911review.com/articles/ashley/pentacon_con.html#half

Victoria, that's hardly fair using real evidence...

...demonstrating that the OCT might actually be true regarding a 757. That being reasonable is just a little lost on some here....yawn...it's so boring!

Hey I thought that meant you where working for them the government if you back there theory (sarc)?

We shouldn't let the facts get in the way of a good story now ;) come on Vic get with program.

Lol John

PS - Kevin Barrett is certain your an agent, I'll just take his word on it seeing as your being reasonable and all, sorry:) it just rings true if Kevin says it;)

Victoria...some issues here...

For those who do not know, I am an X air traffic controller who worked at ZBW [Boston ARTCC] and a commercial pilot with 1600 hours of flight time.

Some important points:

1. I called Stephenson and got no returned calls.

2. There is no way that Stephenson "knew" that it was AA77 that he saw from the FAA communications systems BECAUSE nobody within any FAA facility had identified the primary target as being that of AA77. And in fact, Danielle O'Brien at Potomac Tracon-Dulles Tower, along with her ATC colleagues thought that the high speed primary target was a military fighter due to its aerobatic flight path.

Its ONLY via later "discovered" evidence at the crash site that made people...via the press...think that the primary target was that of AA77...and thusly, this establishes that there was "reverse engineering" used for this identification.

3. HOWEVER, someone at Potomac Tracon, or Dulles Tower, OR another "mystery facility" informed the Secret Service that there was an UNIDENTIFIED high speed target heading towards WDC.

4. And testimony establishes that the SS informed National Tower about this high speed primary target inbound to WDC.

5. So, it is possible that Stephenson's being informed that this UNIDENTIFIED primary target WAS that of AA77 and that it came from the SS...but how would the SS KNOW THIS?

At that time, the FAA did not surmise or think that it was AA77...only a military fighter!

The SS could not have known that this target was AA77 UNLESS they had some prior inside information that this primary target WAS AA77...and that this information was passed along down the "insider line" as the target approached WDC.

This is a critical question and consideration...and it leads to another very, very interesting bit of evidnce that does not fit n MY air traffic controller's mind.

It was soon known that the primary target in question began its downward spiral into? the Pentagon from an altitude of 7000 feet. Well, HOW did this 7000 foot number become established?

After all, the FAA's radar did not get any altitude information from this primary target because it had no civilian or FAA type of transponder that was working...which if working, would have transmitted the airvehicle' altitude.

However, and its not neccessarily a speculation, but some pertinent information here...IF the primary target was a military airvehicle equipped with an IFF [Identification-Friendly or Foe] transponder...aka...a military transponder that IS NOT SEEN BY FAA RADAR SYSTEMS, then this military transponder WOULD show the airvehicle's altitude to a "mystery" radar tracking facility...or NORAD-NEADS...or to an E4B etc.

Could a military IFF transponder be the sorce of the 7000 foot atltitude?

AND...could this same "mystery radar facility" be the source that informed the SS which then became the source of identifying the primary target to National Tower as being AA77...which Stephenson seems to indicate?

And further, WHEN and WHERE would this information have been originally "seen" along the alleged route of AA77 from eastern Ohio?

Please remember, O'Brien's supervisor "conveniently" informed O'Brien to be on the lookout for at high speed unidentified primary target transiting her airspace...and this convenience was conveyed but a FEW MINUTES before she "saw" this target transiting her airspace. Pretty damned convenient for me.

Further yet, WHO informed O'Brien's supervisor to alert his ATC s to be on the lookout for a high speed primary target moving through their airspace.

How did THAT communications link-up happen?

Where is the original source of this warning...the "mystery radar facility"...and even further YET...how far back did this "mystery source" sense that there would be a high speed primary target heading to WDC?

Eastern Ohio?...perhaps...

PLEASE REMEMBER...AA77 was lost to radar contact over a half an hour earlier over eastern Ohio...and when last seen it was heading to the southwest and had begun a descent.

My poinyt here...NOBODY in the FAA knew that AA77 was heading easterly]...perhaps because maybe it wasn't...but IF perhaps it WAS heading east...and IF perhaps some "mystery" radar facility actually was tracking it all the way...then it would be tracking it well enough to inform [conveniently in a "timely fashion"] the Potomac Tracon to be on the lookout for a high speed primary target that might be haeding to the WDC area.

In all of this, the mystery of the 7000 foot altitude INFORMS ME that there is another line of identification of this high speed primary target outside the FAA...and if so, the NORAD-the SS-or some other radar equipped facility or airbourne platform could have been watching this aircraft all the way.

So, if I were asked right now to conclude something based upon my research, it would be that a deep radar tracking OP at NORAD, the SS, onboard an airbourne Command and Control Center, or buried somewhere in the PEOC or some other clandestine location [under the mountains in VA?] may be the "overseer" of all of this activity...

...and further, that this is the source of the radar information provied to Cheney in the PEOC...aka..."50 miles out...30 miles out...10 miles out...do the orders still stand?" scenario.

Perhaps this is why Stephenson has not returned my phone calls.

3. OR...perhaps its because Stephenson could not "see" the aircraft hit the Pentagon because he could not see the Pentagon from National Tower...as his testimony so establishes? IE: Stephenson states that the aircraft dropped behind some buildings...thus loosing POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION of that aircraft...and THEN seeing a fireball.

Therefore, he did NOT SEE the airvehicle HIT the Pentagon...nor did anybody else at National Tower.

I ask that you and ALL truthers to please be very carefull when assessing what is said, when it is said, why it was said, and what it actually means regarding air traffic control and radar systems.

Its all very, very complex...but we will get through it all.

FYI...I have spent hundreds of hours pulling apart problematic aviation events using radar data, controller statements and audio tapes...and its all very complicated. Please step slowly...NOBODY knows what happened at the Pentagon.

And for the record, in analyzing the radar data that I have been provided, I can show where the radar was scrubbed along the flight path that an airvehicle would traverse IF it had overflown the Pentagon on that heading...and then made a turn to a northwesterly heading where Gopher06 eventually flew at a seemingly appropriate time. This story is NOT over...

EVERYBODY...should step back a bit...and certainly should also consider Honegger's work showing a "first explosion" at the Pentagon as being at 09:30 or 09:32 some five to seven minutes BEFORE any airvehicle arrived? at the Pentagon...and TRY to make THAT fit into one's "hypothesis"...

And likewise, EVERYBODY should pay attention to my future posts to present the evidence that will ID the airvehicle that passed over the generator and may have struck the Pentagon...its the " WTC Dust" at the Pentagon that P4T should have climbed all over several years ago.

Stay tuned...and until all the emotional "territorial defending" has calmed down a bit I will simply try to explain my research seen in my affidavit for Gallop.

Once people's eyes. ears and minds have reopened regarding what happened at the Pentagon, then I'll share my "Pentagon Dust".

Calm down everybody...just calm down...the Pentafgon-AA77 scenario is really complicated...and the Pentagon's achilles heel...Operation Northwoods, circa 2001; in my mind's eye...

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

"Calm down everybody...just

"Calm down everybody...just calm down...the Pentafgon-AA77 scenario is really complicated...and the Pentagon's achilles heel...Operation Northwoods, circa 2001; in my mind's eye..."

I'm not convinced that the issue at the Pentagon is complicated. There are over 10 witnesses who all say the plane flew North of the Citgo. It doesn't get much easier then this. Imagine any other crime where 10 witnesses corroborate each other.

jpass...yes, but that air vehicle could have overflown and...

...dropped a missile just before it did so. Or, it could have veered or swerved to create the entry would and damage path...

YET...another weak point of all this research is that most Truthers are actually BELIEVING the Building Performance Report issued by...da-da...The Pentagon. Hold on folks, if YOU wanted to hide the truth, would YOU write a report that helps truth seekers discover your malfeasances?

So, maybe the REAL impact path was along the north path and the airvehicle flying overhead the CIT witnesses DID hit the Pentagon making a damage path that would later be hidden by a falsified Building performance Report...which in and of itself is an interesting, and certainl very handy document that was made available by the feds...much different than the videos which have been witheld. HMMM? ever wonder WHY we got the Building Performance Report?

Is there anybody out there that automatically DOUBTS the veracity of ALL information provided by ANY department or organization within the US government...or am I alone in this skepticism? This skepticism is in place for all of my analysis...and I try to so state when I make my points.

jpass... the Pentagon-AA77-NORAD-NEADS-FAA-Secret Service-E4B-PEOC-Cheney-Mineta-FDR-Pilots for 9/11 Truth/DVD/animation PR-body parts-generator damge-conflicting eyewitnesses...all speak against your conclusion that its a simple story that needs to be told at the Penatgon. Sorry, but you are not correct.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

Ok Robin

Ok Robin. There is a simple matter though. Regardless of any theories...the north of citgo path shows us the 'official path' was probably staged. This evidence should be included with other evidence held in high regard by the 9/11 Truth movement.

The interview with Lloyd England, to me, is indicative of someone who was involved in the staging of a crime scene. knowingly or not...for what reasons....who knows.

Victronix...this is a GREAT EXAMPLE...of ID via a media push...

Victronix, I ask that you and others take a look at how the "identification" of the UNIDENTIFIED primary radar target went from being an UNIDENTIFIED primary radar target to being AA77.

Just check out the difference between what Spencer shows was the FAA report...aka...an American Airlines B757, into the "conclusion" that it was AA77 presented by the St. Petersburgh Times.

At that time, there was NO evidence of such, and still there is not any positive and accessible evidence with a credible trail of possession that establishes that this primary target IS AA77. [Although it might turn out to be such].

If anyone want to read Thompson's Timeline, its not too hard to see how this "story" was put into play and fraudulently "bounced into reality" by the parroting press. All the HI PERPS had to do was throw in a few factoids [a non-fact fact] along the way and then corporate press "group think" would take it from there.

I got wrapped up in clarifying the ATC aspects of your position and forgot to expose this "information press creep"...which of course is so very problematic in our quest for truth.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

Note: Air traffic controllers certainly can distinguish the differences between the various aircraft, so, with a small caveat, I'm comfortable with Stephenson's identifying of the aircraft being a B757. Now, being an American Airlines B757, well that's a different story...because. A military B757...a C32 I believe...could be painted in teh colors of an American Airlines B757. Certainly serial numbers at the crash scene could prove this...but?

MORE...although a bit of a repeat...sorta...there is also no possible way for Stephenson, or anybody else to positively identify that primary radar target as being AA77 [two-way radio contact is requiered for this...and there was none] unless they had been tracking AA77 after it was lost to positive radar contact over eastern Ohio. Here is my point...Stephenson could not look out his tower window and somehow "know and establish" that this air vehicle, one that looked like an American Airlines B757, was indeed, AA77.

CAVEAT:...regarding what Stephenson "saw"...For a vast majority of the flight path of this UNIDENTIFIED PRIMART TARGET as it circled to the right in its descent just west of the Pentagon, and thusly, just north of National Tower, the aircraft was headed more or less straight at National Tower...and only aircraft "type" might possibly be established from that vantage point, and that would be because of the B757s unusual cockpit window designs when compared to most large airliners. This is a small difference, but ATCs are pretty good at visuals. Then, as the UNIDENTIFIED PRIMARY RADR TARGET continued its turn to the west and then back to the northeast, the aircraft was first exposing its underbelly to National Tower making the paint job a bit harder to see...then as it turned west, the view would shift from from tail-to-front in which neither aircraft type nor paint scheme could be seen...and then as it turned back to the northeast, the aircraft would be still be banking to the right exposing the top of the wings etc., and also, prehaps the best view of the paint scheme as that of an American Airlines paint scheme. Its a small caveat here...but I'm responsible to bring it forth.

AN INTERESTING EYEWITNESS REPORT: Some where I read in one of the eyewitness reports regarding the airvehicle that eventually "struck"? the Pentagon in which it states that the person "saw passengers in the windows" as it went past"...or something like this. Well, if what we were told is true, all these passengers would be in the rear section only?? And, next time you are at an airport during the daytime...on a very bright day, try to look into the windows and see how easily you can "see" the passengers on the inside. Its virtually impossible to see them. At night with the cabin lights on...easy...but during the day when the interior is darker than the exterior light...a very, very hard thing to do. But, even IF it was a military C32? painted as an American Airlines B757 AND had some heads of passengers painted on the outside of the blanked-X-window holes on the C32, then after the crash, the HI PERPS would have to pick up all the pieces that were painted as such...HMMM...seems to me someone was picking up some stuff if I remember correctly. Now, I'm NOT saying that this scenario happened and I actually think that this eyewitness may have been "projecting" images of passengers during that 1-2 seconds of visual contact...but again, one never knows and we need to do much, much more work in investigating the entire Penatgon-AA77-Cheney-PEOC scenario. rdh

Problem with the tale....

Did the FAA warn other aircraft in the area prior to impact?
There is no record – or even ‘tales’ - of ATC directing aircraft away from the “rogue aircraft,” no ATC warnings, no pleas for other aircraft to look for the "missing" aircraft, no continuous calls from ATC, attempting to establish contact – on any frequency. There were no TCAS (mid-air collision) alarms, with aircraft in a busy terminal area scattering for clear airspace. Nor were there any secondary TCAS alarms from the otherwise expected chaos.

The FAA order for all aircraft to land hadn't yet been announced, when the supposed 757 hit the Pentagon; there would have been an abundance of conflicting aircraft at the Dulles and Reagan airport areas.

For those unfamiliar, the TCAS system allows the transponders of different aircraft to electronically warn each other of a collision threat – with computerized audio and visual warnings in the cockpits of the planes involved. “Hard” warnings generate audio and visual commands, for the pilots to climb or descend to evade a collision.

Remember that the FAA claimed the aircraft circled and descended from 7,000 feet, overhead the Pentagon. Only a functioning transponder would yield an FAA digital display, indicating the altitude. In the world of facts, they can’t have it both ways. The transponder was either on or off. All of that assuming that the aircraft was factual. If there was an aircraft actually involved, an Air Force fighter for example, it made a low pass; it didn't hit the Pentagon!

Beyond the 'normal' tight airspace restrictions, such an 'accident' or 'incident' site automatically becomes "Prohibited" airspace for pilots. No pilot in his/her right mind would go near the area - without an 'official' directive.

Again, if the purported 757 transponder had been ON, it would have caused ATC and TCAS warning chaos with innumerable aircraft within the Baltimore/Dulles/Reagan Airport areas, as the aircraft approached the Pentagon. Yet, there were no questions asked about that discrepancy!

In the end, the 7000' information may bury Cheney...

Swingdangler...nice to hear someone competent in the aviation aspects of the aviation events on 9/11. Also, I'm glad that you expalined TCAS to folks because from what I remember reading and from what I analyzed in the radar data provided by the US Military's RADES radar traking and recording facility, there indeed was some traffic that the UNIDENTIFIED PRIMARY TARGET was near or close to being "conflict with"...a DCA arrival on the west side of DCA if I remember correctly. On this radar video, it shows quite a few aircraft in sequence for landing at DCA and BWI as well as quite a bit of slower VFR type aircraft "flitting about" the WDC area...NOT neccessarily near P56...but skirting it. Also Gopher06 and Venus77 [and another ADW departure was noted. One helicopter [I surmise] circled the west side of the Penatgon and went up river to Langley...the CIA I suspect. And theer is a lotta high speed-high altitude-multiple aircraft flights observed also...including the fighter that flew past the Pentagon after the crash? or explosion?

Please, with whatever expertise that you may have in aviation...I ask that you try to find the ORIGINAL SOURCE of the 7000 foot altitude at the start of the descent. Reports have it established at 7000 feet out near IAD and this may have come from the FDR...so, timing of the report is key here.

Obviously, if the FAA radar didn't see the transponder, and the FDR is not the source of the 7000 feet, then it most likely came from a military IFF transponder, and that puts Cheney right in the loop of insuring a stand-down order [or making it look like he did to "cover" the fact it was a military airvehicle] and knowledgeably allowing/assisting the attack on the Pentagon. FINALLY, someone is seeing a few of these things that I first brought up to P4T YEARS AGO!.

Truthers...all of this is analysis and discussion and NOT any form of conclusion....but if you want to "hunt" something..."HUNT THE 7000 FEET"...

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

This is not bad news unless...

...Truthers state that it is bad news...because that would mean that someone was so presumptive as to KNOW what happened at the Pentagon...and truthfully, only the HI PERPS know that.

Somewhere in the archives of this site is one version of my affidavit in support of April Gallop...it may be informative in forwarding this entire discussion.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

That's a bit confusing, Robin

"This is not bad news unless ...Truthers state that it is bad news... because that would mean that someone was so presumptive as to KNOW what happened at the Pentagon...and truthfully, only the HI PERPS know that."

The reason I said it is bad news is precisely because CIT is adamantly proclaiming that they KNOW what happened at the Pentagon, all the while selectively manipulating evidence to fit with their theory. A theory that they insist is fact. On the other hand, I don't know of many people in the movement who claim to KNOW FOR SURE that AA77 hit the Pentagon, only that there's more than enough indication of it to avoid making the kind of claims that CIT does.

Part of our journey is dealing with disinfo-cointelpro...

...and it is most likely at the highest levels since the JFK assassination.

I am NOT stating that CIT is cointelpro-disinfo...only that for the 9/11 Truth Community to unwind this crazy mess at the Pentagon and elsewhere, we ALSO need to deal with any info being dis-info...and then postulate from there.

If the 9/11 Truth Community keeps reacting, or in my view, overreacting to information that comes forward that challenges some "pet" or "existing" theories, then we cannot be considered open minded enough to discover or present credible information...credible information that reaches the levels of the studies of the WTC collapses for instance.

I am glad that CIT is presenting their information worldwide...I fully expect that it will generate more people doing more research because in the end, they make it clear that the US Governement's story...the OCT...is just not accurate.

Take the point that I have been trying to make for years...a point that P4T has blithly ignored as they present exactly what the HI PERPS wanted presented...IE: ...that AA77 never started a descent and WAS the airvehicle that fully turned around and headed east. The NTSB Flight Path Study establishes that AA77, when still in positive radar contact, was observed to begin a descent and had only made a partial left turn at the point where it was lost to positive radar identification. For the FAA ATC system to "see" the beginning of a descent, the aircraft has to be AT LEAST 400 feet off of assigned altitude...in this case FL350. Therefore, the altitude "seen" by the FAA ATC system had to be at FL346 or lower.

Well, P4T and others get their shorts in a twist noting that the FDR notes that the airvehicle was about 200 feet +/- too high to hit the Pentagon at THAT end of the journey...

...but they NEVER look back far enough in the flight to find that the FDR DOES NOT SHOW a 400 foot loss of altitude just before it was lost to positive radar contact. The NTSB Study shows a descent [of at least 400 feet-my ATC information to you all]...and the FDR and animation, and for some strange reason, Pilots for 9/11 Truth show a level flight...something is not right here...and I'm more comfortable with the NTSB Flight Path Study.

So, CIT helps me make this point IE:...that the FDR found? at the Pentagon is either a fake or has been hacked to tell the HI PERP's "story line". I appreciate their openess because nobody else makes my point...and its a very, very important point indeed..

And CIT does NOT depend upon the FDR that was "allegedly" from AA77 to form its positions.
[The FDR was found several days after the crash...HUH how did that happen...why not finding it that afternoon? They seemed to have found the FDRs at the WTCs according to Lindorff anyway. WASSUP?]

So, this is ONE of "my pets"...the hacked FDR... and I would welcome more information that might help clarify things like this...because I DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AT THE PENTAGON.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

Manipulating evidence? Prove it!

That's a pretty hefty charge to make without citing a single example in your comment. In fact it's akin to accusing someone of "disinfo" - which is against the forum rules.

Since you are unable to back up your reckless accusation with a single example, I can understand why you have instead chosen to link to a hollow hit-piece by Chris Sarns - a hit piece which, in its concluding sentence, compares Craig and Aldo to Dick Cheney! I find it disturbing that such rhetoric was even allowed to be published and linked to here.. doesn't exactly fit in with the spirit and intent of this site, does it?

It seems you yourself, YT, aren't even capable of verbalizing what evidence that CIT has allegedly manipulated simply because Sarns is unable to coherently make his case. I guess this is why Chris Sarns has failed to accept CIT's challenge to a debate.

In fact, as far as I know, CIT challenges all of their detractors to debate, and the only one in this thread who has accepted so far is John Bursill, and he didn't exactly do very well, and I don't expect you'd fare much better, YT, based on the rather limited understanding I can tell you have of this issue. But go ahead and post all the "debunking" links you want, I have no doubt people are smart enough to make up their own minds once they look at ALL the evidence.

CIT mind games

Here's the link again.

Feel free to address the manipulation of evidence that is detailed in that blog at any time.

Apparently you can't, even with Craig Ranke's help,

You're like a broken record

Scroll up and read my comment "Why can't you address CIT's evidence yourself, YT?"

Feel free to address the actual eyewitness evidence presented by CIT yourself, in a good-natured way - instead of just pasting links to hit pieces on them - at any time.

Apparently you can't, even with the help of Chris Sarns - or anyone else here!

As a CIT promoter

It's YOUR job to deal with their manipulation of the evidence, not mine.

As a CIT detractor

It's YOUR job to prove they have manipulated evidence, not mine.

That's not how it works

You and CIT are accusing 9/11 survivors of complicity in mass murder.

You have a VERY HIGH burden of proof to meet.

I've made no such accusation - and you know it

You can't show me where I have ever accused any 9/11 survivors of complicity in mass murder, because I never have, so you'd be wise to immediately retract that false allegation. I know you think I am Craig Ranke, but I am not, and do not speak for him, only for myself. Nice try smearing me again, but once again you've fallen flat on your face.

You, on the other hand, are accusing CIT of manipulating evidence, which is akin to calling them liars and disinformation agents, which is against the site's stated rules, and are the sort of tactics that I would never stoop so low as to engage in.

Accordingly, I suggest to the moderators that YT be suspended from this site for that - and for all your repetitive spam links and uncivil behaviour - and their response (or lack thereof) to this suggestion will be quite revealing.

You know quite well

You know quite well that CIT accuses multiple 9/11 survivors of complicity in the attacks and you aggressively promote their material. If you disagree with their accusations against these people, speak up!

I did just fine....in that long and tedious debate...

I have had the same view since day one about CIT...and I got the info out to all I know so they could decide on it.

The research is valid the conclusion is unsupported....

Oh that's right they (Craig) made me appologise for saying they wore their baseball caps backwards...and they went on, and on and on about my personal attack on them on just that point:)

Oh that's right it's ok to call the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" unscientific and unworthy of submitting a paper to and making fun of Dr Steven Jones et al.....as long as you don't say how they wear their baseball caps;)

John

John Bursill's take on CIT... just for the record

First of all, John, the widespread consensus among the majority of people who listened to that debate was that you lost - badly. Even you said at the time that CIT was "going to come out of this (debate) looking better." and later admitted in your own remarks published afterwards that "Craig came out on top in the debate."

I went over the transcript, and found some other rather interesting concessions you were finally forced to make. I know you're well aware of all this, but I'm not sure some of the other CIT haters on this thread are aware of what you in fact conceded and what your position on these matters really is (unless, it has changed since then, of course):

1. You admitted the official flight paths that have been supplied are all in error, and that the north side approach is the most well supported by independent and clear witness testimony, and that Hoffman, Wolsey, et al, have not put out any definitive evidence contradicting the evidence that the plane was on the north side, and that both a flyover and staged after-the-fact photos were certainly possible.

2. You agreed that the plane has to be on the south side of the gas station in order to hit the light poles, the generator trailer, and cause the directional damage to the building as reported and photographed leading to the C-ring hole, and that a path flying north of the gas station is NOT consistent with the damage field approaching and seen at the pentagon.

3. You conceded the only evidence you've ever cited to suggest that it was in fact a 757 that hit the building are photographs that were presented after the fact by the government - the very suspect that you believe perpetrated this crime, and later admitted that "there is no verifiable evidence due to it's nature [i.e.] being supplied by the Government."

4. You said to Ranke "I accept your research it’s interesting and well founded and your video was well produced". And not just once - at another point in the debate, you called CIT's National Security Alert DVD "impressive" and "very interesting" and said "I think that the 14 witnesses is plenty to put it on that side of the [gas station], uh, to have an investigation." You further added that CIT's eyewitness testimony "is definitely um, you know, courtable and it would be very interesting to see anything go to the court", that "it adds to the weight of why we need a new investigation", and that "if people want to know about what happened at the Pentagon I am happy to point them to, you know, to your video."

5. You admitted that "the majority of people probably support um a lot of what you [CIT] say" - a fact that stands in distinct contrast to the misleading impression one might get by reading the entries in this thread - and told Ranke "you’ve made your points very clearly and you’ve demonstrated that you’ve probably been dealt with poorly." Afterwards, you wrote "Resistance to the CIT evidence is due to a dogma in some cases", admitting during the debate that "I definitely could have got caught up in some of that dogma."

6. You admitted during the debate that you personally attacked Ranke inappropriately, and in an unprovoked fashion, and that you were the aggressor, which is why Ranke had called you out for this debate. You later wrote "I have acted in an aggressive manner and have discouraged support of CIT's "fly over".

7. And finally you said, "I think that we just need to stop fighting about this issue and I will refrain from attacking you guys" and wrote "I will no longer discourage people from taking CIT's work seriously but will be silent on the matter from now on"

Do you feel you've honestly kept that last promise, John?

Hello John

Let me clarify for you what my main problem with CIT is. I have no problem with the evidence that they present, except where they manipulate and distort it by hiding certain parts of witness' testimony in order to suit their flyover theory. Have you read this? Have you read this? Do you have any problem at all with cherry picking witness testimony to fit a particular theory, while obscuring the parts that don't? I also wouldn't have much of a problem with their theory (other than that it's nonsensical) if they didn't push it so hard as THE TRUTH. But they do. They tell you out one side of their mouth that it's "not about the flyover" and out the other side they say "flyover is the only possible conclusion, based on the evidence". Evidence which they clearly mold to meet their intended results. If they had just done their interviews and presented them for others to make their own conclusions, it would be fine. Instead they crafted a fantasy out of it. If it wasn't for the fact that they urge people to contact members of Congress with this fantasy, I'd probably just ignore it.

I also have a huge problem with recklessly accusing people of being of being complicit in 9/11.

Yes...Craig continues to support Pilots...

... misinfo though, which has me very worried about his ability to see things logically and analytically.

Time for you and CIT to accept the "flyover" theory doesn't fly and it will remain so until CIT move to gather more evidence and publish for peer review.

Stick to the primary evidence that shows the North Side approach as contradictory of the OCT, then nobody(unknown) we will all get on famously.

Goodbye!

John

Uhh

So if you accept the North of Citgo evidence that is contradictory to the OCT, then *drum roll please* where did the plane go??

You CAN NOT have a North of Citgo flight path and the official story damage path and cone of destruction at the same time!

Which begs the question, yet again, where did plane go if it didn't go on the official flight path? What is the logical conclusion to this question when the primary evidence contradicts the official story?

There are some scenarios that have some shaky evidence...

There is some radar evidence that radar returns forwarded by RADES has been tampered with along the flight path that an overflying aircraft would take IF it turned towards the northwest along th esame path as Gopher06.

There are reports of an airliner crashing at Camp David...

Existing slim evidence shows that IF there was an aircraft swap, it most likely did it over central West Virginia which leaves the scenario where the swapped IN airvehicle flew and struck the Penatgon...or overflew it on the aforementioned northwesterly track IF an overflight occurred.

And/or, that the swapped out B757 travelled at low altitudes northeasterly up the central valley in WV and up towards Camp David but a low altitudes...perhaps to crash? Again, very loose DOTS here...

We are but 10-20% of the way in collecting information regarding the AA77-Pentagon-Cheney element of 9/11.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

GOOD news for Europe and 9/11 truth!

I'm glad to see that 911blogger has decided to permit this important news to appear as a news item. Hopefully we have turned a corner and open discussion of all the evidence exposing the official lie regarding the Pentagon attack will once again be allowed on this site. While I applaud the moderators for allowing this post to be published, I think I should request that the members of Citizen Investigation Team and their supporters who have been banned from contributing here are allowed to contribute once again.

The research of CIT is critical to exposing the Pentagon attack deception and is NOT "controversial" amongst researched scholars and skeptics on this issue as demonstrated by their significant list of high profile supporters:

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/praise.html

Here is a recent essay addressing some of the "criticism" of CIT:
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2866

Funny

It's funny how CIT doesn't mention the retractions on their "Praise" page. I guess that wouldn't be very good for video sales and tour bookings, though.

Peter Dale Scott Does Not Endorse the Pentagon Flyover Theory (and Neither Do I)
http://visibility911.com/eriklarson/?p=110

Clarification from Richard Gage AIA regarding his review of "National Security Alert"
http://911blogger.com/node/22029

There were no "retractions"

There are no retractions on that page - because there have been no "retractions". Every person who has provided statements of approval for National Security Alert has stood by their statements 100%.

If you actually had read the links you just posted, YT, you would know that they are not "retractions". While it is true that two of the supporters, namely Peter Dale Scott and Richard Gage, have been browbeaten into issuing these "clarifications" that they did not specifically endorse the "flyover", they stand by their statements to this day, and have both been very clear regarding their support for the eyewitness evidence provided for an approach north of the gas station.

Whether or not they have personally chosen to publicly declare they think there was a flyover is irrelevant to the scientific fact that it is physically impossible for a plane in this location to cause the physical damage which means it HAD to have continued on after the explosion. This is demonstrated very thoroughly, and backed by qualified pilots, here:

Why does it matter which side of the gas station the plane flew on? Couldn’t the plane have flown on the north side of the gas station and still hit the light poles and building?

YT, when you - or any of CIT's detractors - get stacks of praise from the likes of David Ray Griffin, Peter Dale Scott, Richard Gage, Ed Asner, etc, etc, be sure to let me know, and I hope you won't mind if I make a point of picking apart their endorsements of you, and similarly browbeating them into some irrelevant backpedaling - after all, you should be totally OK with that kind of behaviour, right?

Clarifications

Whatever you want to call it, it paints a different picture than what CIT has posted on their page. It's good to know that these guys don't buy into the flyover fantasy, don't you think? And yes, while I'm not sure how it's relevant to this blog, my work for 9/11 truth has indeed gotten plenty of praise from people like Richard Gage and Ed Asner, among others. However, unlike CIT, I've never sought out endorsements and then used people's good names to push dubious theories.

Retraction or Clarification

YT,
What's funny is:

You purposely mis-characterizing these "clarifications" as "retractions" and suggest CIT is up to something sinister and possible trying to profit from the 9/11/2001 attacks. Some would wonder why you didn't just post the so called "retractions". Maybe because people would read that the retractions are actually not retractions at all....

Richard Gage

Earlier this year I wrote a review of CIT's "National Security Alert" in which I recommended that we all take a closer at the eyewitness accounts supporting the "North path" of American Airlines Flight 77 at the Pentagon. CIT's investigation includes detailed in-person interviews which appeared quite compelling. As AE911Truth's focus is the destruction of three buildings at WTC, I didn't perform an exhaustive review of CIT's material and methods. My quick statement (see below) should not be portrayed as an endorsement of CIT's conclusion that the airliner "flew over" the Pentagon.

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Peter Dale Scott

This is a form letter in response to the flood of letters that has been showered on me by those who do not like CIT.

I have not endorsed the flyover theory for Flight 77, and I do not personally believe it. All I endorsed was their assemblage of witnesses who said that Flight 77 approached the Pentagon on the north side of the Pike. I do not draw the conclusions from their testimony that CIT does. But I believe that the testimony needs to be seriously considered by those trying to find out what actually happened.

I must say that I am disappointed by number of ad hominem attacks I have received. I do not believe one incoming letter so far has dealt with the substance of what the Turnpike witnesses claimed and I endorsed.

In his famous American University speech of June 1963, John F. Kennedy famously said, “And we are all mortal.” I would add, “And we are all fallible.” For this reason I would ask everyone in the 9/11 truth movement to focus their energies on the substance of what happened on 9/11, and not discredit the truth movement by wanton attacks on each other.

Sincerely,

Peter Dale Scott

Why don't you read Peter Dale Scotts so called "retraction" and apply it to yourself because the last paragraph seems to apply to your attacks.

wanton attacks

Scott doesn't make it clear, but by "wanton attacks" he could easily be referring to CIT:

* Aldo Marquis: “People like you and Jim Hoffman are dangerous to the truth. You will calmly suggest irrational suggestions in order that you mold the mind of the reader.”

* Aldo Marquis: “…You are such a disgusting entity. Call him you coward. Call him… What does that have to do with all of them placing it on the north side, Disinfobesque? … You are a joke and we're coming for you… Does one actually need to, you crackpot? The plane was on the north side. THAT is the smoking gun. Do you understand anonymous disinfo op? … You are pegged and a joke. You are a tool for the unitiated [sic] and unresearched. You peddle day dreams for these idiots who bought into the honey pot theory or LIHOP. Yet, you are simply that, an anonymous blogger who has never interviewed witnesses, victims, rescuers, firefighters. You've never even set foot in Arlington, huh? You make me sick.”

* Aldo Marquis: “You screwed everybody. You didn't do your homework. You made a movie that got heavily debunked and yet you CONTINUED TO SELL IT!!!!! You should be ashamed of yourself. Now you are releasing watered down version which now makes you and everybody who supported you look like fools. I actually back up my accusations with facts, research, evidence, and logic Dylan. That's not your department.”

* “You are a fraud Russell Pickering. You hide on that forum and conduct your operation from there. But this will soon come to an end. Rob and I are looking for you pal, give us your number so we can discuss this like men AND RECORD IT. If you are right, you shouldn't be worried… It is so obvious what you are Russell, in fact, I am sure it is why you ‘moved’ and changed your phone number. I spent hours with you Russell. Hours. Now it all makes sense. Everything you did, your motives, your actions. It's so evident."

* Craig Ranke: “When this type of horribly bad ‘research’ from anonymous bloggers who claim they are part of the truth movement is used in support of the official story to counter true investigative reporting from the streets that proves the official story false it becomes extremely damaging in our continuous fight to expose the 9/11 lie.” Ad Hominem attacks continued against Arabesque in a research piece on 911blogger.

* Craig Ranke: “Farmer.....you are by far the creepiest of the group. Every sentence you type reeks of manipulation. It's like you simply don't have the ability to express yourself honestly or openly. Your blogs are so completely vacuous yet simultaneously pretentious. No matter how confusing and pointless you make them you simply can't hide the fact that you have ulterior motives for posting them in the first place. It's quite sad and the fact that you pop up within seconds in whatever forum your name is mentioned makes it clear that you are obsessed with the 9/11 truth movement and haven't even come close to disassociating yourself with it as you had claimed you were doing after your unprovoked irrational public blow up against us in the LC forum because I posted one of your images.”

* “But you take the cake. Arabasque [sic] is clearly not the brightest crayon in the box but even his lame work makes you look like a pre-schooler.”

* Craig Ranke: “Arabasque [sic]..... you only miss the title of creepiest because you lack any personality whatsoever as the hooded anonymous one. While Farmer is the king of manipulation you are the king of disingenuous spin. At least Pickering has produced SOME good research during his little 9/11 researcher stint but the crap you and Farmer put out is utterly useless. You are clearly more interested in truth movement gossip and politics then research and investigation.”

* Aldo Marquis: “Their deal is they are being led by a cowardly, self serving, twenty-something yr old punk with a cyber chip on his shoulder and an in person fake smile when he sees you... Why do you think they keep banning us? Why do you think Russell flat out lies and distorts while Dylan sits by quietly? Why don't they come here and kick up some dust? Because they are cowards with an agenda.”

* Craig Ranke: “Funny how you still slobber over Arabasque's [sic] ill-informed cut and paste compilation. Dude has clearly not analyzed a single one of these witness accounts.”

* Aldo Marquis: “He is seriously corrupted in his motive, because this is apparently about the ‘Russell Pickering Show’ as I call it. This is about his theory. Not about the truth.”

Of course, that's just the tip of the iceberg. Plenty more to be found here:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/search/label/CIT

Character assassination is the last resort

I'm guessing that when you can't address the evidence, you attack the person instead, right YT? I'm really not interested in what Craig Ranke or Aldo Marquis are like when they get angry - you are, obviously. I'm really only interested in the evidence they present, its implications, and why supposed 9/11 truthers react to such hostility to the idea that massive deception was used at the Pentagon - when they readily accept massive deception with every other aspect of 9/11.

I have found that it's quite typical for someone who is intellectually bankrupt when it comes to the information to resort to character assassination.

It's easy to scour the internet for unsavory out of context quotes. But are those statements by CIT really unjustified or out of line when you consider the full context in which they were made? I doubt it.

Kevin Barrett put it rather succinctly in his recent response to Jim Hoffman's attacks on CIT:

"It is normal for pro-truth researchers and publicists, and anyone else, to defend themselves with ferocity against perceived unfair attacks; it is NOT normal for allegedly pro-truth people to launch unprovoked attacks against their pro-truth colleagues. Thus CIT is behaving normally, Hoffman abnormally."

Start behaving normally, YT, treat other honest truth-seekers with respect, and just focus on doing positive stuff for the truth movement - like the vast majority of people seeking truth and justice for the crimes of 9/11 - and leave your petty bickering aside, OK?

Excuse me, nobodyparticular

I have never been anything less than polite to you and I find your comment quite rude.

Kevin Barrett, CIT and their followers regularly characterize legitimate criticism as "attacks" while simultaneously personally attacking any and all who dare to voice any criticism. These attacks have included, but are not limited to, accusations of "cointelpro" and compilations of enemy lists. This has gone on for years and is quite well documented. It's the standard disruption tactic of accusing your enemies of doing exactly that which you are doing. My record in the 9/11 truth movement speaks for itself and there are many people who will testify to the quality and impact of the work I've done over the last 8+ years. I do feel compelled to expose scams when I see them, otherwise I wouldn't be involved in 9/11 truth at all. I consider that to be a positive thing and well worth the cost of having to deal with the lies, slander and nasty insinuations that spew forth from the defenders of those scams when the light is shined on them.

Speaking of addressing the evidence, I noticed you had nothing of significance to say about CIT's extreme manipulation of the evidence in order to suit their pet theory. As I said earlier, it's quite telling that in 69 replies to that blog, not one of CIT's followers would (or could) address the core issue of their highly selective manipulation of the evidence. They all changed the subject.

You call the stuff posted above "legitimate criticism"?

Sorry you found my comment rude, but I don't think I've attacked anyone in the comments above - if so, please point out where. I've just urged you to stop attacking other people, which you've started doing from the very first comment on this thread.

First, you post links to those Hoffman/Ashley pieces, which you might find compelling, but certainly don't stand the test of scrutiny for me - resorting in my view to the same "extreme manipulation of the evidence" they accuse CIT of, and completely falling apart when you examine the list of witness accounts one by one, as I and lots of other people have done. And stating this is not a personal attack on either Hoffman or Ashley, just a critique of their methodology and findings.

But that's not enough - you keep filling up the page with more comments, including that silly video, which I would hardly call "legitimate criticism", along with your links to clarifications by Peter Dale Scott and Richard Gage (whose endorsements were not mentioned anywhere in the original entry), and then your long collection of out-of-context Ranke and Marquis quotes.

This is not debate here, there's no back-and-forth, these are just attacks, one after the other. Your position on this is clear, so of course I have nothing of significance to say to you about what you call CIT's "extreme manipulation of the evidence", because you've already signaled right there that you've decided they have manipulated the evidence, so there's nothing to debate, is there?

Like you, I too feel compelled to expose scams when I see them, otherwise I wouldn't be involved in 9/11 truth at all, and based in my review of the evidence, I feel that the notion a 757 actually hit the building is a "scam", if you will. And I have to wonder whether the concerted and aggressive campaign by a handful of individuals to discredit CIT's evidence and analysis is a "scam" of sorts as well, and I know lots of good people share the same suspicion. I therefore consider my presenting the evidence disproving a 757 impact, as well responding to these childish attack videos and list of cherry-picked quotes, to be a necessary and positive thing, and well worth the cost of having to deal with the lies, slander and nasty insinuations that spew forth from the defenders of this scam when the light is shined on them. Got that?

Do you believe cab driver Lloyde England was complicit in 9/11?

That's what CIT claims. Do you believe that?

Who do you believe, YT?

You posted this question two minutes ago earlier in this thread, so I'll just repost my response for the benefit of anyone who didn't see it:

A better question to ask is do YOU believe the witnesses who place the plane on the north side?

If no, I'd like to know why not.

If yes, then you can not also believe the plane hit the light poles, especially the one that allegedly speared the cab without damaging the hood.

When faced with mutually exclusive claims, honest investigators are eventually forced to make a choice as to which claim is the credible one.

You can either choose to believe the 13 north side witnesses or Lloyde, but you can not believe both. Lloyde's story is clearly questionable on its face yet he supports the OCT. However the 13 north side witnesses are clear, concise, and corroborate each other while contradicting the OCT.

I think it's obvious which mutually exclusive claim a reasonable 9/11 skeptic would choose to accept.

You accuse an elderly 9/11 survivor of complicity

If you think that CIT has sufficient evidence to accuse an old cab driver of being complicit in 9/11 and you want to continue promoting the material that accuses him of such, that's on you. I think it's disgusting and I will continue to speak out against it.

You're the one making the accusations, not me

Like I said, and as you well know, I've never accused Lloyde England of anything. But if you think that you have sufficient evidence to accuse CIT of "manipulating evidence", but refuse to cite a single example yourself on this thread, only compulsively linking to posts by others - as if that's supposed to make your point or something - well, that's on you, YT, and I think your tactic of smearing innocent people, without backing up your charges and being willing to defend them, is disgusting and I will continue to speak out against it.

Tell that to Lloyde England

and his wife.

9/11 can't be an inside job without "regular" people involved

Bush and Cheney obviously didn't plant the explosives in the towers. Do you really think that any of the faces of the people who planted those explosives wouldn't seem "normal" to you or anyone?

Richard Gage plays the clip of Harley Guy during his presentation and clearly implies he is a plant. Have you publicly expressed outrage to him about that?

The fact is that Lloyde England's account is physically ridiculous and of course completely irreconcilable with the north side witnesses.

Furthermore he is on record contradicting himself and changing his story depending on whether or not he was on camera. He admitted off camera that he knew his cab and the pole were on the bridge but then denied it when the camera started, suddenly switching his position to fit with the north side witnesses. Even when presented with photographic evidence proving the opposite.

And Lloyde England is a witness to what exactly? The "SOC path"?

He claims that he never saw the plane approach.
He claims that he never saw the plane cross the road.
He claims that he never witnessed any "impact."
He claimed to Hill recently that a flyover was "possible."
He claimed that he wasn't on the bridge repeatedly to Hill as well as Ranke.
He claimed that he was driving "50mph" and started to brake when the pole allegedly pierced his windshield (just work out the brake/reaction time to see where he allegedly was when his windscreen was allegedly "speared").

So what are we left with? That the plane sent the pole at almost a right angle to its position nearly 200ft away in a level trajectory according to his testimony?

That the hood of his car was unmarked?

That NOBODY corroborates his story?

That not one person leading up to, beside and after the poles saw the bizarre sight of Lloyd swerving all over the road with a 40 ft light-pole protruding from his car?

I mean, not one person saw this. Apart from the "silent stranger" of course..

Like CIT has often said, whether he was manipulated, coerced, or willingly involved the evidence proves his cab was not hit by a light pole that was hit by a 90 ton Boeing. End of story.

Lloyd England

Whether elderly or not. Whether survivor or not. I believe Lloyd England was definitely complicit in the cover up and fraud at the Pentagon on 9-11. If all the physical evidence wasn't enough to implicate him, he implicates himself when there is a hidden camera on him.

...

"Start behaving normally, YT, treat other honest truth-seekers with respect, and just focus on doing positive stuff for the truth movement - like the vast majority of people seeking truth and justice for the crimes of 9/11"

YT has done more "positive stuff for the truth movement" than just about anybody I'm aware of. Why is it wrong to critique a theory or tactics?

I said nothing of the sort

I never said YT hasn't done positive stuff for the movement, I just urged him to focus on it. And it's not wrong to critique a theory or tactics, I'm clearly critiquing both the theory and tactics by those here who seek to defend the government's account of what happened at the Pentagon - after all, this site was originally set up to "question the government's version of 9/11" - so of course people are free to critique a theory or tactics, but I thought we were supposed to be skeptical of what the government and corporate media told us on 9/11 - not of each other. It's always been a mystery to me why people who call themselves 9/11 truthers would work so hard to defend the government's Flight 77/ Pentagon impact story from critique, and cast aspersions on independent investigators like CIT, when there's so much evidence this official story is not true? Can you answer that one for me?

Strawman argument

nobodyparticular is equating criticism of the promotion of speculative assertions as fact, i.e. AA 77 didn't hit, flyover, missile hit the Pentagon, etc., as defending "the government's account of what happened at the Pentagon"

He repeats this inflammatory strawman, and makes another one; characterizing criticism of CIT's claims and behavior with "casting aspersions" on them:

"It's always been a mystery to me why people who call themselves 9/11 truthers would work so hard to defend the government's Flight 77/ Pentagon impact story from critique, and cast aspersions on independent investigators like CIT,"

FACT: CIT has repeatedly cherrypicked and selectively interpreted witness statements, seized on any inconsistency or alleged conflict in order to justify excluding any witness testimony that contradicts their flyover theory and labeling witnesses as liars or agents, while ignoring all inconsistencies and conflicts with the witnesses they use to support their theories (CIT claims the reason their witnesses say they saw the plane hit the Pentagon is cuz they were fooled; but, otoh, they consider their accounts of the flight path reliable- despite the existence of a greater # of witness accounts of the plane on a S path http://911blogger.com/news/2009-12-27/south-path-impact-documented-adam-...). In addition CIT has personally attacked their critics on numerous occasions, as opposed to simply criticizing their arguments. This article is from 2007, but there's plenty of linked documentation, and CIT has continued to do the same things in the years since:

CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-an...

You're obviously only proving my point with your continued slurs

If your rant above - full of long-debunked assertions - isn't "casting aspersions", I don't know what is. And if you are not indeed supporting and defending the government's account of what happened at the Pentagon, what *are* you supporting and defending? I know you don't support CIT's research - that's clear - but what interpretation of the evidence do you support, if not the government's? I think the readers of this blog would be interested in knowing your actual position on the question - whether it's the same as the government's or not - and what evidence you would use to support it. Or is all you do is attack others?

CIT is the topic

Please address CIT's manipulation of the evidence in order to suit the theory which they insist is the truth. None of the CIT people will do this, they just keep changing the subject.

Yes, CIT is the topic - and this is the thread

Why are you not directly addressing the evidence yourself, instead of making accusations and posting links to other threads? List me one example - if you are even capable - of where CIT has "manipulated evidence", and be man enough to defend it yourself, instead of hiding behind Sarns. Otherwise I'll know your charges are hollow and empty as all the others I've had to deal with on this thread.

I'll take that as a no

Thanks for playing, buddy.

This is not a game... can't cite a single example, eh?

Imagine how smart you would appear to everyone on here, YT, if you could easily cite one out of apparently many examples of what you call CIT's "manipulation of the evidence", like I've asked, and then proceed to defend it, but you can't cite even a single one. And you think you're somehow winning here?

Having trouble finding it?

Is that all you can do: paste the same link over and over again?

I've read that link, thanks very much. Are you even reading the comments here? I asked you to cite an example here and defend it, and you won't, and others can judge what to make of that.

It's like CIT's kryptonite

You didn't answer my question, Loose Nuke

I asked: if you are not indeed supporting and defending the government's account of what happened at the Pentagon, what *are* you supporting and defending? I know you don't support CIT's research - that's clear - but what interpretation of the evidence do you support, if not the government's? And this question is directed to Loose Nuke right now, and no one else.

Why should he give you the time of day?

This site is littered with your false accusations against him.
It's amazing that he's humored you at all.

Lots of folks would like to know where loose nuke stands on this

I just knew you would butt in here, YT, your style is becoming very familiar to me. I am sure loose nuke can speak for himself, and also think, as I said, that the other readers of this blog would be interested in knowing his actual position on what happened at the Pentagon, and the evidence he would use to support that position, since it would appear he is familiar with a lot of the information on the topic.

Show "Instead, just silence from loose nuke" by nobodyparticular

Hello nobody...

I didn't see you comment about Niels Harritt coming to Australia?

Funny how this is more interesting and important than actual "hard evidence" being presented by a Professor who is qualified in the field...:)

Regards John

You want me to comment on everything?

Sorry to disappoint you there, John, but I didn't see anyone else (except "TomT"and his one-liner) comment about your blog entry either. Maybe that's because the WTC demolitions are no longer that controversial an issue for real truthers anymore, and hence there's not that much to debate - compared to all the evidence surrounding the Pentagon attack, which seems to have attracted a lot more attention, don't you think?

It's clear there's still a great deal of interest in the mystery of what happened in Arlington that day, and while some fervently think they've figured it all out and seek to tightly control the discussion, it will go wherever posters - at least those still allowed here - take it, and there's not much either you and I can do about it (unless you're a moderator, of course).

I would like to see some balance with your approach..yes!

Regards John

Just look at my blog postings on here

If you look at the sum total of everything I've posted on this site over the years, I think you'll find plenty of balance.

Show "Set-Up" by brian78046

Hello Dean...

You would compare Harritt et al to CIT???

The paper (thermitic materials) in question is peer reviewed and published. The sources of dust are well documented and come with the appropriate evidence of custody required to make those studies stand up in a court of law.

The researchers involved have "reputations" and have held "positions" within the scientific community and within society of merit, responsibility and of worth. The dust providers are not to my knowledge in question in any way shape or form, rather they are courageous and good people.

To compare the two is simply "off the wall" and to cast doubt on the credibility of the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" as have CIT and Pilots for Truth is beyond disrespectful to those who have given all to this movement to give credibility it is shameful.

Why you Dean have done this perplexes me?

John

Show "Doubt Exists" by brian78046

Re: Doubt exists

There is an easy way to deal with any doubt. The government (specifically the U.S. Geological Survey) has dust samples that they collected. Let them test them and publish the results in a peer reviewed journal, as Harrit, et al have done. Steven Jones is on record as asking for that.

Show "Founding Fathers Co-Opted By Cold War" by brian78046

Free Speech at Blogger

I also appreciate that this story on CIT is being "allowed" to grace the front page of 911Blogger. Aren't we all here to share information and to discuss and exchange ideas and information? To censor certain information regarding 9/11 is what all of us constantly are saying about the mainstream media. Censorship has no place at 911Blogger. It's time to reinstate those who have been banned simply for discussing certain aspects of 911 that others disagree with. I can understand banning a member if they constantly break the rules but not because the moderators simply don't like them or disagree with their ideas.

As Rodney King said "Can't we all just get along?"

Hi Cincy911Truth...

While people state "theories are facts" without strong evidence and peer review I and others will fight them.

All people like the two man CIT need to do is accept others have a different view and they have their reasons to hold such views.

If CIT took a "we have this evidence and we have this theory" approach there would not be this argument.

There is much that is questionable about a flyover and there is much that is questionable about it's worth to the 9/11 truth Movement when so much stronger evidence with peer review is available. Why anyone that was reasonable would demand it is "a fact" when ALL their witnesses think a 757 hit the building is extremely troubling to me and that is why we fight to dilute that message!

In my view to ignore this would be far worse than to fight it....considering there are paid bloggers in our midst that wish to control the debate as the government has told us!

Regards John

Free speech at Blogger - I agree 100%

To censor certain information regarding 9/11 is what all of us are constantly complaining about the mainstream media. Censorship has no place at 911Blogger.

Well said, Cincy

So

You'd be happy to see this site packed with TV Fakery, Jews Did 9/11, pods, holograms, etc etc?

Show "We don't need censorship" by johnscriv

OK

I'll take that as a yes.

The Pentagon Flyover Scenario

Is a problem in terms of the unknown variable, which can only be clarified by the release of videos that recorded what actually happened when it happened.

However, since there ARE numerous, credible and reliable eyewitness accounts, of a Boeing type plane at the scene, AND, prior to the outer wall collapse, ZERO indication of any such plane having impacted the Pantagon wall - what other option IS there, than a "flyover"..? It is rational and logical to draw such a conclusion, only problem is the implications and the degree of uknowns in terms of what may be considered "credible".

I am of the viewpoint that a plane was there, did not hit the wall, and therefore overflew the Pentagon, yet at the same time appeared to vanish as it traversed the wall by employing adaptive camoflage technology and thus, was not seen by cars on the highway opposite the Pentagon between the Pentagon and Reagan International Airport. There is one witness who said just that, that his brain could not compute what he'd seen, because he'd seen the plane simply vanish.

Could I "sell" that idea as "credible"? No. Does it make sense, in terms of rational deductive reasoning, yes.

This is the problem we have here, with the Pentagon - the slight of hand used by the perps to pull it off.

Therefore, it's probably best that the 9/11 truth movement maintain focus on the WTC and what happened there as it's the central crux of the global-psyop false flag attack of 9/11 (what people think of when they think of 9/11 and what really drove the arrow through to the depths of our heart).

Best Regards,

How else can one possibly interpret the existing evidence?

Hi Robert,

I've enjoyed reading your comments, but am curious: have you seen National Security Alert in full?

As it turns out, people DID see the plane flying away - namely, Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr and other witnesses at the scene, as reported by Erik Dihle. So no "adaptive camoflage technology" was likely used.

You are correct that the only logical conclusion given the evidence is a flyover - even without more witnesses to the plane flying away, much like how the only logical conclusion given the evidence at the WTC is controlled demolition - even without the nanothermite findings or any direct evidence for the planting of explosives.

But please understand there is nothing outrageous or exotic about a flyover: low-flying planes in the airspace above the Pentagon are commonplace, due to its close proximity to Reagan National Airport.

Planes are arriving and departing from Reagan every 2 to 5 minutes of every day of the year.

A plane flying away over the river would be of no consequence to motorists who would be transfixed with the smoke pouring from the Pentagon.




I fully endorse the comment about aviation activity...

...at National Airport being nothing unusual at all...and that an overflight "could" be seen as nothing out of the ordinary flight path activities that day. I do believe that National was landing and departing to the north and that means that departures were flying north right past the Pentagon. And for these travellers, who travel the road so often that they do not even notice such aviation activities, an overflight could easily have blended in and NOT be seen as anything too different at all. But this is not a conclusion...just support of one point made above.

An FYI...I actually made a point to get to the Pentagon area and walk the parking lot at the Naval Annex, drive around all the roads and check out the gas station. This aviation activity by a large airliner sure would be tricky...if not lucky. Its a tight descent and small low target...and at those speeds. YIKES!

BTW...the more interesting thing stated by Roberts was that he was aware that the country was in DEFCON4...the HIGHEST ALERT LEVEL...aka...a national defense emergency [If I remember correctly anyway] even before he went outside when he saw the airvehicle flying away. What this means is that the entire national defense structure was engaged and "looking" for bad stuff in the skies.

But, its possible that Roberts may have seen a large airvehicle making its first pass while in descent in that well known descending right turn before approaching/hitting/overflying? the Pentagon. The timing is very key here and I am not sure how all that fits. Good stuff anyway...

So, how did this airvehicle make it all the way to the Pentagon IF the US Military was on highest alert?

Cheney of course...or Operation Northwoods circa 2001...or both.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

Helicopter Circling The Pentagon Just Before Flight 77 Impacts

Robin,

Defcon 4 and the Pentagon's missile defense went to sleep? Talk about a stand down. Then again, a helicopter was circling the Pentagon at the time. If that helicopter was military it would deactivate the Pentagon's missiles. One snag though, if it was a military helicopter, why wasn't the pilot told to get out of the Pentagon's air space, because the Pentagon was watching an unknown target approaching the Washington, DC area. That, again, substantiates a stand down.

See what Barbara Honegger has to say about this, can you?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Good points...but from what I understand...

Dean,

Because one airvehicle is squawking an IFF transponder was flying in the airspace protected by the Penatgon's defense system, this does not mean that the entire air defense system is shut down. A better understanding about this is that if ANY air vehicle was squawking an IFF transponder [Identification-Friend or Foe]...or military transponder, the air defense system would "see" THAT airvehicle as being friendly and would not be concerned about it. Usually the same goes for an airvehicle squawking an FAA transponder...IE: its presumed to be friendly, and additionally, human flight monitors would be able to easily track that airvehicle with the FAA transponder...and most are friendly for sure.

Its a TOTALLY DIFFERENT STORY regarding a HIGH SPEED PRIMARY TARGET HEADING STRAIGHT FOR WDC...this type of target is the QUINTESSENTIAL or EXACT target that the entire air defense system has been designed to DEFEND AGAINST.

So, the deliberate and neccessary "stand-down" issue has considerable legs here...and we need to never let it go.

BTW...I have seen the helicopter activity around the Pentagon on 9/11 by examining the radar data provided by RADES...and it certainly strikes me as very interesting indeed. In fact I tracked one such flight up to Langley [CIA] just upriver. Anyway, you ask good questions here...and I might remind you of a strong probability. IF one of the helicopters was involved, and it was painted to look like a civilian helicopter to keep the questions at bay, the HI PERPS would certainly have equipped it with BOTH an FAA transponder and a military IFF transponder.

And, I have read Honegger's work and have talked/consulted with her personnally, so, unless there is another white paper by her on the subject of the 09:30-09:32 first explosion time in which she staes that it was most likely a military air vehicle that struck the Pentagon [which I certainly would not be surprised about], then I think that I am up-to-date about her WORTHY!!! research. If not and she has published something new, please feel free to link me up...I'm interested. She usually copies me on her work anyway.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

What Barbara Honegger Wrote

Robin,

Here's what Barbara wrote, "Only a military aircraft, not a civilian plane flown by al Qaeda, would have given off the "Friendly" signal needed to disable the Pentagon’s anti−aircraft missile batteries as it approached the building." -- http://physics911.net/pdf/honegger.pdf

Because of the close proximity of National Airport, the Pentagon's missile system was automatic, no time for human judgement.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Human judgement exists and is critical...this is complicated...

Dean,

This is all very, very complicated and I ask that you carry some of the water in my discussion...in other words, since I'm not a wordsmith, you gotta try to understand...

My overidding point:

There is not ONE killing system operated by the US Milirtary that has been designed to "operate or function" in deathly attacks or defenses WITHOUT HUMAN APPROVALS....

OK, think of that a bit..............................................................here we go...

What ever air defense system was in use to protect the critical airspaces in the vicinity of WDC, there are NO air defense systems designed that operate FULLY outside of human influence in decision making. Some human being HAS TO make the final decision to "kill" an invader.

This decision IS NOT assigned to an electronical or mecahnical device...its a PERSON BABY!

Anyway, this "given" includes the protocols of defending the sensitive airspaces all around WDC...and all of this is the MOST COMPLEX AIRSPACE IN THE WORLD...so, lets take a few breaths every now and then...its really complicated...

HERE..is what the air defense system has been designed "around"...

...that, no matter what, the US Military DOES NOT KILL...a civilian...by accident.

So, this answers your erroneus comment: "No time for human judgemant..."

Human judgement is positioned at the proper places at the proper times so that the "system" does not take the human's responsibilities over and begin to make the critical judgements that have always been HUMAN JUDGEMENTS.

Applying this concept to the aviation aspects of 9/11/2001 surrounding the WDC airspace...there was NO AUTOMATIC FIRING OF MISSILES to defend the various important and critical airspaces all around WDC.

Any such decisions to "shoot down" needed the highest levels of Secret Security or Penatgon approvals.

PLEASE NOTE: This is totally different from the authority that the leader of an interceptor crew has when intercepting a particular "target" should that target be in position to inflict damage to, or the killing of property and people on the ground, respectively. The commander of such a flight crew has authority to kill without higher approavals...IF the situtaion so demands. The HI PERPS have tried to make us all think something different...but that's another full thread...

OK...now that that's behind us...

What Honegger's statement "states"...is correct...that an IFF transponder, it will: "disable the Pentagon's anti-aircraft missile batteries"...

BUT...here is where the misunderstanding comes into play...

Honegger meant that the SPECIFIC...IFF transponder....associted with the SPECIFIC... AIRCRAFT...will "disable" the anti-aircraft missile defense sytstem from attacking THAT SPECIFIC AIRCRAFT...and that...

...the entire anti-aircraft system is NOT shut down because of ANY aircraft squawking an IFF transponder code in that airspace...

Although Honegger's statement could be interpreted that just ANY IFF transponder would shut down the ENTIRE air-defense system, it is not stating that point at all.

Instead, the correct interpretation is that:

The IFF transponder will shut down AN ATTACK AGAINST an aviation target that HAS THAT SPECIFICC TRANSPONER TRANSMITTING ITS SIGNALS...

So, stating it more briefly, an IFF transponder serves several purposes...but the principal one is to ID "itself" to ANY and ALL military radar systems that it INDEED...is a friendly...and that it should NOT be shot down.

Conclusion: Honegger was alluding that the SPECIFIC AIRCRAFT would not shut down the ENTIRE anti-aircraft system...BUT that...the SPECIFIC TARGET would ONLY PREVENT the anti-aircraft system from shooting THAT SPECIFIC TARGET down...because it indicated a "FRIENDLY" transponder return.

Hope this helps...

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

Another Problem

I understand what you are saying in your Conclusion. It makes sense. Here's another problem I have...

So if two Soviet sabotage agents piloting a 767 took off from National Airport and made a tight turn entering Pentagon airspace heading directly for the Pentagon, THEN Pentagon radar operators would have to first confirm a hostile aircraft rapidly approaching, THEN inform the missile battery operators that a hostile aircraft is approaching and from what direction the aircraft is approaching from, THEN the missile operators would activate the nearest battery to the aircraft, THEN the missile fires.

By then the hostile aircraft has just killed the Secretary of Defense and his senior officers!

Or the functions of radar and fire control could all be wrapped up with the missile battery team, in which case they would only have to confirm a hostile aircraft, THEN when confirmed activate the automatic functions of the missiles. In this scenario it might work, but it still seems a bit risky!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

It is presumed that...

...ANY aircraft that took off from National, or in positive control on ots way to landing at National, that it is a friendly.

Its the UNIDENTIFIED airvehicles that the Pantagon's air defense system is esigned to deal with. In your scenario, and because of the close proxinity, there indeed would be a deatthly attack.

Its airport security and the FAA's control of events affecting the NAS...National Airspace System that is on guard in your scenarion. A bit iof a roll of the dice for sure.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

Unfriendly Work Office

Robin,

wow, that boggles my mind!

That means if Soviets/Chinese sometime in the future think they can move against the West and win, one of the first targets will be the Pentagon, which can be taken-out by 767/757 sized aircraft!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Boggles the mind...YUP

One of the principal reasons that IAD was built well west of WDC is to handle the international traffic in and out of WDC. I'm aware that National airport is too short for such long range flights and that was the primary factor.

Dean, a deeper understanding of how well "controlled and observed" the airspace surrounding WDC actually IS, will help in understanding the "security issues" that we are talking about.

Simply put, ALL air traffic needs to get some form of approvals even to fly NEAR WDC...and this is accomplished by the FAA for civilian aircraft and airports...by the Military for military airports...and this is why...

There is a sophisticated and complex interrelationship between all the FAA-Military and SS facilities...and clandestinely so for the SS and info sent to the PEOC and other safe houses associated with COG...wherever they are.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

It was a plane bomb!

Robert Rice: "what other option IS there, than a "flyover"..?"

Jim Hoffman seems to give the plane bomb, idea some credence. He doesn't really promote it all that often, but I suppose it attempts to incorporate the eyewitness accounts with the physical evidence. I believe it was orginally suggested by Eric Bart.

"According to this theory, the jetliner was shredded by shaped charges on the aircraft a split second before impact. It accounts for several features in the eyewitnesses' reports of the moment of impact that are difficult to reconcile with the official crash account, such as of the jet exploding or disintegrating before reaching the building. The plane bomb theory can also account for the lack of imprint of the jetliner's profile on the Pentagon's facade. The ends of the wings and the vertical stabilizer -- the parts of the plane that did not leave impact impressions -- could have been shredded by the explosive charges, perhaps ahead of the fuselage. These relatively light components would have produced only a few tons of confetti, which is not captured in the limited number of photographs taken soon after the crash."
Jim Hoffman

Of course, I don't necessarily agree with this theory. I merely put it forward as another possibility.

Seems absurd

And I do not trust Jim Hoffman either.

Much less probable than a flyover, which is infinitely more likely to have occured, and they even claim to have eyewitnesses reporting the plane flying away.

A "plane bomb" detonating pre-impact, that's absurd.

Give me a break

>>And I do not trust Jim Hoffman either.

Yeah, anyone who considers that a real plane might have hit a real building and killed real people with real hijacker-patsies . . . can't trust 'em!! All of it was fake! Not real! Fake phone calls, fake lamp posts falling, fake debris raining down secretly from the sky, fake witnesses, fake bodies and DNA . . . . My God! Everything is fake!

Of course, if you don't trust Jim, you probably REALLY don't trust me.

Hoffman "suggests" that the damage dimensions and a B757 fit.

Had Jim Hoffman and Pilots for 9/11 Truth taken the time and precisely measured the three points of impact and damage near and upon the generator, quite a bit of discussion about "What hit the Penatgon" may have been short cut significantly.

From what I have seen in my research into this subject so far, I have only seen some cartoonish depictions or unofficial and "not-to-scale" diagrams offering "loose" measurements. I suspect that this inaccurate information most likely lead Hoffman to only "suggest" that the damage fits the profile or dimensions of the damage which would be inflicted by a B757's engines and wing flap supports hanging under the wings.

But there is a HUGE problem here...from my analysis anyway...the damage to the top center-right of the generator could not have been inflicted by the wing flap track [or its covering-faring...all of which are loosely called a "canoe".]...and here it is:

If its presumed that the damage to the low lying cement wall was inflicted by the left engine nacelle of the airvehicle...and...that the damage done to the top left coner of the generator as it sat in its raised position was inflicted by the right engine nacelle, this would indicate that the airvehicle was in a left bank...aka...not flying level but with the left wing lower and the right wing higer. Precise measurements could establish this angle of bank.

And of critical nature, the distance between the center point of the damage to the low lying cement wall and the center point of the damage to the top left corner of the generator will establish the distance between the left and right engines of the particular air vehicle that struck" the Penatgon. This is an important measurement...indeed.

Additionally, as is the case in most aircraft, the left and right wings are designed with "dyhedral", or an upward slant between the fuselage and the wing tips. Another way to describe dyhedral is to note that when the aircraft is on the ground parked, the distance between the bottom of the wing to the ground at the point where it attaches to the fuselage is considerably LESS than the distance to the ground between the wing tip and the ground. This difference in distances establishes the exact angle of the dyhedral that was, for good reasons, designed into the aircraft in the first place.

And, although a minor change in measurements or dyhedral angles, during flight the wings are actually bent more upwards because they are holding up, or lifting the aircraft. This is in comparison to the drooped wings when the aircraft is on the ground parked where the wheels are holding up the aircraft and the wings consequently do indeed, droop downwards a bit out towards the wingtips.

Considering all of the above, the "in-flight" dyhedral and the positions of the two engine nacelles at impact, the damage to the top center-right of the generator becomes TELLTALE as to the specific airvehicle that made this damage.

It will be found that there is ONLY ONE specific airvehicle which is designed and built with the dimensions that can inflict the damage to the low cement wall...to the upper left of the generator...and to the top center-right of the generator. YUP...it will be only ONE specific airvehicle...or a model thereof.

Again, from what I am able to observe so far, if a B757 was in a left bank and so close to the ground that the left engine nacelle struck the low lying cement wall...and the right engine struck the top left corner of the higher sitting generator, then the right wing flap track or canoe of a B757 would have PASSED WELL ABOVE the top center-right of the generator.

So, from my early conclusions, this airvehicle was NOT a B757.

Here is some additional information that "may" become a player in this research...and it adds to Honegger's suppositions that it was a "military aircraft" that struck the Pentagon.

In order for an aircraft to inflict the damage shown at the low cement wall, the top left of the generator and the top center-right of the generator ESTABLISHING A LEFT BANKED FLIGHT PROFILE...the part of the wing which ended up striking the top center-right of the generator HAD TO BE BOTH HANGING LOW ENOUGH AND NARROW ENOUGH to make that square-ish gash streaked across the top center-right of the generator.

Several military aircraft types are designed to hold under-wing fuel tanks or armaments or bombs...and consequently have below-wing mounts and protrusions. Another point here...the design criteria for such under-wing extentions are such that these mounts need to extrend low enough under the wings so that when ground crews attach fuel tanks, armaments, or bombs to these STRONG mounting devices, they can do this from the ground if at all possible. This "suggests", if I might use one of Hoffman's terms, that such under-wing attachments would EXTEND DOWNWARD well below the B757's flap track...aka...canoe.

Although not yet conclusive, I would not be surprised if the dimensions that are required to fit all three points of damage to the cement wall, the top left of the generator and the top center-right of the generator were inflicted by a military airvehicle with such long-ish below-wing mounts. But maybe not...

Perhaps we can find out by perfoming exacting measurements to the three points of damage and then comparing them to the existing airvehicles' dimensions...especially those in Jayne's Military Weapons records.

Now, one would think that Pilots for 9/11 truth, with its extensive and cumulative military piloting background held by most of its members, and of course its fair share of cointelpro types that are certainly lurking there too, would have thought about this analysis before this time period. This is even more apparent when one thinks about how much time P4T has spent in looking all around the Penatgon and analysing what happened or didn't happen regarding the flight characteristics and capabilities of a ....B757...HMMM...there's that...B757...thing again. Hey, maybe they are right...who knows?

Anyway, no such simple analysis of this TELLTALE damage has taken place by this group of Professional Pilots. Instead P4T has committed their work to expose into the public's consciousness a FDR and the resulting animation [each provided them by a FOIA request routed through ENGLAND???] showing that...it indeed WAS AA77...a B757... that turned around and remained at level flight in its turn in eastern Ohio...and indeed also was the airvehicle that began a gradual descent down and eventually into the Penatgon.

Truthfully, with even a moderate level of research, the FDR would have been shown to be a fake or hacked when compared to the NTSB Flight Path Study. Now, being "pilots", one would think that looking into a "Flight Path Study" would be right down their alley. Instaed, P4T has built its empire upon a "timely" aquisition and public presentation of this FDR and animation instead of doing solid research that would question the FDR's veracity.

Further, P4T reluctantly put some information on ther first DVD noting that the...B757...may not have been AA77 because they DID respond to my YELLS AND SCREAMS at Balsamo...and this is NOT an understatement at all! Balsamo is the "leader-founder" of P4T and is s tad hard headed.

Anyways, as I have kept up exposing my "concerns" over the levels of unbiased? and thorough?, and accurate?, research conducted by P4T, this "radar contact was lost" information along with my voice-over were removed from subsequent DVD releases.

Now, why P4T did not follow my leads and do the research themselves into the NTSB Flight Path Study ...which shows that AA77 had begun a descent in its partial left turn BEFORE it was lost to positive radar contact...is ceratinly not because I failed to point out and ask such research of them during my "yelling at Balsamo", because surely I did inform him repeatedly. So, it must be for another reason that they have ignored the NTSB Flight Path Study in this instance. Perhaps it is because had their investigation, and exposure of the fact that AA77 had indeed started a descent during its partial left turn over eastern Ohio, it would have highlighted that the FDR and animation was indeed a fabrication or had been hacked to tell the HI PERP's storyline...a storyline that P4T has been telling under the guise of exposing something different for years now.

So, here is my challenge to P4T:

Step up and do the measurements at the generator...and then compare them to all other twin jet engined airvehicles known today...and of course to both Jaynes Military Aircraft inventory and the US Military's aircraft inventory.

Hey, it might end up being a...B757...and it also may end up being AA77...never know without GOOD RESEARCH!

Obviously this is the "WTC DUST at the PENTAGON" that I have been teasing about for two years now...and I do think that an accurate analysis will establish the airvehicle "type" that struck the generator.

And this data exists because this evidence was not able to be "controlled" by the Pentagon and its Intel thugs. The dust came from independent citizens...as did all the videos and photographs showing the WTC collapses...all of which were analyzed outside of the Military-Intel-Corporate Media "controls" of such information by incredibly dedicated and "accredited" professionals in their trades [Jones-Gage et al].

Likewise, the data surrounding the generator damage exists outside of Penatgon-Intel thugs' controls because it has been photographed independently, and the airvehicle "candidates" are also in the public domain...mostly anyway.

Lets hope that P4T steps up and performs this analysis at the same competent and UNBIASED manner in which Jones, Ryan, Gage, Scott and Griffin have done theirs.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

PS: It should be quite clear why I, as a commercial pilot with 1600 hours of flight time and a former air taffic controller, found it neccessary to remove myself from being part of Pilots for 9/11 Truth organization. rdh

PSII: A note to Jim Hoffman...first thanks for all your work...its incredible and very instructive...but not yet definitive because very little is definitive so far. But, I do ask that if, while doing important work in worrying about the 9/11TM being "set-up" by cointelpro with the various AA77-Pentagon controversies, might you have also been pranked by referring to such inaccurate information that presented the "generator story" in ways that it made you pass by both its significance, and the accuracies needed for a scientific ...aka... exacting analysis of that damage and what it actually meant?

I DO NOT mean this as a slur in aany way because I have shared such questioning of being "pranked' by the HI PERPS to others at even higher levels of influence than what you hold. Here is how I approach this entire subject:

Given: Its a well planned "9/11 Attacks War Game Scenario" pulled off by these HI PERP THUGS.

Given: That in planning for exactly how this attack scenario could and would work, that even MORE PLANNING would go into making sure that the "stories told and evidence presented or witheld" before, during and after the attacks was ALSO deliberated and competently acted out as the events began and unfolded over the years

In other words, if they had enough competency to plan and execute the attacks, then clearly they knew that they would have to cover their tracks afterwards. After all, it was Cheney and Rumsfeld that got their feet wet in the Watergate era...and what they learned then is that whatever you wanted to do, you have to make careful and thorough plans NOT to get caught doing it. Actually, I suspect that this would be their first order of business in making such devious plans!

The prime example of this foresight and media-info control is seen on Sofia' 9/11 Mysteries where that "plant" established that the towers came down from the collisions and the fires...when now we know differently.

I do appreciate and respect your work Jim...but like most evrything else in this crazy situation, more is yet to be learned. I know that I'm still just getting started. rdh

Not absurd as a theory!

Jim is not the only person who puts this argument forward.

I think it is definitely a possibility just as the "flyover" is. The thing is that Jim just puts it out there as a possibility not as a FACT!

Thanks tanabear for a reasonable contribution:)

Regards John

This theory, amongst others...is worth more study...

I will be commenting about many responses to this subject matter for quite some time.

However, if anyone wants to get information about my research into these elements, please feel free to read my affidavit in support of April Gallop...it shows some stuff that NOBOBDY has ever even considered about the events at the Pentagon. I think that I posted one version somewhere on this site...but as was usual with me, it was soon taken down.

And this is of course because I find no other air traffic controllers commenting about ANYTHING regarding 9/11 Truth. Perhaps its because they have current careers and retirements to consider.

Ignorance,...and blindness...and NOT lack of intelligence is speaking very loudly on this subject matter...stay tuned, I have some deep explanin to do...and here is the FIRST one.

Every single "theory" about what happened at the Pentagin has TOTALLY ignored the solid evidence that is equal if not superior to any evidence so far presented about any of the theories regarding "What Happened at The Pentagon"...and this evidence is presented by Barbara Honegger in which she assembles a very solid case that the FIRST EXPLOSION at the Pentagon happened about five-to-seven minutes BEFORE the "alleged" flight arrived at the Pentagon scene...aka...at 09:30 or 09:32.

Barbara's work is being ignored I suspect, because if what she presents is true, there are NO THEORIES or scenarioos that are viable to explain such an early explosion event.

Sorry gang, but the blinders need to come off and we need to step back and ACCEPT...that the events at the Pentagon are the closest held, and the most "disinfo-ed" and the most "red herring-ed" event in all of 9/11/2001....and its because it was Cheney's baby to make happen...

Take a break, step back, open the minds...we are being disinfo-ed...so lets keep talkin and figuring stuff out. It will all make some sense someday.

Anybody, including Dr. Legge...who thinks that they have a foot up in the investigation regarding the Pentagon, and who thinks that they have the best "angle" on the events, is disserving our quest.

Please join me in projecting that the final story of the events at the Pentagon MAY...I say again...MAY...include some aspects of ALL the scenarios presented so far.

And of course Cheney and Company will be serving up red herrings and disinfo and distractions and blind leads all along this thread too.

If we are true to what we have accomplished so far, we will back up, rethink, open our minds and look into all of this in a more open, objective and unbisaed manner.

NOBODY...knows what happened at the Pentagon...and this includes YOU AND ME...except of course, the HI PERPS.

Lighten up gang...we have a lotta work to do.

BTW...if ANYONE finds a source that claims that it has identified the high speed primary target first??? seen by Danielle O'Brien as being that of AA77, then PLEASE inform me as soon as you can.

AND...there is NO WAY that Stephenson at National Tower could possibly KNOW that it was AA77...unless he was told so by the Secret Service or some other insider.

However, he certainly can be counted upon at identifying a B757 and an American Airlines PAINT JOB...and that's ALL he can testify to.

Additionally, please note that he STATES that the aircraft dropped down behind buildings and then he SAW a fireball. The point being, he did not see this aircraft hit the Pentagon...because he couldn't...

And its because he couldn't SEE the Pentagon form the National Tower...nobody could!

Stephenson has failed to return my phone calls.

There is much, much more to come...stay tuned...and open up the minds.

If we are 10% into finding out what happened at the Pentagon...and that's is a very high estimate.

Finally, [at least in this response] please pay attention down the road here because I have found the "dust" at the pentagon...and not a soul has travelled this road to discovery.

And Pilots for 9/11 Truth should have been all over ths several years ago...OH well...

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

PS: Pleas eforgive my spelling etc. There will be alotta info flowing out of me as the enties are submitted. rdh

No evidence for a "plane bomb"

The physical damage to the building is primarily on the first floor at ground level - yet there is no crater in the ground, or visible damage to the foundation inside the building.

Furthermore, the low flying large twin engine jet reported by so many witnesses on the north side of the CITGO station is also heavily corroborated as being in a significant right bank, traveling relatively slowly, while no light poles on a north side path were downed.

Personally, I don't think it's feasible for any amount of explosives to almost completely destroy a relatively slow-moving 90-ton Boeing jet aircraft at ground level - without leaving a crater in the ground, or damaging the foundation of the building.

How would you know?

Reference and precedence...for your assertion?

We don't know anything really do we?

John

Just common sense

It just doesn't seem remotely plausible to me, for the reasons above, but if it does to you, be my guest in trying to convince others a plane bomb is what happened, then, makes no difference to me.

There is nothing "common" about it:)

John

I'd like to see how you would argue that

If you actually think that explosives could almost completely destroy a relatively slow-moving 90-ton Boeing jet aircraft at ground level - without leaving a crater in the ground, or damaging the foundation of the building - by all means write up a paper about it, and get it published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, or somewhere else it will get serious attention. Good luck with that!

I fully support more research into the "plane bomb" idea...

...and its NOT because it establishes a "swap scenario" which I see as viable...but have very little proof to establish such.

Its because this theory does indeed answer quite a few questions that many of us have about many of each other's theories.

And if there were a swap scenario, then the airvehicle that was swapped in would have to be specifically prepared to accomplish this...including a paint job making it look like Chic Burlingame's American Airlines B757.

And since it is highly unlikely that a B757 inflicted the damage: to the low cement wall to the left of the generator...to the top left corner of the generator...and to the top-middle/right of the generator...because the combination of the left bank of the airvehicle and the dyhedral of a B757's wings would make the "below-wing" flap track extending underneath the right wing PASS WELL ABOVE the generator, and thusly NOT INFLICT the damage to the top-middle/right of the generator, then perhaps another military type airvehicle could have presented itself as an American Airlines B757, could have been loaded with the explosives required, and could have made the three points of damage that we see in and around the generator. But that's just me talking.

I think that this is the strongest case so far.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

Where's the wreckage a plane bomb would have caused?

If it was a plane bomb, why didn't it leave any wreckage outside the building or damage the Cherokee and Nissan belonging to Kidd and Boger?

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

Or the cable spools?


user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

Hello Robert...you have just shown your bent on this subject...

Quote: "ZERO indication of any such plane having impacted the Pantagon wall"

You are now discredited in this discussion, because this is simply untrue, unreasonable and misleading.

Just because you and many others keep repeating this claim does not make it true. LOOK at the pictures....and you can see plenty of aircraft debris to say otherwise is simply misleading and unless you are blind it is a lie! Sorry if I offend but lies offend me.

The Pentagon crash is definitely unusual to be sure; we see a passenger aircraft at very high speed hitting an armour-plated building for the time in history. Some of us are wise enough to know that means we should be cautious, while others see an opportunity to make something up?

John

PS - I support CIT in its efforts to find the truth, I do not support their efforts to claim they know what that is when so much is disputed.

PPS - Frank Legge's work in by far the most reasonable to date http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug...

I did not say

that some type of aircraft of some kind (just not a Boeing 757) might have hit the wall, as recorded in those meager five frames of bad security camera video that were released.

But, and let us be clear about this - it is physically impossible that a Boeing 757 was responsible for the initial impact area damage.

There was that one bright and shiney piece of apparent AA fuselage photographed at the scene, and other minor debris, I am well aware of that fact.

Just don't begin by assuming, look at the evidence, and what does it tell you. At the very least it rules out a Boeing 757, which cannot have been responsible for the initial damage.

And >I< get voted down here because Bursill is some down under 9/11 hero or something, or has political clout or whatever at 911blogger. What IS the deal with this place and the voting system here?

Keep on voting me down and I don't feel wanted, and therefore, there's no use even posting here any more, since it's for the sake of the readership and those who vote THAT I post.

It's not about popularity

You get voted down for incessantly spouting logical fallacies.

Pentagon Was Blast-Proofed

John,

the specific area of the wedge that the aircraft hit wasn't armor-plated. The Pentagon retrofit blast-proofed the walls/windows to prevent shrapnel from flying. If a 757 had hit the Pentagon wall (with a force = .78 tons of TNT), the wall should have immediately collapsed in one general piece (which it did 30 minutes later).

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Shirley, another accomplice according to CIT

Here's the interview that was used to determine that the cabbie's wife was an accomplice to the crime:

.
CIT: Listen, because of the evidence we have, we know that the plane did not hit the building and continued on.
SHIRLEY: Yeah
CIT: Excuse me?! Yeah what?
SHIRLEY: What you said.
CIT What did I say?
http://911review.com/articles/ashley/pentacon_con.html#search

And that was it, that was all she said. Amazing stuff!!! You can just tell she knows that a plane flew OVER the building!! All fake!! My God! Everything was FAKE!!

Here is the actual quote, for anyone who actually cares

I sensed this quote wasn't quite right when I read it here, so I went and dug up the complete original, and here's what actually transpired, just for the record:

CRAIG: Well we found out that it didn't hit the Pentagon and just kept on going.

SHIRLEY: Yeah.

CRAIG: Yeah what?

SHIRLEY: Yeah (laughs).

CRAIG: Yeah what?

SHIRLEY: What you said!

CRAIG: What did I say?

SHIRLEY: I better go fix dinner...

Oh and Victronix, if you actually have any evidence that CIT ever stated or suggested that Shirley was an "accomplice", please provide it, otherwise that accusation looks to be a bold-faced, um... error.

But you're an honest person, right? I can trust you'll acknowledge the error (and the incomplete/inaccurate transcript) just like I would, right?

Not much of a difference there...

But apparently enough for you to insinuate that Vic is dishonest. And right after you gave your touching lecture about "petty bickering" and character assassination...

We all want the facts to be right, yes?

I'm not implying that Vitronix is dishonest, I am fully expecting a correction of the inaccurate transcript and accusation that CIT called Shirley an "accomplice". The remark about petty bickering was about your posting of nothing but a series of personal attacks in response to a press release about a European tour. Is it OK for people to post inaccurate information and accusations or not? You've clearly taken it upon yourself to correct what you see as inaccurate information and accusations by CIT, why can't I do the same with inaccurate information and accusations by Victronix?

I love how ridiculous this is

Hilarious! "I better go fix dinner" . . . you gotta laugh to stay with this stuff.

Once again, amazing evidence!! I can't believe what I'm reading!! My God . . . she was IN ON IT because she was going to fix dinner and didn't answer the question!!!

So the only possibility is that she was in on it. There's no possibility that she actually DID want to go make dinner, or didn't actually hear his phrase and just said "yeah," as many of us do, etc. The ONLY possibility is that she's an agent.

I'm continually amazed at how telepathy played such a role in CIT's work. Wish I had that ability too . . .

Who said she was an agent?

If you actually have any evidence that CIT ever stated or suggested that Shirley was an "accomplice" or agent, please provide it, because it looks like you are the only one making that ridiculous allegation.

NOTE TO MODERATORS: DO YOUR JOB!

In the post above, titled "Shirley, another accomplice according to CIT," the user calling themselves "Victronix" excerpts (inaccurately) an interview conducted by CIT which is claimed was "used to determine that the cabbie's wife was an accomplice to the crime". Victronix offers no basis whatsoever for this provocative and insulting assertion. I demanded evidence be provided that CIT ever stated or suggested that Shirley was an "accomplice", and have received none, only cynical re-phrasings that "she was IN ON IT because she was going to fix dinner and didn't answer the question!!! So the only possibility is that she was in on it..", which effectively has Victronix making this accusation about Shirley directly.

Moderator(s), if you are going to allow such posts to remain, i.e. if (certain) people are freely allowed to fabricate utterly false charges like this, you are making a total mockery of the rules on this site, and such hypocrisy is certainly going to be obvious to any honest readers here, so I'd advise you to take the appropriate steps - if you have any hope of preserving this site's reputation in the eyes of the people reading this thread, and of the truth movement in general.

shouting demands at the moderators...

That should get you far.

I gotta laugh out loud at the fact that the CIT people have no problem whatsoever accusing an old cab driver of being complicit in 9/11 but they howl in outrage when others criticize these despicable tactics. What a sick joke.

The Fly Over Theory Is Not The Issue

The Fly Over theory doesn't matter. The evidence is what matters.

Take the evidence and provide a better theory if you don't like their theory! Eitherway the evidence remains the same.

Attacking and insinuating that CIT is just out to make money off of 9/11 is beyond the pale.

beyond the pale

No, I think "beyond the pale" would be more along the lines of claiming that 9/11 victims family members are fake, something that happens regularly at the site that you, LilyAnn and nobodyparticular keep promoting. It's interesting that the three biggest promoters of CIT on this site all hang out at a place that seems to specialize in attacking family members, activists, 911blogger.com, truthaction.org, etc. Hell, there's several dozen blogs on that site dedicated solely to vilifying Jon Gold alone. So you guys don't seem to have any problem with wanton personal attacks, yet you're simply aghast at legitimate critique of a highly dubious theory.

And if "the evidence is what matters" - please explain why you have no problem with CIT's extreme manipulation of the evidence in order to suit their pet theory. That seems very dishonest to me. It's also quite telling that in 69 replies to that blog, not one of CIT's followers would (or could) address the core issue of their highly selective manipulation of the evidence.

I have nothing to do with wtcdemolition.com (nor does CIT)

Now you are resorting to guilt by association twice removed tactics. Someone not familiar with the situation would easily construe your post to be regarding CIT. The truth is that CIT has never done any of those things and you were actually referring to wtcdemolition.com which is not affiliated in any way with CIT, and which I do not post at. So not only are your tactics wrong, so are your facts. And what I find particularly hypocritical regarding your accusation of them "vilifying" Jon Gold is the fact that everyone knows your site has by far the biggest reputation for vilification of others in the movement - a bit like the pot calling the kettle black, I'd say.

Did you not post a link to that site earlier?

If you didn't, then I must have confused you with another CIT promoter and I apologize. If you did, then I don't. Either way, it doesn't change the facts about that site and the fact that several of the CIT promoters here have been posting that link. The campaign that I started truthaction.org in order to promote has been responsible for inspiring hundreds if not thousands of 9/11 truth actions around the world over the past 3+ years. The forum on the site is indeed well known for posters who offer unflinching criticism of certain unsavory aspects of the movement. Unlike the site that jpass and Lilyann frequent and posted links to, contributors at truthaction.org are not allowed to smear family members, accuse activists of being agents, promote holocaust denial, etc. If you have a problem with anything specific that is posted on the forum, you should speak up. You've been lurking there for almost 3 years now without saying a word!

Posting a link is not the same as endorsing a site!

If we had to agree with everything on a site in order to post links to a single entry - in this case the link I posted to a critique of Hoffman's analysis (an essay that would never be allowed on this Hoffman-friendly site) - then it would be very difficult to discuss any research at all. Are we supposed to agree with everything on government or mainstream media sites when we link to documents or articles on them? Or every video posted on YouTube because we post a single link to a video? What about all the "truthers" who link to various posts at the notorious JREF debunker forum to make their arguments?

I am not here to defend wtcdemolition.com and it is wrong of you to suggest that I am, just by my posting a link to an essay there. Nice attempt trying to smear me there, YT, but no cigar.

But thanks for admitting that truthaction forum is indeed chock full of attacks on other truthers (why would I ever want to post there?), and for your apologizing for confusing me with someone else... your ability to occasionally apologize for your mistakes (unlike, say, Victronix) is noted.

UGH

No one was trying to smear you. If you're not involved with that site, then that's great. I guess I'll have to take your word for it. It's not my fault that the material you posted is only available on a site that is banned from here. Also, I'm quite proud of hosting a forum where critical thought is allowed and your characterization of it, along with your claim that I agree with that characterization, is a lot of BS.

Why not check your facts first before opening your mouth, then?

You insinuated earlier that I was somehow affiliated with that site, and now clearly admit you were mistaken. I'll take that as an apology, thanks.

It's not my fault either that the material I posted is only available on a site that the moderators here have decided to ban - after all, I had no role in banning that, or any other site, and have always been against censorship and for free and open dialogue.

As for your characterization of the personal attacks, mudslinging and innuendo against other truthers that goes on regularly at truthaction as "critical thought", what a laugh! I have no doubt whatsoever that other readers can decide for themselves which is the most accurate characterization.

Anything to get away from addressing CIT's deceptions, eh?

For a guy who's so strongly against "mudslinging" "petty bickering" and "character assassination" you sure do a lot of it!

Sure, but I can't find a better theory to explain the evidence

I certainly agree with the gist of your post jpass, but I think it's time that we stop being afraid to accept the undeniable implications of the evidence. As Robert Rice just pointed out so eloquently, it is the ONLY possible explanation given the available evidence. If more evidence surfaces - like the actual videos - a better theory might possibly emerge (or not), but everything currently points in the direction of a flyover.

To me, accepting the obvious lack of sufficient damage and plane debris, along with the multiply and independently corroborated eyewitness evidence CIT has gathered, proving that the plane flew north of the CITGO station and the downed light poles - but refusing to acknowledge the flyover - would be no different than accepting the evidence presented by Richard Gage, or the impossibility of an unassisted partial free-fall collapse of Building 7 - but refusing to acknowledge controlled demolition.

Real truthers - and I mean people like Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, David Ray Griffin, Neils Harrit, etc. - don't call it "The Controlled Demolition Theory" anymore. People can theorize exactly HOW the controlled demolition was pulled off, but the evidence proves it HAD to be controlled demolition.

Same with the flyover. People can theorize exactly what happened to the plane after it did not hit the building, or exactly what DID cause the damage, but it HAD to be a flyover. There is no way around it, so it's time we ignore the forced stigma and pseudo-controversy surrounding this notion, and start embracing the obvious implications.

Regarding the flyover being

Regarding the flyover being proven Quote: "There is no way around it, so it's time we ignore the forced stigma and pseudo-controversy surrounding this notion, and start embracing the obvious implications."

Pigs will fly first mate...we REAL TRUTHERS will stick to what is shown by the evidence!

Regards John

The biggest problem in establishing a "flyover" is that...

...CIT depends upon the Building Performance Report to accomplish this.

Its the Penatgon's Building Performance Report that establishes the internal crash path that conflicts with CIT's witnesses' approach path angle.

CIT makes the claim that the airvehicle that their eyewitnesses saw HAD to flyover simply BECAUSE the approach path angle does not match the damage inside the Pentagon. In other words, CIT's conclusion is based upon a Pentagon issued report. HMMM? Anyone else have any problems with this source?

Well, I may not be right here, but I think that there is but a 10 degree difference between the CIT approach path angle and the OCT/Building Performance Report angle...something that the authors of the Building Performance Report may have been easily able to "adjust as neccessary"...at least it appears this easy to me anyway. After all, nobody that I KNOW was inside the building to take measurements...except of course...April Gallop...

...and she didn't speak of the angle...just of the lack of typical airplane crash debris...and of the LACK of the smell of jet fuel...HUH??? WASSUP with that?

AND, what IF the Penatgon's Building Performance Report was set up to match the light poles and steer investigators into the south track so as to hide the north track?...if for no other reason than to distract us into confliction and self destruction. Don't know, do you?

Stating my point diferently: Had the Building Performance Report established an internal crash track that matched the CIT witnesses' flight path track angle, then CIT would have a much harder time projecting a "fly-over" theory...and perhaps they would have conjoined with others supporting a "crash scenario"?

Don't know...but when reports do come out of the Pentagon about certain things, perhaps its best to question them just as deeply as we question why the critical reports or evidence that are NOT forwarded to us from the Pentagon are questioned...like the absence of the videos for example.

So, why do we "buy" the Pentagon's Building Performance Report as being viable, accurate and that it has come from a truthful source, the Penatgon?...but then turn around and question that the Pentagon has not presented the VIDS and therefore, they are not telling us the truth...HMMM...any inconsistency here?...any red hherrings here?...any potential disinfo here?...

BTW...its also possible that there was a flyover and a missile drop...FROM the overflying airvehicle...maybe?

Please remember, IF there was a flyover, most likely it had to be an airvehicle prepared by the military to do so...and they have lots of aviation assets to choose from...including airvehicles that "drop" such armaments...and can be painted like an American Airlines airliner.

And of course...how does Barbara Honegger's evidence supporting a "first explosion time" of 09:30 or 09:32 fit into any of this? Was the explosion/were the explosions...contained inside the Pentagon...only to have an airvehicle crash into or explode outside the Pentagon a few minutes later? Don't know...but we will find out...

...especially if P4T and its vast and growing membership with incredible military aviation history and experiences choose to take a look at the damage to the generator and the low wall to the left...and examine and measure these telltale signs that could be made by...

...only ONE specific air vehicle.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

There's more evidence than just the Building Performance Report

Hi Robin,

Even if we were to discount the Building Performance Report as not necessarily accurate, we still have to explain the other evidence of the directional nature of the observed damage from other sources. No official report or data is really necessary to establish the directional damage, since we have independent photographs of the light poles, the generator trailer, the outer facade damage to the E-Ring, as well as the C-ring hole - and especially those five downed light poles - that imply, or are carefully designed to imply, a specific directional path. Indeed, the location of the C-ring hole in relation to the damage to the outer facade is what establishes the trajectory within the building and the ASCE report is NOT required to establish this.

(Indeed, Craig Ranke addressed this concern in detail during his 2.5 hour debate last December with John Bursill - did you hear it, by any chance? It's well worth a listen.)

Furthermore there are no downed light poles on the north path. This is no small detail. Not to mention the plane reported by the witnesses on the north path was also in a significant right bank AND traveling relatively slowly according to expert percipient witnesses like heliport tower ATC Sean Boger, F4 pilot Terry Morin, and others.

So as a result, it's a misrepresentation of CIT's position to claim they "rely" on the ASCE report for their conclusions, and I agree there's certainly no reason for us to take the Building Performance Report at face value, just like there's no reason to take the radar data, flight data recorder data, or the NIST Report on the World Trade Center for that matter, at face value - and CIT doesn't either, I hope that's clear to you now.

And your other comments confuse me a bit: you seem to be questioning CIT in quoting this report, and at the same time you seem to be casting severe doubt on whether a plane hit the building, so it's not clear to me what your own interpretation of all this evidence - including Barbara Honegger's findings - is (if you have in fact developed a fully-formed thesis), but I would certainly be interested in hearing/reading it if you have one, unless you are simply offering various ideas as speculation, which is fair enough.

The way I see it, the flyover theory does not "belong" to CIT - lots of other people have suggested it as well - it's just that their multiple eyewitness evidence compliments the other existing photographic evidence and aeronautical improbabilities perfectly. I just don't think the fact that the government issued a possibly misleading Building Performance Report - when the same government appears to have also staged the light poles, and refuses to release clear video of the supposed impact - really makes a difference here.

The whole incident appears to be fabricated, from top to bottom, just like in New York City and Shanksville, and I think it's wise that we all proceed upon that assumption and be suitably skeptical of all information from government and corporate media sources, be they books, newspaper stories or TV reports - especially if such information conflicts with authenticated photographic evidence and eyewitness accounts that have been confirmed by interviews with independent investigators, and subject to meticulous and honest scrutiny and evaluation by peers in good faith - and I would make that case for evaluating all evidence related to 9/11, not just what happened at the Pentagon.

Just my two cents in response.

I do NOT KNOW what happened at the Pentagon...

I really do not know what happened at the Penatgon...therefore, all of my considerations are exactly that, considerations. They are not conclusions...which is why I remain open to all sorts of information that seems to surface all of the time.

I do not have a fully formed thesis as of yet...but...

I do have leanings...and the strongest that I have is outlined more competently eleswhere...and that is that the generator damage is telltale to the airvehicle "type" identity that did inflict such damage to the generator..and subsequently, to the Penatgon.

The ONLY thing that I KNOW regarding the Penatgon and AA77...is:

That AA77 was the ONLY airliner lost to positive radar contact on 9/11...and this is very significant to me as an air traffic controller...and that...

...AA77 was lost to positive radar contact over eastern Ohio...and that

... NOBODY...at ANY TIME...or at ANY FACILITY...or at ANY GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION...has EVER made the claim that they re-identified AA77...OR THAT...the primary radar target that was first? noticed by Danille O'Brien at Dulles Tower/Potomac Tracon WAS AA77...and that...

...the process of concluding-presuming that the primary target that O'Brien saw was AA77 came about from information developed AFTER THE CRASH...and it is based mostly upon questionable evidence found? at the Pentagon crash site by the HI PERPS.

In other words, its only the word of the HI PERPS who told us about the evidence at the Penatgon upon which it has been concluded-presumed...that the primary target in question was/is AA77. This is NOT a reliable conclusion.

YET...even the majority of Truthers refer to this primary target as being AA77, when at best it should be acknowledged as being no more than the "alleged AA77". This is very poor discipline and/or a lack of awareness by the 9/11 Truth Community. The HI PERPS have NOT proven that the primary target is that of AA77...and its their responsibility to accomplish this in their study, analysis and reports. AA77 is the achilles heel of "The 9/11 Attacks War Game Scenario"...which is why the HI PERPS have gone so far out of their way to bury anything and everything about the flight...except what they want us to "know".

Please remember how important David Ray Griffin positions AA77 in the 9/11 attacks...most noteably regarding the "alleged" phone calls between the Olsens...and the "boxcutter" meme.

I also know that...

...it was Chic Burlingame that was captain of AA77 on 9/11/2001...and that...

...I agree fully with Burlingame's family and every other pilot worth his or her salt in that a pilot NEVER GIVES UP HIS OR HER AIRAFT FOR ANY REASON UNDER THE SUN...and that the HI PERPS have floated a story that he gave up his cockpit to a smaller man at the point of a "boxcutter" that may or may not even exist. Burlingame did not give up his cockpit...knowingly. He may have become a victim of his very own military planning and analysis from a year earlier.

...and that this "Burlingame connection" may be very critical information to remember as we move ahead in our quest for truth.

C-ring damage...

I'm glad that you mentioned the "C-ring" damage...because from what I see, this hole was created by an interior explosion and NOT the landing gear or whatever else the "story line" wants us to believe...too round-symmetrical and the center of the hole seems too high off of the ground for "sliding" debris to create...

Consequently, I see the potential for the HI PERPS to establish the impact angle with the light poles and the C-ring. I feel that because of all the damage to the facade and to the columns etc., this facade damage could not be used to accurately establish a penetration path angle...so it goes back to the first piece of evidence in the flight/crash path-the light poles...and to the last piece of evidence in the flight/crash path...the C-ring.

Perhaps one of the explosions that Honegger refers to is that of the explosives that made that hole...perhaps not...but its not a whacky observation.

However, I'm a big "generator-as-evidence" fan and feel that the damage to it will tell us many, many things.

BTW...I have evidence supporting the possibility that the HI PERPS scrubbed some radar data along the flight path of an airvehicle that overflew the Penatgon along that flight path...and have so stated...and also...

...I have supported the view that if there were an overflight of the Penatgon, the airvehicle would not be as easily noticed as most people think. This is because National Airport was departing to the north that day and the departures and arrivalls in and out of National are quite routine, and thusly go unnoticed to most travellers on the highways.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

I figure the Pentagon was most likely hit by a 757

You can find a good paper on the matter here.

Prior to the outer wall collapse

There is no indication of a Boeing 757 hitting that wall, it's just not physically possible, I'm sorry.

And that's not "disinfo" to say that it's not physically possible.

It's misinformation, addressed in the paper I linked

More directly, see here.

What?

How can you think a 757 did that damage? There are cars parked right in front of the hole, shouldn't those show blatant evidence of a 757 having hit them? I don't see it.

Thanks for the guess work...it dose not help though!

I never heard anyone demonstrating why the plane could not hit the target for the reason of obstacles like cars. Please show us the reference?

Also the plane was coming at an angle of approx 5 degrees, so it was not on the lawn so to speak, rather well above a cars height as it approached.

Regards John

You accuse us

of stating something as fact, and then state as fact, that the plane was coming in at such and such an angle and at so and so height, "as it approached".

Sorry.....that's what the OCT states....

I will clarify that is what the OCT states happens...I thought that was the bench mark in these debates? I did not say it was a fact. I don't know what happened at the Pentagon....do you?

John

See...

...here.

Now show that graphic

beside all the photos of the scene after impact and prior to the collapse of the whole outer wall in that region of the building.

Let us take another look at the wing and engine damage, and the damage from the rear verticle stablizer wing around the initial hole, and at the grass and surrounding objects and conditions at the site.

This is a type of disinfo held up as evidence when in truth it is nothing but evidence to the contrary. People, don't just believe anyone in this debate - investigate it thoroughly for yourself 1st, before pronouncing judgement.

You're not the boss of me

I posted the graphic to answer a specific question. if you'd like to dispute that answer with photos of the scene and such, do it yourself.

sadly

I don't yet know how to post photos at 911blogger, my bad.

Show "Well" by Pavlovian Dogcatcher

Ok you win

because i haven't been able to locate the instructions on posting pics here at blogger, fair enough.

no big deal

the easiest way is to just find the image, right click and "copy image location". Then paste that link into the comment. It wont show up as a pic, but people can click the link.

I would

Hi Robert,
To include an image you can use basic html. Use the url to the image as the 'src' attribute (source).

Here's an explanation:
http://www.w3schools.com/htmL/html_images.asp

Limbo

I am somewhere in Limbo regarding the Pentagon attack. At this time I don't think there is a viable explanation that can explain all of the occurrences.

Pavlovian Dogcatcher,

Regarding the above link, Jim Hoffman writes: "The entire width of the impact hole from column lines 8 to 18 is approximately 96 feet. The entire width of the damaged facade from column lines 5 to 20 is about 140 feet."

When people describe the hole in the E-ring of the Pentagon, I'm curious if they mean an actual hole, or just an area of impact damage and column distortion. Adam Larson(AKA Caustic Logic) made a similar argument at his website: "The hole was 90 feet-plus, walls, columns removed the whole way. Panels gone but columns left for an even wider area."

However, if you read the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report(PBPR) it does not mention the size of the hole in the E-ring, It does state, "The impact upon the west facade removed first-floor columns from column lines 10 to 14. First-floor exterior columns on column lines 9, 15, 16, and 17 were severely damaged..."

Elsewhere they only state, "It is likely that the exterior first-floor columns from column line 10 to column line 14 were removed entirely by the impact and that the exterior columns on column lines 9, 15, 16, and 17 were severely damaged...."

"A second photograph (figure 3.9) taken before the collapse reveals that first-floor exterior columns on column lines 15, 16, and 17 were severely distorted but still attached at least at their top ends to the second-floor framing."

There does not seem to be sufficient evidence to say with certainty that there was a continuous hole for 90 feet or so.

People try to come up with their own pet theory regarding the Pentagon attack then reason backwards to support it. I'm against people becoming dogmatic over the issue. Dogmatism leads to unnecessary divisions within the 9/11 Truth Movement.

That's a big part of the deception and misinformation

talking about the "hole" after the collapse as THE hole, the MSM type rebuttals always use that, the 90 foot across hole, but that was AFTER the outer wall collapsed.

For Jim Hoffman to trot this out, is not only misleading but disingenuous.

Show "Where's The Rest Of The Wing's Impact Damage?" by brian78046

"Where's The Rest Of The Wing's Impact Damage?"

brian78046 and Robert Rice- and CIT, and others- have made speculative assertions, w/o evidence, that the damage at the Pentagon could not have been created by a 757. In two previous recent threads I provided links to photos, now i'm posting some photos. Also see these articles:
ERROR: 'Surviving Columns Preclude 757 Crash' http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/columns.html
The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

100-0028

Photobucket

Claymore Mine Effect

loose nuke,

thanks! As one can see two thirds of the length of the starboard wing is missing from the wall, and one-quarter of the portside wing is missing from the other side of the wall. In the towers, even the tips of the wings left visible impact imprints. However, with the Pentagon the whole wall should have come down immediately. Being a brick and masonry construct with up to date blast protection, the whole area of impact should have immediately collapsed with the Kinetic Energy equivalent of .78 tons of TNT hitting the wall. The planted charges that were supposed to go off immediately in the wall didn't, which is why we see that small impact hole.

The new blast protection was a good idea for what it was planned for: car bombs going off on the public roads outside the Pentagon. Such blast protection would indeed greatly limit shrapnel without jeopardizing the integrity of the wall. However, with a direct hit by a 757, the blast protection would have been overloaded by the impact of Flight 77. The blast protection was meant to absorb far away explosions. With the impact of a 757, the kinetic energy of .78 tons of TNT would cause the new wall to absorb more of the impact energy than a normal brick and masonry structure would have, thereby overloading the wall's critical threshold, leading to immediate structural collapse. However, the blast protection would still work its magic by limiting shrapnel. So instead of having the equivalent of hundreds of Claymore mines going off in the Pentagon (killing just about everyone), the wall should have collapsed in one general piece, which it did eventually.

It most be emphasized, the new blast protection for the Pentagon wall wasn't meant to prevent structural collapse, it was to protect from the shrapnel effect of blasts from the public roads, and, incidentally, from a missile strike!
http://guardian.150m.com/pentagon/small/pentagon-retrofit.htm

It's much easier to survive falling debris, or even slip through a couple of floors and survive. Broken bones, some crushing, and lacerations are common, and one can survive such wounds. However, Claymore-type projectiles coming at you are a sure death warrant.

By the way, see where it says 96 feet in the photo? Those two columns over the caption "96 feet" are still standing, which means a wing didn't go through. What did happen is the explosion blew out the wall between the columns (if the two-thirds of the starboard side wing had shattered outside the Pentagon, then where's the fire from the jet fuel? The only thing on fire was the generator!). Also, the second floor damage from the fuselage is too wide. Is this another Jim Hoffman photo?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Are you referring to my comment John?

If so, please clarify.

I'm referring to the 'impact' area on the outer wall, pre-collapse, and the prestine lawn all the way up to that wall. The physical reality and circumstances there, at the impact site, do not allow for a Boeing 757.

That's not a false statement.

If you are referring to this, then by God man, get a set of glasses and take another look objectively.

Doesn't matter if it was Hanjour, Burlingame, or a remote pilot at the helm - no Boeing could have been responsible for that impact hole. It just doesn't work. There are unbroken windows above the hole right where the rear verticle stabilizer wing ought to have impacted, prestine Pentalawn right up to the wall.

It is physically impossible that a Boeing was responsible for the initial impact area at the Pentagon.

However, that said, release the videos!!! Why can't those be shown?

"prestine lawn all the way up to that wall"

If that looks pristine all the way up to the wall to you, you need a lot more help than a set of glasses could offer.

Show "Photos all around" by Robert Rice

Are you implying that the photo I presented is doctored?

Best I can tell, the photo is legit, which leaves your "prestine lawn all the way up to that wall" comment as misinformation. Unless you are willing to recant that statement, please provide evidence to support it. I'm not going to humor your attempt to change the subject.

Anyone who reviews the photos

of the scene will be able to see what I'm talking about, and, that it's by no means misinformation. And yes, that car looks funny, and strange in that photo. What is obvious however, in relation to the hole to the right of where it got cropped in your post, is that no Boeing 757 made that damage.

Regrading the Pentagon Lawn up to the impact area from all other angles, everyone here is surely familiar with them, and like I said, I haven't found the instructions for posting pics here.

What you posted is misinforming and misleading and you damn well know it.

Please provide the historical precedent?

Quote: "is that no Boeing 757 made that damage." how on earth do you know such things?

Scientific method? Or just a guess...?

John

Photos

Note: It's the sites software that cropped the image. Right click and select "view image" to see the entire thing.

Anyone claiming a picture or video is fake better have evidence.

One of the best images of the pentagon impact damage:
http://visibility911.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Pentagon-Photos...

Here`s a good image

which makes use of the firetruck as a local point of comparative scale

http://911review.org/Wget/investigate911.batcave.net/facade-intacte-hte-...

Where is the impact damage from the rear verticle stabilizer wing..

Show "I figure it's right where it should be" by Pavlovian Dogcatcher

Oh yes, I can see it clearly (said like Winston in Orwells 1984)

... all the damage there in the area you circled, thanks so much, that`s very helpful...

Forget my question sbout the foreground car

saw another photo of the same car burned out there at that same location in front of where the engine and wing are alleged to have hit the building, it must have just skimmed the car, as well as those large construction cabling spools laying around, which didn`t so much as fall over.

I hope we are not to believe as well, than Hani Hanjour was piloting.. of course we know Burlingame wouldnt do such a thing.

So, the people who believe it to be a Boeing 757 which DID impact MUST therefore also believe that the plane was either swapped with a drone or piloted to target remotely, or do they believe that Hanjour was at the helm on final approach through impact.. (sorry my question mark isnt working at the moment)

Actually

I figure all the planes were most likely pre-wired to be piloted remotely, and that AA 77 flew by the cars and such as exemplified in this illustation, as I noted previously. As for the damage I circled, I've yet to see a better explanation for it. Granted, I'm not certain any of the planes were actually what the official story claims, but I've yet to see any proof that they weren't.

re: the 'damage' you circled

I was being sarcastic, because that is precisely my point, there being no damage there, no impact damage from the rear verticle sabilizer wing whatsoever.

Edit P.S.: Seen through the mist and spray, the breakaway area's upper ledge height (to the right of "the hole" where the engine ought to have impacted), from the ground, is either almost identical to, or slightly less than, the corresponding height, of one Boeing 757 engine, laying ON the ground. I've looked at this before very carefully. If we are to believe that the engine got in under that ledge, there would be a gash or a mark on the ground leading up to the impact area, which, due to ground effects, would have placed the whole plane on the ground leading up to the wall, but there's no mark on the ground along the alleged path of flight 77 leading up to the wall, no ditch. John Bursill insists that's because the plane WAS diving down, approaching the target area, at an angle, and not flying horizontally to the ground (although the five frame security video states otherwise, but who knows what to make of that "video" sequence). I'd say if was a one in a million hit, if not for the lack of damage from the rear wing section.

There's notable discoloration in the region I circled

If you can't acknowledge as much, I suppose we are at an impasse on that. As for your marks on the ground argument, while I'm open to the possibility that the security videos might be fabrications, they show what looks to be a 757 in a slight dive to me.

at that distance,

I'd say, no, it would have to be a much smaller aircraft, not unlike a global hawk or an A3 sky warrior, but not a Boeing 757.
I call it "the road runner" video.

http://www.rense.com/general61/aircraftoutlined.jpg

Security Camera annimated gif

http://webfairy.org/pentagon/image/pentanimorig.gif

unlike you and John Bursill I've never thought it appeared to be on a slight dive angle to the impact point either, which might have helped to explain the "prestine Pentalawn" leading up to the wall.

Here is one odd analysis of the FAB FIVE FRAMES...but...

...maybe not that odd after all.

ITS THE GRASS BABY...[sorta]

I am coming at this from the same point that I always do when given information generated by the HI PERPS...they give us what they want us to believe and steer us in directions that they want us to head.

Please remember that the HI PERPS have tens of other VIDS...so WHY these five frames?

In order to consider what I have to say about the FAB FIVE FRAMES, one must erase from one's rmind the "presumption" that it was an airbourne vehicle that is the object in these five frames. Just look at these five frames without an aviation prejudice...but before that...

I ask that you analyze the browned out streak of grass that runs from the highway to the impact area in a pathway that is almost perfectly in line with the commonly held approach path angle. I do not have that PIC right now but I did see it in Hufshmid's early book with photos...somebody will probably have it.

Here is my "non-aviation biased" analysis of the FAB FIVE FRAMES...

1. The image does not show a very large or tall-ish vehicle...[air or ground]...so, its hard to conclude that it was a B757 in any case...

2. Aircraft have great difficulties in flying that close to the ground...its the ground effect or pressurized cushion forming below the wings etc...

3. Wheeled ground vehicles do not have trouble traversing the ground...

4. The white exhaust-smoke-whatever? is NOT typical of a turbojet engine but is typical of a rocket-like fuel burn...although some have noted that it could be unburned jet fuel from a disabled jet engine.

5. There indeed does need to be a reason for that browned out streak of grass that seems so coincidental with what would be the track along the ground of the air-ground vehicle. I have heard that this streak was a construction pathway "burnout-wearout path...don't know.

6. The G forces required for an airvhicle that was BOTH at the height of the last light pole struck AND then just a few feet later at the height of a foot or two above the ground have been shown to be WAY above structural capabilities for a B757...its in the order of 10Gs or so. Additionally, its hard to believe that airfoils could create such forces that quickly...aka...from the light poles down to the lawn and then levelling out across the lawn...

7. I believe that the original video tape was stamped with 9/12 or something...so, this may be a doctored video...don't know.

If asked whether or not the FAB FIVE FRAMES showed and airvehicle or a ground based vehicle, I would have to conclude that it was a ground based vehicle based upon the above...and its hard to dissociate the browned grass from all of the factors surrounding the Penatgon attack.

I'm NOT stating that this is the case...and am not deliberately distracting this conversation. I really just want to keep the "lawn" in play here...after all, please remember that there were "agents' walking the lawn picking up every piece of material not associated with a lawn almost immediately after the crash. Usually, an NTSB accident report, like that of what should have happened to the WTC steel, calls for accident or crime scenes to be left completely alone so that an accurate analysis can be accomplished. Such an analysis calls for studying "what debris was where" at the crash scene...aka...on the lawn in this case. Therefore, this "pick-up" activity is normally COMPLETELY and ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED. Things were totally backwards on 9/11...and this surely establishes that there was a cover-up. The HI PERPS did not want ANY debris evaluated by the normal investigation teams...its the civilians again...

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

Flight 77...No-Go!

Robin,

that track along the ground was there before 9/11: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread222311/pg1

The tail fin is black in the first Fab Five, yet the parts of the nosecone and upper front fuselage that are also seen are white.

Leveling off when the aircraft was clear of the hill is a no-go, as you intimate.

Ground effect would not only have kept the aircraft way off the ground, but at 530 mph the aircraft would have automatically lifted thanks to that massive air pressure under the wings (and fuselage...the fuselage also contributes to ground effect).

You're right about the white stream. A Cruise missile will emit a white plum for about twenty seconds or so after it's initial launch.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

I believe that the date stamp shows...

...that the video was not on 9/11. But I'm not sure.

Anyway, its surely an odd coincidence...and photoshopping has long since very competent so who knows if any of that is real.

We do have to go pretty far to conclude that its an airvehicle?

I still think that an EXACTING analysis of the generator and lower wall damages will give up the air vehicle on 9/11.

Has anyone ever considered that the light poles should have been cropped off at the top and still standing with such an impact at such speeds by such a sharp-ish leading edge of the wing? Sorta like a weed-whacker effect. That airvehicle was really travelling fast. So, why the big gradual bends...after all, once the monocoque strength had ben lost when the tubes were crimped, what strength is left...it all just thin aluminum tubing. Just another ODD thing in my view.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice.

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

Cropping top of light poles vs breaking off at the base

Robin says: "Has anyone ever considered that the light poles should have been cropped off at the top and still standing with such an impact at such speeds by such a sharp-ish leading edge of the wing?"

I've been making that argument for a while now, without getting much positive feedback. People seem to be uncritical about the evidence of the light poles on both sides of the argument, and there is a lot more that could be discerned from the evidence, I believe.

Simple physics should be enough to estimate the impact force, and the resulting torsion on the base. Someone who knows the design of the light poles would have to be involved in estimating the strength and resistance force of the pole at the top and base.

It seems reasonable to suppose that the impact force near the top would be a lot greater, and fast enough to allow no time for a torsion force to build up to break off the pole at the base. There was no impact at the base, and so why should a torsion force high up in the pole cause a breakage at the base? That might be reasonable if the base is so much weaker than other points along the pole, but is it?

And if it did break at the base, that would mean the top was not simply cropped off, so why did the pole not get dragged a great distance, or why was it not flung high up into the air to land some distance from the base? All the light poles were found very close to their base. Whichever end broke first, the other end should have been hanging on. It seems highly unlikely that both ends would break simultaneously.

Here is one possibility. If the poles break off at the base first, while the top is merely crimped and bent, then as the wing moves forward (very very fast) the inertia of the pole would increase the impact force enough to finally cause breakage at the point of impact.

And this unlikely scenario would have to take place not just once but 5 times.

There is also the question of the angle of the poles after impact. The first pole, in particular, would have had to twist about 45 degrees away from the direction of impact so it could be impaled into the taxi windshield, without impaling the driver.

ground effect

Ground effect is proportional to angle of attack therefore effective at low speeds when the plane is nose up. It is small at high speeds and negligible at very high speeds and what ever might be left can be overcome by pushing forward on the control column. It could not prevent the plane from hitting where the impact marks show.

g-forces

It is not correct that the g-force required to pull up would be excessive, as has been reported in a peer reviewed paper which never been shown to be incorrect.

If Kevin Barrett told me water was wet

I'd ask to see his sources.

This is the guy who calls 911blogger.com "islamophobic". FYI, he "heartily endorsed" CIT months ago, while at the very same time admitting that he hadn't really checked out their materials. Of course, as anyone who's been paying attention already knows, these are hardly the worst of his offenses. I'll be happy to provide you with a very long list of reasons not to trust the man if you'd like.

As for that nasty little site that the CIT followers keep promoting, see my post here.

Easy to attack someone who can't respond

Since Barrett is not allowed to post here, I'll take the liberty of clarifying, for the record, that It wasn't just "CIT" that he endorsed, but also their presentation, "National Security Alert," which he knew full well was a concise abridged version of their previous material, which he HAD seen. As a matter of fact, Barrett stated that he saw The PentaCon when it debuted at a conference in Orange County back in 2007, and his recent piece entitled "Debunking CIT Debunking" makes it clear he is not only familiar with the primary multiple eyewitness evidence and its implications, but also the vicious campaign - clearly displayed on this thread - to vilify CIT, instead of engaging in a even-handed back-and-forth discussion of the evidence they present.

As a result, I see your false characterization of Barrett here as a clear attempt at character assassination, which is why you are using scare quotes instead of truly quoting what he said. I don't buy it.

Twisting a man's words - as a means to paint a false picture to sway people's opinions about him personally - is about as low as you can go, YT. You're going to have engage in a lot more persuasive and above-board kinds of arguments if you have any hope of getting me - or lots of other readers - to pay any serious attention to what you have to say.

So who are you again nobody?

We all know who YT is, so who are you?

I think Barrett, CIT and Balsamo would like to know who is speaking for them?

John

I am nobody in particular

I don't speak for anybody but myself, and if I make supportive comments of anyone else, it's because I hold their work - or some aspect of it - in high esteem, just like you. I prefer to remain anonymous, because of my job, and make no claims to have published any 9/11 research, so I don't have to rely on any big-name affiliations or "my record in the 9/11 truth movement" to make my points, just on the basis of common sense and logic alone. In fact, I'd prefer if everyone did it this way, and we could strip away all the hype and politics and just debate the evidence and ideas alone, but I see little chance of that happening.

YT is Cosmos the founder of....

Eleventh Day of Every Month Campaign worldwide.

By the way thanks for asking about him...

His Uncle Mickey died on Flight 93.

He was on of the first 9/11 Truth Activists getting into it at the beginning of 2002 in SanFran.

YT (Cosmos) is a hero to me and many others and a leader by example not by self promotion!

Some videos of Cosmos giving a lecture in Australia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV5KBwfmv04
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qduppxNFzS0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aiGFGTX_Is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLKf8JBmwyk

Now that you have watched these you should realize Cosmos (YT) is DEADLY SERIOUS ABOUT 9/11 Truth and is highly respected by all serious 9/11 Truth Activists around the world:)

Regards John

Something else to remember

That entire section of the Pentagon was renovated. Like the elevator renovations in both the WTC towers.
Building 7 could have been wired right in front of everyone as it was full of spooks. Kind of like the FP Murrah Federal building being blown up in Oklahoma City. Speaking of which the guys at Radio Free Oklahoma. com
have a documentary coming out with 10 hrs of footage and over 1,000 photos concerning the Oklahoma City Bombing the producers also have a show called Radio Free Oklahoma on. Rule of Law Radio.com
Check them out.

A Pattern of Disruption

As a researcher noted on a Loose Change forum post talking to CIT:

"If you guys would spend a little less time attacking those working the evidence and a little more working the problem, then we might all benefit. Yet I think your worst nightmare might be that AA77 did indeed hit the Pentagon."
Why Does The Citgo Video, contradict the North side claim?
LooseChange Forum; Aug 9, 2007
http://911review.com/articles/ashley/pentacon_con.html#disruption

This sad but clever observation cuts through much of the rhetoric in the debates -- the advocates of "no plane", "no Boeing" and "no-Boeing-impact" try to explain away such highly contradictory evidence that they must adopt increasingly defensive and nonsensical methods to account for their claims.

Pretty soon it becomes obvious that just about anything will do in terms of "evidence", as long as it points to "no plane" or "flyover".

Show "The Miltary Escort and the Blind Eyes" by AlreadyPublished

Hoffman mentions that...

...here. Not that it rightly matters much, as there is far more revealing evidence to promote.

CIT *has* addressed the C-130

Actually CIT gets into the evidence regarding the C-130 in extreme detail in this presentation.

It did NOT "escort" anything and in fact video evidence from Anthony Tribby on 395 proves it wasn't in the airspace above the Pentagon until almost 3 minutes after the explosion:



Close-up:









Photo by Bruce Looney:


C130 Electronic Warfare Craft

As I already pointed out to Craig Ranke when he provided an identical response to yours---verbatim, and using the same photos from the same clip--- the 3 minute claim is unique, and doesn't match the freshly published concordant reports that described the C130 following immediately behind the jetliner.

Notable witnesses represetnting the C130 immediately behind the jetliner include:
Pam Young
Keith Wheelhouse
Kelly Knowles, and
Allen Cleveland ("The Washington Post did not print my story as I have told you")

You only have to read the witness reports to know that the 3 minute claim above, produced many years after the actual event, can't be true.

It is often asked how a commercial jetliner, without a friendly military escort, transversed several miles of highly restricted airspace without being whacked by surface to air missiles.
But the jetliner did have a military escort.
It's just that nobody want to know about it , or put it in the shadowy context as it was first described, verbatim, by multiple witnesses, who unlike you, were present at the crime scene.

"The only large fixed wing aircraft to appear was a gray C-130, which appeared to be a Navy electronic warfare aircraft"

"Craig Ranke ...provided an identical response to yours"

I'm SO glad someone is pointing this out. Adam Syed, who is now banned from this site, did the same thing. He was confronted for using Ranke's words verbatim and presenting them as his own. nobodyparticular has posted a lot of CIT material here that sounds exactly like Craig Ranke. I don't know if it's against the rules to operate as a proxy for Ranke (who was also banned from here for attacks on the site's owner) but it certainly would be nice to have the provenance of this material acknowledged.

Yet another distraction from the evidence you're avoiding

Since it now seems that I am the only poster allowed to post here who finds merit in CIT's investigation, I am being kept quite busy with the barrage of false claims and accusations by the little "anti-CIT" brigade here - who seem to be above the "law" here at 911blogger, and keep posting the same recycled info from Hoffman and Ashley - with its clear charges of CIT being disinformation agents - over and over again.

Yes, of course I am using the same pictures, because they are some of THE key evidence establishing this fact. Yes, Craig Ranke has posted the same images many times in many places, as have others. Yes, when I go to look for images like these I want to post, I often go to get them from CIT's websites, forums, or old posts on other sites like 911Blogger (by CIT or other users who usually got them from CIT's sites and posts) - because it's pointless for me to download and re-upload all of the key images (and there are scores, if not hundreds).

Yes, I've learned a lot of what I know from CIT's videos, articles, and posts, as well as from lots of other sources. The EVIDENCE they've presented to establish certain facts I have found persuasive, so of course I am going to pass that same EVIDENCE along when the same question came up.

When someone posts links to Operation Northwoods in response to the argument that people in our government would never dream of a false flag attack on American soil, are they accused of ripping off James Bamford? No, of course not. That is one of THE key pieces of evidence establishing that point. They either learned it from him, or more likely they learned it from people who learned of it from him, and then they presented the same evidence because it is THE EVIDENCE.

Any charge of plagiarism here is unfounded, silly, and irrelevant! But when you can't attack the evidence, attack the person - or anything else you can come up with... right, YT?

I just want a yes or no answer

Is Craig Ranke feeding you material to post here?

Have you ever copied his exact words and posted them here as your own?

You refuse to answer my questions and expect me to answer yours?

I have already told you I am not Craig Ranke. And if you think I am interested in having a dialogue of any kind with you, after your continued and total lack of response to the questions I've posed to you all over this thread, you are sadly mistaken, YT. You have a lot to learn about respectful discourse, and I am not surprised you haven't risen very far in the truth movement the way you seem to deal with people with whom you disagree.

I sense an effort to evade...

All I want is a YES or NO answer.

Is Craig Ranke feeding you material to post here?

Have you ever copied his exact words and posted them here as your own?

Sorry, I don't care about what you want at this point, YT

Your accusations are baseless, unfounded, and a desperate attempt to focus on anything but the evidence. If you think you deserve an answer to *any* question from me - given your own clearly evasive tactics and single-minded agenda here - you better start answering the questions I've already posed to you on this thread, and just pasting links doesn't count, sorry.

Very telling

thanks

nobody your being owned now...time you should go...

YES or NO?

As far as I know, Adam was banned without any explanation

This site used to have lots of interesting people commenting here, including some pretty major figures in the truth movement, but most of those people are either no longer interested in posting here, or have been banned themselves. I've talked to Adam, and he's never received any explanation for his being banned, and I suspect neither have the many others shut out of this site either.

That probably explains it

I had this impression that the number and variety of viewpoints has been steadily dropping and that many familiar (and welcome) names no longer seem to post any more. I was thinking that maybe I was imagining it, but maybe I was not.

After learning of Adam's banishment and the stated reasons for it, my gut feeling (right or wrong) is that the moderators were looking for a technicality with which to justify banning him. On any given day, there could easily be several commenters who have violated the letter if not the spirit of the rules. I could identify several in this thread alone. I never saw anything patently offensive in his writings and he always seemed to have fairly well reasoned comments. I can see where some might have disagreed with him, but isn't that the nature of online forums?

Adam Syed

My understanding of the situation is that the moderators gave him many chances to make good and adhere to the rules here. He was given plenty of warnings, eventually put on moderation, taken off moderation, repeated that cycle a number of times and then was finally banned. But because he's an ardent CIT advocate, the CIT people like to use his banning as proof of "censorship on 911blogger". As I've said before, I'm not the biggest fan of the moderation system here but in my experience they do try to be fair.

It seems to work fine....?

Some people despite help from afar still seem to get voted down...normally because they post unreasonable, negative b/s.

I've been voted out of site a few times...shit happens, deal with it or leave?

Regards John

Disable

AlreadyPublished,

you are definitely correct about one thing; if a military aircraft was in Pentagon airspace, it's IFF would automatically disable the Pentagon's missile defenses.

However, there was also a helicopter going directly around the Pentagon as Flight 77 supposedly flew into the building. No one on any side of this debate talks about the helicopter. I wonder why?

If the C-130 did escort the aircraft, why would it hang around and climb to an altitude that would put it on radar? A military helicopter is all that would be needed to deactivate the Pentagon's missiles. There's no reason to have a C-130 hide in Flight 77's radar blip.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Show "IFF explainer..." by Robin Hordon

"Pentagon's protected airspace"

It's a common misconception that the Pentagon is in "protected airspace". It's not. It's right next to an airport. Protected airspace (P56) is across the river in DC above the White House:

Pentagon Airspace

nobody,

actually the Pentagon has its own protected airspace. Pilots have to be careful as they approach National Airport, due to the Pentagon's missile defense. One reason for the missiles was the close proximity of National Airport. A Soviet operative or a person with a grudge could take-off from National and pivot for the Pentagon. The only protection for the Pentagon were the automatic missile batteries (six of them) that AUTOMATICALLY fired; no time for human action. A colleague at work talked to a National Airport employee who told him about the six missiles.

The interesting thing is is that Barbara Honegger independently confirms those missiles. She says five (on the roof), but the National Airport employee clarified that another battery was in the ground, making six. Researcher John Judge (whose parents were civilian personnel at the Pentagon) also confirms missiles at the Pentagon dating back to the late 1950s.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

How to "protect" the Proteceted airspaces...or

...the airspaces that are critical in the WDC area.

For some reason my earlier post was voted down. The post stated that there are other radar sources and radar facilities that contribute to the defense of these important geographical locations and to the protection of the POTUS.

One cannot wait until the very last moment to "defend" an airspace...especially IF any unknown inbound high speed targets show potential to penetrate the critical airspace. For the vast majority of all air traffic at lower altitudes in and around WDC, either an FAA or Military air traffic control facility KNOWS of these aircraft and have them under some level of "control". Or, they are flight following it if it has not reported in to any one of the air traffic facilities.

Consequently, there are formal interelationships and standard operating procedures between the local FAA and/or Military towers and radar facilities and the SS that all play a role in providing radar coverage, and some form of early warning as needed. The exact details are not known outside those facilities, but there is a need to prevent "last minute surprises" that show up right beside the critical airspaces.

So, bloggers, vote down what you want, but somebody, somewhere, at some time earlier than we have all been told, was aware of AA77?...or more accurately called...the "UNIDENTIFIED high speed primary target" headed towards WDC. We are all focused upon "50 miles out...". Well, the order that Cheney sustained had been put into place earlier that day, proven in his statement, and PLA radar site "sees" aircraft 250NM west if IAD...right out near where AA77, the REAL ONE, was lost to positive radar contact. So, the order was in place well before the "unidentified high speed primary target" was seen 50 miles out.

Therefore, the interelationship between the various radar facilites in the WDC area is a critical componenet of the aviation events surrounding the Pentagon on 9/11.

Did anyone "see" this high speed primary target at say, 55 miles out? How about 75 miles out? Maybe 150 miles out? Do you know how many miles out my fellow down-voters?

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

The C-130 is a cargo plane - and it escorted nothing

I don't doubt that if you talked with Craig Ranke about this, he would have referenced the Tribby video, as I was just referencing analysis by CIT, and this thread is about them and their work. However, while I have followed his research closely and find it to have considerable merit, I can assure you I am not Craig Ranke - never even met the man - and I'm quite certain that you won't find my post "verbatim" anywhere else.

Now, let's start with this quote that you cited:

"The only large fixed wing aircraft to appear was a gray C-130, which appeared to be a Navy electronic warfare aircraft"

You didn't source this quote, but a quick search shows that it came from Albert Hemphill, who witnessed the event from the Navy Annex. As it turns out, it's clear from his original account from September 12, 2001 that he did not see it at the same time that he saw the explosion, but rather minutes later only after he made it outside.

Interestingly, CIT has interviewed Albert Hemphill, and he not only told them the plane approached directly over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo, but he was asked about the C-130 as well (you can download the full interview here):

RANKE: Now, there's, uh, s-- a lot of stories about a second plane, and you- you seem to have mentioned that in your account as well. A C-130.

HEMPHILL: Yep, I saw a C-130. Without a doubt.

RANKE: About, um, how soon, uh, is-- how soon after the explosion did you see the C-130?

HEMPHILL: Oh God that had to been. . . (~5 second pause). . . ten, fifteen minutes?

RANKE: Ten or fifteen minutes?

HEMPHILL: Yeah. We had already exited the building...

Of course we know it was sooner than that, thanks to the Tribby video and numerous other detailed accounts of the C-130 from Arlington Cemetery employees such as Darius Prather, Darrell Stafford, Erik Dihle, and others, but clearly Hemphill contradicts your "escorting" claim.

Also, in answer to the Tribby video you said, "the 3 minute claim is unique, and doesn't match the freshly published concordant reports that described the C130 following immediately behind the jetliner."

But the Tribby video is not a "claim", it is video recorded evidence. What more proof could you possibly need? Just in case you do still need more, check out this excerpt from the interview with Arlington Cemetery employee Darius Prather recorded by the Center for Military History on December 12th, 2001, only weeks after the event (which you download the audio from here):

At 10:20 in the interview:

PRATHER: The next thing that hit us, was uh, was uh, you see it was about 5 minutes later there was this gray plane.  The gray plane I happened to witness, me and uh the secretary which is secretary [redacted], she was crying and I was comforting her, and the plane that came in I happened to look at it real good it said U.S. Air Force on the wings.

CMH: How long after the attack did that plane fly over?

PRATHER: Uh it seemed to be about um, to be precise about it, probably about, seemed like a little less than five minutes after that plane had hit. A little less than five minutes.  And um it may have even been a shorter time than that but through all the stuff that was going on and everything it seemed like it was five minutes.

You can see his interview with CIT on camera on location in this presentation: The North Side Flyover Part 1

Regarding the other witnesses you listed:

-Kelly Knowles is not quoted as saying she saw the C-130 at the same time as the attack jet, and they even admit in the article that she was a few miles from the Pentagon in Fairfax County, not Arlington.

Article here:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/1/dailypress2ndplanearticle2.pdf

It's the same author for the Daily Press who reported Keith Wheelhouse and his sister Pam Young. The article creates the false impression that Knowles describes the planes flying together at the same time:

Another Hampton Roads native says she saw a second plane in the air over the Pentagon as a hijacked jet plunged into the five-sided military fortress Tuesday.

Kelly Knowles, a First Colonial High School alumnus who now lives in an apartment a few miles from the Pentagon, said some sort of plane followed the doomed American Airlines jet toward the Pentagon, then veered away after the explosion.

While he admits she was "a few miles" from the Pentagon, he provides no direct quote that she saw both planes at the same time. CIT hasn't been able to reach her to follow up, as far as I know.

-Allen Cleveland specifically says that it was "within 30 seconds," but he is clearly not claiming that he saw them at the same time. He also claims that his brother (no name given) saw the C-130 "following" the attack jet from far back, but he even characterizes his brother's account as seeing the C-130 "soon afterwards," as opposed to at the same time - big difference. That quote is archived on the page you referenced that I assume you wrote: http://history-bytes.blogspot.com/2006/09/77-and-93-on-911.html

Soon after the crash (Within 30 seconds of the crash) I witnessed a military cargo plane (Possibly a C-130) fly over the crash site and circle the mushroom cloud. My brother inlaw also witnessed the same plane following the jet while he was on the HOV lanes in Springfield. He said that he saw a jetliner flying low over the tree tops near Seminary RD in Springfield, VA. and soon afterwards a military plane was seen flying right behind it.

-Keith Wheelhouse is the only person quoted as seeing the C-130 at the same time as the attack jet. Those who have been following this closely are well aware of his account, as CIT has interviewed him as well, in person and on camera, and his interview is shown in the presentation I linked in my last response to you.

I'm sorry if we disagree, but as far as I'm concerned, since there are many witnesses who describe the C-130 coming from a different direction minutes after the explosion - and only one who claims it actually "shadowed" the attack jet - I'm going with the accounts that have been corroborated, until you or anyone else can provide better evidence.

This semantic game is familiar

Craig Ranke told me that Wheelhouse's account of events, published just two days after the events, was "fraudulent."

When I pointed out that it was essentially concordant with other reports of a C130 following in close proximity to the jetliner, he abruptly shifted the goal from "following" the jetliner to "seeing both planes at the same time."

"NOBODY in the entire investigative body of evidence corroborates his (Wheelhouse's) account of seeing both planes at the same time" - Craig Ranke, Feb 2010

And here you are trying to discredit witnesses by playing the same word game:

"The article creates the false impression that Knowles describes the planes flying together at the same time"
"Keith Wheelhouse is the only person quoted as seeing the C-130 at the same time as the attack jet."

I looked up the definition of the word "follow" in a dictionary, btw, and it doesn't mean "identification of two objects in the same visual frame," as you and Craig seem to think...

Meanwhile, your confident assertion that "..video evidence from Anthony Tribby on 395 proves the C-130 wasn't in the airspace above the Pentagon until almost 3 minutes after the explosion" is a non sequitur. It would be equally disingenuous for me to claim:

"..video evidence from Anthony Tribby on 395 proves the C-130 was still in the airspace above the Pentagon 3 minutes after the explosion."

No semantics - all other reports put the C-130 many miles away

"I looked up the definition of the word "follow" in a dictionary, btw, and it doesn't mean "identification of two objects in the same visual frame," as you and Craig seem to think...

The word you used in your first comment above was "escort" which means to "accompany". So who's playing the semantic game here? This is what Keith Wheelhouse reported, yet it is not what anyone else reported, as far as I can tell, and there are multiple reports - as well as video evidence - that the C-130 wasn't on the scene until minutes later. I don't know why you keep ignoring all these reports. One such report, as I mentioned, is from Albert Hemphill, whom you quoted but failed to cite, who made this clear as early as September 12, 2001.

Your claim that the Tribby video is a "non sequitur" is simply unjustified, because it would require the C-130 to be present at the time the camera was turned on. The reason the Tribby video proves to me that the C-130 took several minutes to reach the Pentagon after the explosion is because this cargo plane doesn't show up until about 1 minute and 45 seconds AFTER the camera is turned on.

Your narrative seems to imply that the C-130 crew - including pilot Steve O'Brien - are part of the conspiracy, but you really have no evidence to support such a notion. Jim Fetzer already tried pushing this unsupported conspiracy theory on TV and looked like a buffoon doing it, as far as I'm concerned:

While this presentation implies the C-130 pilot saw the plane hit, O'Brien actually admitted, when questioned on this point in an e-mail interview, that he couldn't tell at first:

"When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC. It was then that I was able to see the sun reflecting off the Potomac and the runway at Wash. Nat'l and thought to myself that the AA flight must have had some sort of IFE (in flight emergency) and was trying to make it back to National Airport."

-Lt. Col Steve O'Brien

CIT - Circus In Town

Knowles - a few seconds. Cleveland - within 30 seconds.
But you still argue, contrary to these statements, that "the C-130 wasn't on the scene until minutes later."

Craig Ranke also wants me to accept as gospel every word of the military pilot, but few of those produced by a significant number of civilians.

"Wheelhouse's account has been proven fraudulent."
-Craig Ranke

"However (the pilot's) description of his interaction with the attack jet is what REALLY made us realize he was being truthful because it supports a flight path of the attack jet headed to the White House over DC skies."
-Craig Ranke

"The flyover is not "counter-intelligent" it is the only logical alternative that has been definitively proven by the evidence..."
-Craig Ranke, (my emph)

The CIT harassment of witnesses many years after the events in an effort to extract false memories from stale ones, smearing and defaming those who refuse to say what CIT wants to hear, has been well documented and referenced here several times already -- and here too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMSQ1YYRkHI

CIT has been proven fraudulent.

As for Fetzer, I care not about anything he might say, even if it were tainted strategically with an element of truth, and I therefore declined to watch your guilt by association game.

Loose Nuke good wrap up above...thanks!

Great wrap up of the issues at hand...

Kind regards John

PS - This appears here because I did a log in reply to LN's post...which dose not reply to the post rather it creates a new entry:) It catches me out...time and time again...doh

No 757

If a 757 did hit the pentagon then why wouldn't they release footage of it? In fact, they would have made sure to have very good footage of it to play over and over again on TV like they did with the WTC.

According to some people

their refusal to release the videos is the government's way of psyching out the "conspiracy theorists", by waiting until we've developed a plethora of theories and scenarios and then at some point, releasing the videos which show a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon wall, and that's supposed to be a "reasonable" position and assumption..

Show "If The Nose Cones Don't Fit, You Must Acquit" by brian78046

You've got a few misconceptions there

1. The side of the plane facing the camera should be dark due to the sun being on the other side of it from the camera, just like side of the ticket machine in the foreground.

2. That long and pointy while streak in the 2008 video isn't a nosecone, it's smoke streaming out of an engine.

3. Calculating the KE of the plane doesn't prove the wall should have collapsed immediately.

Show "You Got It All Backwards!" by brian78046

There is a very good reason

why the perpetrators do no release proof of what hit the Pentagon. It keeps us arguing, as you can see.

It doesn't matter what hit the pentagon

It matters that anything hit the pentagon, It matters that war games involving airplanes hitting buildings were played that day. It matters that Mineta's testimony was not investigated. It matters that we are being denied all the video from the Pentagon and surrounding buildings. It matters that the president delayed and tried to stop an investigation. It matters that three skyscrapers fell at nearly free fall speed. It matters that most people still don't know about WTC7. It matters that a million people in Iraq who had nothing to do with the attacks of 911 are Dead. It matters that our leaders are denying us the truth and passing legislation to deny our rights. It matters that the victims of 911 are being denied justice. It matters that no matter what hit the G*DAMN pentagon 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!

Thank you!

well said

I second the motion!

Well said!

Kind regards John

Pentagon lie

This is a perfect example of just how science poor the average person is. A 757 clearly never hit the Pentagon. We've been taught falsely since birth to accept hearsay over physical evidence.

Thank you, for speaking plainly about it

as to what precisely DID occur, no one is saying with certainty, only that what is certain is that no Boeing 757 was resonsible for the initial damage.

Almost all people to a one when they really look at this, come away convinced, that a Boeing did not cause that preliminary impact damage, some of whom, like Major General Albert Stubblebine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine), who studies photos for a living for many years, are highly credible observers of such data.

What actually occured, we're not saying for sure, only what clearly did not occur, and yet, if a low flying Boeing WAS at the scene, then it's only logical to assume that if it approached the Pentagon, but did not impact the Pentagon wall, that it flew over the wall and away, making itself somehow appear to be local air traffic, without the highway car witnesses all around the Pentagon seeing it fly over, which is why I personally suspect that the plane was employing adaptive camoflage technology, but that's speculation of course.

What can be known is simply that a Boeing didn't cause the initial damage to the Pentagon wall, and could not have done so. It's very clear, you're right.

It's as clear to me as the plain truth about the twin towers and building 7, BUT, it's filled and rife with problems due to the uknown variable and gap of knowledge as to precisely what DID take place, and therefore, controversial and seemingly incoherent, which some feel, and perhaps rightly so, could be damaging to our movement. That said, what could be wrong with evaluating the information and phenomenon we DO have access to?

It's not the fulcrum of our activities or focus as a movement, so what's the big deal?

The POINT to all this, is that once again we were LIED to about what took place. And Hani Hanjour was not flying any such Boeing around the Pentagon either, that too us utter BS, and on that surely we can all agree?

But where's the damage from the rear verticle stabilizer wing??? - that's what I'd like some people here to answer, since they seem to believe that the notion that a Boeing did NOT hit the wall to be somehow, incredible. But what is more incredible? That it went into that hole, and the engines under that breakaway ledge without leaving a mark on the lawn, while the rear wing section and wings made at best, a dark smudge..? Within the context of the physical evidence, that is what I find to be incredible, and therefore, unreasonable.

Best Regards,

Show "Why Should We?" by brian78046
Show "The Math Agrees" by brian78046

There is no proof

that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon and a great deal of information that strongly suggests that it did, or at least a plane of equal wingspan.

Fair suck of the sauce bottle ...

CIT's eye-witnesses are credible, their testimony is credible, it contradicts the official account.

CIT's eye-witness testimonies stand.

The brouhaha about the rest of it is simply a waste of time and energy.

CIT's eye-witnesses are credible

They said the plane hit the Pentagon.

The brouhaha about the rest of it is simply a waste of time and energy.

CIT's eye-witnesses are credible

They speak for themselves.

The rest is brouhaha..

Show "We should talk to them after" by vert

We should talk to them after they've been accused

We should talk to the witnesses after they've been accused of being complicit in 9/11 and listen to what they have to say about CIT.

Some remarks

The Entry Punctures:

“Regions in which the Pentagon's west facade were punctured were restricted to the first and second floors. The puncture on the second floor was about 18 feet wide and extended to the top of the second floor, about 26 feet above the ground. The region with punctures on the first floor was about 96 feet wide.”

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/damage.html

These figures implicate that the wings of Boeing 757 hit mainly the first floor of the pentagon.

See: ““the pentagon building performance report”

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

Quotes:

“All columns in the first story had square cross sections and spirally reinforced cores with a concrete cover of 1 1/2 in.The story height was 14 ft 1 in” or 4m29.

"The site data indicate that the aircraft fuselage impacted the building at column line 14 at an angle of approximately 42 degrees to the normal to the face of the building, at or slightly below the second-story slab"

"The orientations of the distorted columns and the columns that were severed all indicated a common direction for the loads that caused the damage. The direction of column distortion consistently formed an angle of approximately 42 degrees with the normal to the west exterior wall of the Pentagon."

Image signaled by the report:

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight77/pbpr/fig6.1.jpg

A good review of this report is contained in the link entitled “The ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Report Arrogant Deception - Or an Attempt to Expose a Cover-up? By Sami Yli-Karjanmaa”:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/sy-k/pentagon/asce_en.htm

The size of a Boeing 757-200. The forward fuselage of the plane : 13 feet 6 in (4m12)

http://www.sott.net/signs/Pentagon_Parody.htm

Engines: A Boeing 757 has two large engines, which are about 9 feet in diameter and 12 feet in length. The 757 that is reported to have hit the Pentagon used Rolls-Royce engines[RB211-535E4B]

http://www.realnews247.com/911_pentagon_photos_show_engine_part.htm

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

These figures indicate that it would be very difficult, almost impossible to penetrate the wings of a Boeing 757 on a lower height to only 14 ft. 1 in. and with a speed of 781 feet per second (1) without damaging the Pentagon lawn before the impact.

(1) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html

Quote of the airline pilot Ralph W. Omholt. Aircraft flown: Boeing 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and McDonnell Douglas DC-10.

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/exp.htm

“Look to the evidence provided by elementary geometry. From the bottom of the 757 engines to the mid-line of the wing spar is right at ten feet. Add eight feet for the fence / cable-spool height & you have a wing impact at 18 feet - absolute MINIMUM! That assumes a one-inch clearance of the fence and/or cable spools. Any such impact would be on the second floor - IF there had been a 757!”

Pictures and official videos of the attack of the pentagon do not support the assertion that a Boeing 757 hit the pentagon, as it is notably explained by these two links :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcQBp264CME

http://www.voltairenet.org/article139203.html

Some testimonials are cited below:

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?day_of_9/11=complete_911_time...

9:38 a.m.) September 11, 2001 : Some inside Pentagon Think a Bomb Has Exploded There
“Even though two planes have already crashed in New York, some people in the Pentagon initially think a bomb has gone off when their building is hit :”

« Steve Carter, who is in the Building Operations Command Center on the first floor of the Pentagon, hears a “big boom,” and tells his assistant, “I think we just got hit by a bomb.”

“John Bowman, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel, is in his office near the main entrance to the Pentagon’s south parking lot at the time of the attack. He later describes, “Most people knew it was a bomb.”

“Army Colonel Jonathan Fruendt is in his second floor office in the Pentagon’s inner A Ring, when he feels and hears “a very sharp jolt and the sound of an explosion.” He later recalls, “I thought it was a bomb that had gone off.”

"(9:38 a.m.) September 11, 2001 : Some Officers in Area Where Pentagon Is Hit Think Bombs Have Exploded"

“At least three Pentagon employees in the area of the building that is hit, and who narrowly survive the attack, initially believe that what they have experienced is a bomb, or bombs, going off :”

“John Thurman, an Army lieutenant colonel, is in a second floor office just above where the Pentagon is hit. [Washington Post, 4/12/2006] He later describes the moment of impact : “To me it didn’t seem like a plane.… [T]o me it seemed like it was a bomb. Being in the military, I have been around grenade, artillery explosions. It was a two-part explosion to me.… [i]t seemed like that there was a percussion blast that blew me kind of backwards in my cubicle to the side. And then it seemed as if a massive explosion went off at the same time.” He will add : “I had thought that perhaps the terrorists had surreptitiously gotten construction workers to come in and place explosives.”

“Lt. Nancy McKeown is on the first floor of the Pentagon’s D Ring in the Navy Command Center, which is mostly destroyed when the building is hit. She will recall : “[i]t initially felt like an earthquake.… It sounded like a series of explosions going off.… It sounded like a series of bombs exploding, similar to like firecrackers when you light them and you just get a series going off.” She yells out to her colleagues, “Bomb ! »

“bullet Army Lt. Col. Brian Birdwell is returning to his second floor office, and is just yards from where the building is impacted. “Bomb ! I thought,” he recalls of the moment the building is hit.”

Ntsb study:

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_AA77_UA93_study.pdf

“Based on ACARS transmissions to the airplane, the fuel load on the airplane when on the ramp was 48983 lbs. This results in about 36,200 lb. of fuel remaining upon impact with the Pentagon (the end of the DFDR data).”

The Piper Cherokee that crashed into an office building in Texas caused a fire of jet fuel more important that the Boeing 757 that crashed into the Pentagon (with less than 2% of the quantity of jet fuel officialy contained by the Boeing 757).

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

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/18/austin-plane-crash-office_n_467...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD0qpbwHCYI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8MG1JI5iYs&feature=related

At precisely the impact zone of the Pentagon, there has been no large columns of black smoke that came out. See this image of fires in the office building in Texas.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47330000/jpg/_47330363_planecrash2...

So I am not convinced that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. Excuse me for my poor English that is not my language.

I'm not convinced that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon either

Best I can tell, nobody in the discussion here is convinced that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. However, many are convinced the Pentagon wasn't hit by a Boeing 757, yet they only offer nebulous and/or fallacious arguments to defend their convictions. it reminds me of the Moon landings situation, as while I've not seen anything I can rightly claim as conclusive proof of the official story on that, I've yet to see any sound arguments to the contrary either.

Show "Let us know when you figure it all out" by nobodyparticular

If you're allowed to spam Craig Ranke's material here

I don't see why there would be a problem with posting links to rebuttals.

Don't hold your breath

I've watched CIT's videos and reviewed similar arguments from others, and and I find such conclusions nearly as full of holes as the Warren Commission Report, though that provides far more than 13 witnesses to support it. As for my not having "provided a single firsthand account of someone placing the plane on the required official flight path", I know you are aware of at least the ones CIT dismisses as shills, so I don't see any need to point them out to you.

Anyway, my lack of conclusions on the matter isn't out of any misguided sense of safety, but rather a matter of intellectual honesty. Absent a majority of the witness pool confirming one story or another, or some other evidence beyond what I have seen, I'm not rightly in any position to conclude one way or another.

OK, I won't hold my breath, but just to clarify:

You're free to take whatever position you think is indicated by the evidence - my only concern was how familiar you are with the evidence, not that you were operating out of a misguided sense of safety.

You write "Absent a majority of the witness pool confirming one story or another" - I respectfully beg to differ on this point. After seeing all the eyewitness testimony CIT has gathered, placing the plane on the north side of the CITGO gas station as it approached the Pentagon, I went through all the witness accounts purported to document a south side approach, and I haven't found one that withstands critical scrutiny - they all fall apart for one reason or another, not necessarily because such witnesses are government plants (although some assuredly could be), but often because the quotes ended up being second- or third-hand, or internally contradictory, or it turns out the witness was in no position to see what happened. etc. etc.

You don't name the south side witnesses you speak of, but I assume one you are likely referring to is Keith Wheelhouse, who CIT interviewed and who drew the official flight path. But it's worth remembering that Wheelhouse admits he could not even see the CITGO gas station. So I don't think his testimony is as reliable as the dozen+ witnesses who were in a position to actually see the gas station, and the location of the plane relative to it. As such, I should have properly qualified my remark to read "but on the other hand, you haven't provided a single firsthand account of someone in a position to see the gas station who places the plane on the required official south side flight path to counter this evidence either" and as re-stated, this particular challenge stands.

What I find so hard to fathom

is how anyone, particularly anyone who's researched the different facets of the 9/11 events, could look objectively at the physical evidence and draw the conclusion that a Boeing 757 impacted the Pentagon. Some have suggested that it was a one in a million shot, with the plane approaching on an angle, to make the first floor impact damage without hitting the lawn first (although they fail to explain the lack of damage from the rear verticle stabalizer wing), and that somehow, the wing of the aircract avoided those construction trailers, and the toppling of the cable spools, while at the same time suggesting that this (downward angle) is what the five frame security camera video shows (when it shows nothing of the sort). Furthermore, there are ground effects that occur on a level approach such that at that height, or lack thereof, the plane would end up on the ground prior to impact, making a huge ditch in the Pentagon lawn.

There is a lot of information and data there to examine, and yes, there's some apparent wreckage material, but the physical impact damage simply precludes the notion that a Boeing 757 was responsible, and there are many many people, having examined the physical evidence, who share this view.

There are a vareity of types of misinformation, but the physical evidence in regards to the Pentagon, showing that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon 1st floor wall, isn't one of them.

As to precisely WHAT happened and what was there, or the degree to which explosives were used, or even a missile-firing small military aircraft accompanying the Boeing aircraft seen by many witnesses flying low at the scene - we cannot know without the release of all the videos which would have captured the event when it happened.

But that does not mean to say, for a moment, that those who've evaluated the phsyical evidence of the impact scene, prior to the outer wall collapse 30 minuites later, are in some way "out of bounds" or "out to lunch" in drawing the conclusion that no Boeing 757 hit that wall. In fact, it is harder, if not impossible, to show that a Boeing 757 DID indeed hit the 1st floor of the Pentagon wall.
And so far as I can tell, no one has offered any explanation for the lack of impact damage from the rear verticle stabilizer wing.


there it is - my very first pic successfully posted! Thank you jpass for the instructions on how to do that, I appreciate it.

And lastly, in regards to the work of Craig and Aldo of CIT, while they are perhaps a little immature, and highly combative, and thus, unattractive as the sole perveyors of the "flyover" position, it is only logical and rational to assume, that since no Boeing 757 hit the wall AND, given that a low flying Boeing was seen on an approach to the Pentagon, and was present, that it simply MUST have flown over and away (or to a landing at Reagan International Airport). The only difficulty with this position, as far as I can tell, are the lack of highway eyewitnesses to such a flyover, where the Pentagon is surrounded by major highways and interchanges, is in a bit of a hollow or low lying area, and is such a massive building, that surely the plane would be seen overflying it, and this is why, as I indicated in a prior post, I invoke the speculation, that the aircraft must have employed adaptive camoflage technology, at about the same time it overflew the wall, or in other words vanishing from sight at the time of the explosion, and this, as I've admitted, is an "incredible" assumption to make, by most people's standards, and appears to be so far reaching as to violate Occam's Razor, and thus the problem with the Pentagon scenario, being the technological slight of hand employed by the part of the military-undustrial complex that was involved. So I can understand fully the opposition to it, and yet at the same time, we need not divorce ourselves from our comittment to the truth about what happened, if only for the sake of future historians looking back and hoping to learn something of value regarding this entire chapter of historic insanity.

The government gave us no real investigation, only presumption and myth sold to justify the false flag attack, and so surely the efforts of this "CIT" can be applauded to a large degree.

It is only their arrogance and immaturity and apparent self interested agenda (along the lines of Loose Change's success) which is the problem, and I'll agree, their demeanor and attitude sucks - I've seen them in action at other forums before.

But the physical realities are not dependant on the CIT interpretation, and they do not have a "monopoly" on Pentagon research either, they were simply the first to draw the only logical conclusion that the plane must have overflown the wall. And my own "apaptive camoflage" interpretation of events (to allow for the lack of surrounding witnesses to the plane overflying the Pentagon wall), while reasonable, is also problematic I fully realize, from a credibility perspective, and because it attempts to fill the gap and the uknown with speculation. But I do believe that Sherlock Holms, if examining this event, would be forced to draw the same conclusion ie: that the plane vanished as it overflew the wall amid the simulateneous impact explosion of something else or a combination of entities ie: explosives and missile firing small military aircraft.

It's a problem, in terms of credibility certainly, and therefore we as a movement ought to be wary, but at the same time surely we are equally committed to the truth and reality at all cost except at the cost of truth and reality itself...

So back we go to the WTC.

Robert Rice reporting. Over and out /

Show "Have you really watched National Security Alert in its entirety?" by nobodyparticular

"I think you'll enjoy it"

Just like Craig Ranke always says. And if I were to use tactics like the ones CIT used on Lloyde England when they accused him of being complicit in 9/11 (which you apparently approve of), I would say that you already "virtually confessed" to being Ranke's mouthpiece here. But I don't want to be like them, so I'll try one more time.

Is Craig Ranke feeding you material to post here?

Have you ever copied his exact words and posted them here as your own?

Yes or No

Show "No, for the last time" by nobodyparticular

I was just hoping to get you on record

Because your posts really do come across as a carbon copy of Craig's stuff.

There was no need for the ugly personal attack, but it's duly noted.

Show "So what ..." by johnscriv

"I don't need your opinion of CIT"

I think you do. Over here, you asked "what's the problem with those like YT" and when I told you what "the problem" was, you couldn't formulate much of a coherent response. You complain of commentary that is "bitter, divisive", yet you make comments that are bitter and divisive. Over here, you advocate for unlimited "free speech" on 911blogger, and now you're basically telling me to shut up. If my words upset you so much, stop reading them.

Show "my incoherent response" by johnscriv

fair enough

we'll both carry on then

Cosmos (YT) has awoken thousands, if not millions...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV5KBwfmv04

There are 4 parts to this presentation...please watch and think about what a disgrace you are to make such a statement about a victim of the 9/11 Attacks.

John

So I'm a disgrace, am I

John, I'll tell you what's disgraceful ... the hateful, unprovoked attack on CIT evidenced here at 911Blogger, initiated, I might remind you, by none other than Cosmos, who posted the first comment here, titled "Bad news for 9/11 truth" ... now if that doesn't say it all, I don't know what else will.

If you want to align yourself with a spiteful, ego-driven assault on fellow 9/11 truth activists, go ahead. I certainly don't intend to.

I have not attacked anyone here on the basis of their opinions, I'm simply criticising those who have in the hope they might realize how unfair, how unreasonable and ultimately, how destructive it is.

As I have said a hundred times John....

....If CIT were not jamming the PROVEN "flyover" down the publics and activists throat then YT would not be aggressively pointing out the flaws in their arguments...would he? My understanding is that he most definitely would not.

CIT are responsible for this mess! Many of us have given them a leg up and a chance to be reasonable about their research. They have chosen to take the (ego driven?) all or nothing approach.

The reaction they are receiving to this approach is not pretty, but it is genuine to be sure.

Regards John

LAST POST ON THIS RUN...

Name one piece of evidence

that proves a 757 did not hit the Pentagon

It appears from the comments posted here

that 911Blogger has been hijacked by entities determined to provoke division and discord in the movement

While I'm not one to accuse people of dishonesty without proof

Which group would you consider the more likely hijackers; the two guys who focus on one particular aspect of 9/11 while ignoring everything else, or the many researchers who promote a wide range of sound evidence while refuting narrow set of conclusions promoted by the two aforementioned guys?

those who are seeking to stifle

and discourage open, honest discussion about the issues.

If you can't discuss the issues without rank vitriol and gratuitous vituperation, no one is going to listen.

There's plenty of vitriol and vituperation from both side here

And there's nothing honest or open about ignoring it from one side while citing it on the other as an excuse not to listen.

from my reading of 280 odd comments posted here so far

the vitriol and vituperation are predominantly directed at CIT ...

if you can show that I am not correct in this accounting, I will happily stand corrected.

I'm so not doing your work for you

You're the one who brought up vitriol and vituperation to claim one side producing more than the other. If you'd like to dig through hundreds of post to attempt to substantiate that bare assertion, feel free.

As for your claims of a down-voting conspiracy, I figure it's just individuals like myself who know poorly thought out arguments when we see them rather than the "concerted effort" by the unnamed "entities" you imagine. On that note, your use of the term "entities" leaves me wondering you believe some here are something other than people. What is with that? I've noticed the CIT guys like to refer to people with that dehumanizing term too, and it's always struck me as very odd.

Show "You're entitled to think that" by johnscriv

I agree with your assessment of the voting

I just don't have any reason to believe it's the result of some conspiracy, and while I can't say I've read all the comments due to how messy the threading is, I've read most of them. In that regard, I figure that most people here, are disgruntled by the many of you who are intent on promoting CIT's unreasonable conclusions. Were notions the planes being holograms and such allowed here, those claims would surely get voted down much the same, by reasonable people acting individually rather than any conspiracy.

Show "I never said conspiracy" by johnscriv

You said "concerted effort"

Which implies two or more people conspiring together.

As for CIT's collection of witnesses, their statements undeniably contradict the official account, but they doesn't come anywhere close to rightly disproving it, despite how much CIT and their supporters insist on claiming it does.

well that's a matter of opinion

and you're certainly entitled to your own

You confuse opinions and facts

And while no one is entitled to his own facts, it's ultimately up to you to stop imagining otherwise.

I'm not the one confusing opinion with fact

You said "concerted effort" implies two or more people conspiring together ... that's your opinion, not a fact.

If you want to make clever put downs, at least be accurate about it.

I hope you read it carefully

since you're the one who seems to have trouble understanding the meaning of the word.

Your in the middle of a war here...

...expect to get some crossfire.

QUOTE "I consider CIT's eye-witnesses to be credible, I consider their eye-witness testimony to be credible, I believe their testimony contradicts the official account ... that's it ... the rest of the debate, as far as I'm concerned, is brouhaha"

We all agree but CIT and their supporters here say the "flyover" IS A FACT!!

Get it John...that's what the argument is about...so is it IN YOUR VIEW A FACT?

John

Oh gee, oh my god

CIT said IT WAS A FACT ... oh how terrible, how utterly devastating for the whole 9/11 truth community ... heaven help us, what are we going to do ... jump up and down, scream and yell, pull my hair out, pound the table, stamp the floor, curse, swear, heave, sigh, cry, break down and cry, a gibbering ball of sad tears, flooding, moaning, groaning, oh ... I'm so sorry, forgive me, for I have sinned ... now I see the error of my ways, CIT is GARBAGE, CIT is FAKE, CIT is STUPID, I HATE CIT, EVERYONE, I HATE CIT ... happy now?

For what it matters, John

is the flyover, in my view, a fact? A scientifically proven fact? No.

Do I accept CIT's claim that IT IS A FACT? No.

Do I think it matters whether CIT claims IT IS A FACT or not? No, not really.

Does that answer your question?

Thanks and by the way I voted you up John

Love and best John

Show "what do I mean by entities" by johnscriv

You've got that backwards

The term "entity" refers to a distinctly separate existence, so multiple puppet accounts would be the work of a single "entity" (or "person" if you don't insist on being dehumanising about it).

Show "yeah right" by johnscriv

Which "researchers" are you referring to?

You mean researchers like David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Peter Dale Scott, Sander Hicks, etc., who promote a wide range of sound evidence? Well, um, those researchers actually have endorsed CIT's investigation (even if a couple have been browbeaten into issuing these "clarifications" that they did not specifically endorse all of their conclusions), and I don't see any of these respected figures endorsing you, "Pavlovian Dogcatcher," so which "researchers" are you referring to here? Seems rather laughable that you would suggest that 911blogger has been "hijacked" by CIT, when in fact both Ranke and Marquis - along with almost all their supporters - have been banned from posting on this site without explanation. It would appear the "entities determined to provoke division and discord in the movement" johnscriv is referring to are posters on this thread, and I don't think he's referring to me somehow.

So you're hardly one to point fingers with your cheap character assassination here - especially since you still haven't provided a single firsthand account of someone in a position to see the gas station who places the plane on the required official south side flight path. I know intellectual honesty is important to you, as you mentioned it in your comment above - it's important to me as well - so it would be good to see quality that reflected in any response you care to offer, because I don't sense any in your slur above.

geez

You're still using Richard Gage and Peter Dale Scott to promote CIT.
They explicitly DO NOT support CIT's conclusions.

Show "Fact: Gage & Scott endorse CIT's research, as do many others" by nobodyparticular

On hijacking

johnscriv is the one who suggested the site has been hijacked, while I simply replied by asking him to consider his suggestion in light of relevant facts.

Show "In light of what relevant facts?" by nobodyparticular

For the oblivious

It is a fact that there are "two guys who focus on one particular aspect of 9/11 while ignoring everything else", and it is also a fact that there are "many researchers who promote a wide range of sound evidence while refuting narrow set of conclusions promoted by the two aforementioned guys".

Show "so what" by johnscriv

I've no compulsion to believe anything

I'm happy with sticking to the facts, but disappointed by the many people who refuse to do the same, defenders of the official story and otherwise.

Show "which relevant facts" by johnscriv
Show "I s'pose these comments will be down voted" by johnscriv

Please stop with your accusations, johnscriv

I have no control over this site. You should be more concerned with the quality of your arguments than with the way people are voting on them.

David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Peter Dale Scott, Sander Hicks

Have you seen statements from any of them specifically endorsing CIT's conclusions? As for researchers who refute CIT's claims, you know who they are.

As for "someone in a position to see the gas station", I couldn't care less as to who was able to see the gas station or otherwise; and I'm amazed at how the CIT guys have managed to get so many people fixated on it.

Show "Read their statements on the record and decide for yourself" by nobodyparticular

I don't consider your fixation on the gas station rational

As for CIT's praise page, not a single one of the individuals you mentioned endorsed the flyover theory in the quotes there.

Show "They certainly didn't endorse any other theory, did they?" by nobodyparticular
Show "Pentagon Mission Requires A Small, Nimble Aircraft" by brian78046
Show "This extraordinary outpouring" by johnscriv
Show "Hey YT" by vert
Show "Voting" by vert

I brought up evidence but it got removed

vert,

The evidence is here: http://csarnsblog.blogspot.com

Since it's too much trouble for CITers to click on the link and address the points, I will post part of it for you.

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

The North of Citgo flight path does not prove flyover.

Chris, I did look at the info

Chris,
I did look at the info on your site. First of all I need to point out that I am not a CITer, I do however not believe I have seen any compelling evidence that would indicate CIT is some kind of disinfo operation. I also believe the damage to the Pentagon is completely incompatible with the damage done by a 757(this to me is as obvious as WTC7 being a CD), therefore if I am to believe that a 757 was in the area I must also believe the 757 did something other than smash into the Pentagon. I believe CIT has demonstrated that all of the Witnesses stated that there was a 757 north of Citgo. The primary criticism of CIT I saw on your site was that 5 of the witnesses said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. The problem with taking them at their word is that there are known psychological phenomenon which would mean what they claim to see cannot be considered 100% unfallible. These are "attentional blink" which in this situation would mean when they saw an explosion they would only see the explosion, they would not be able to see the explosion and the airplane simultaneously. The second phenomenon has to do with the unreliability of memory. Suppose, one witness saw the explosion but he also "could have sworn" he saw the plane flyover the Pentagon. This would make absolutely zero sense, especially after already having seen two other 757s fly into building that day. What his memory would have done is rewritten the data so that it would make sense...reason would state that "the plane must have hit the building" and his memory would record it as such. I'll try and find some links to memory research showing what I mean...but if your interested do a google search of "Dr. Loftus, white vans, memory." That should get you to a paper about memory fallacies.

The very way CIT acts is the

The very way CIT acts is the reason they should be suspect for disinformation. Their aggressive response to criticism and the way they manipulate evidence is the farthest thing from productive, it polarizes the movement into sects (and it has plenty of those already), and all in all is highly consistent with a disinformation campaign. Not to mention anyone who knows anything about muscle-reading can see just what CIT is really like.

"I also believe the damage to the Pentagon is completely incompatible with the damage done by a 757"

In what way? Was it the perfectly plane-shaped hole? Was it the witness testimony (INCLUDING CIT witnesses) that reported it hit the building? Was it the distinct plane parts scattered in the area?

"therefore if I am to believe that a 757 was in the area I must also believe the 757 did something other than smash into the Pentagon. I believe CIT has demonstrated that all of the Witnesses stated that there was a 757 north of Citgo."

Cool, for a non-CITer, you sure do seem to agree with them a lot.

"The primary criticism of CIT I saw on your site was that 5 of the witnesses said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. The problem with taking them at their word is that there are known psychological phenomenon which would mean what they claim to see cannot be considered 100% unfallible. These are "attentional blink" which in this situation would mean when they saw an explosion they would only see the explosion, they would not be able to see the explosion and the airplane simultaneously. The second phenomenon has to do with the unreliability of memory. Suppose, one witness saw the explosion but he also "could have sworn" he saw the plane flyover the Pentagon. This would make absolutely zero sense, especially after already having seen two other 757s fly into building that day. What his memory would have done is rewritten the data so that it would make sense...reason would state that "the plane must have hit the building" and his memory would record it as such. I'll try and find some links to memory research showing what I mean...but if your interested do a google search of "Dr. Loftus, white vans, memory." That should get you to a paper about memory fallacies."

Okay, so...you're saying memory is unreliable, therefore the witness testimony is unreliable? Alright, I can dig that.

Although I'm very curious what makes you think, in that case, that CIT has made a strong case. I mean, their entire argument DOES rely on witness testimony.

Oh yeah, I forgot, CIT witnesses are only unreliable when it doesn't fit with their theory. Sorry, my memory isn't very reliable either, sometimes.

Okay, look at this from a court perspective. EVEN IF there was any reason to believe one part of the witness testimony over another part, in other words, EVEN IF I agreed there was any validity to the plane being on the north side, this would still not be able to go to court. You can not tell the jury that only SOME of the testimony is credible. Once you've discredited one part of the testimony, you've discredited all of it. You can't advocate your witness and argue against him/her at the same time, not unless you want a very, very short trial.

Get serious

"These are "attentional blink" which in this situation would mean when they saw an explosion they would only see the explosion, they would not be able to see the explosion and the airplane simultaneously."

That is total crap. ;-) How can anyone take you seriously when you do mental gymnastics to attain the result you want? You believe everything they say except the part that disproves the flyover.

Boger:
"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."

If you want to call him a liar or a fool you can but you look like a ass doing it to anyone outside the CIT crowd.

Attentional blink is

Attentional blink is real...you didn't even bother to look up some studies to see how it would relate to what I was saying. You sound a little like a redneck against fancy book learnin'.

Given that assessment, I sure wouldn't want you as my lawyer!

Actually, Arcterus, the way CIT detractors act is the reason they should be suspect for disinformation.

(Note to mods: I am assuming that suspecting people of being disinformation agents the way Arcterus (and I) just did, using the identical words, is OK on this site, just not calling them that directly - otherwise both our comments ought to be deleted presumably).

The aggressive response to criticism by CIT detractors and the way they manipulate evidence is the farthest thing from productive, it polarizes the movement into sects (and it has plenty of those already), and all in all is highly consistent with a disinformation campaign.

You write: "In what way [was the damage to the Pentagon is completely incompatible with the damage done by a 757]? Was it the perfectly plane-shaped hole? Was it the witness testimony (INCLUDING CIT witnesses) that reported it hit the building? Was it the distinct plane parts scattered in the area?"

Cool, for a 9/11 truther/non-OCTer (presumably), you sure do seem to agree with the defenders of the official story a lot, at least as far as the Pentagon attack is concerned.

And as for your contention that "this would still not be able to go to court", why don't you take that up, not with me, but with someone like David Ray Griffin? He has written that the witness testimony reporting the plane's actual flight path as drastically different from the official flight path "is now established beyond a reasonable doubt".

Or try convincing Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford, a U.S. Marine Corp pilot who flew 303 combat Missions and says that CIT's latest video National Security Alert "presents carefully documented eyewitness evidence which establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that American Flt. 77 did not fly into the Pentagon on 9/11."

Even people who have been quite critical of CIT, like John Bursill, admitted last December that that CIT's eyewitness testimony "is definitely um, you know, courtable and it would be very interesting to see anything go to the court", that "it adds to the weight of why we need a new investigation". You won't find Bursill on this thread anymore - he seems to have fled in embarassment after being reminded of his very own words here, but maybe you can track him down and ask exactly what he meant by saying that.

Assuming this all does go to court one day, let's just all make a point of making sure not to hire you, Arceterus, as part of the legal team, because it doesn't seem like you've got that good a grasp on the evidence here.

Inane

"Cool, for a 9/11 truther/non-OCTer (presumably), you sure do seem to agree with the defenders of the official story a lot, at least as far as the Pentagon attack is concerned."

This right here is the problem. Why do we have to be in sects? I don't follow any group, I follow what the evidence tells me. So just because I'm a truther, I HAVE to disagree with everything an OCTer says? So if Pat Curley says water is wet, I have to disagree? If Mark Roberts says the World Trade Center had steel in it, I'd have to disagree? This is so fucking ridiculous, and it's nothing short of guilt by association. You try to paint me as an OCTer because I agree on this one point. However, you'd still be mistaken. I think there's plenty of evidence that the Pentagon attack was related to a government operation. It has nothing, however, to do with the physical evidence, which is perfectly consistent with a 757 strike.

"And as for your contention that "this would still not be able to go to court", why don't you take that up, not with me, but with someone like David Ray Griffin? He has written that the witness testimony reporting the plane's actual flight path as drastically different from the official flight path 'is now established beyond a reasonable doubt'."

David Ray Griffin has discredited himself too much for me to take him seriously at this point, but even if it was someone I respect, let's say Jim Hoffman for example, it wouldn't make a difference to me. I don't know why you CITers make such a big deal about these endorsements. Ethos never trumps logos, never. If I went to a doctor with a headache and he ran some tests and told me it was the cause of magic pixies having a party in my quadricep, I would not simply accept this. I would demand proof of the pixies, their location, and a sensible explanation for this causes a headache. Note that in this analogy, the doctor is an actual expert in the field, whereas David Ray Griffin is not qualified for me to take him remotely seriously on this issue.

"Or try convincing Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford, a U.S. Marine Corp pilot who flew 303 combat Missions and says that CIT's latest video National Security Alert 'presents carefully documented eyewitness evidence which establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that American Flt. 77 did not fly into the Pentagon on 9/11.'"

I would happily try convincing him. Can you provide means of contact?

"Even people who have been quite critical of CIT, like John Bursill, admitted last December that that CIT's eyewitness testimony "is definitely um, you know, courtable and it would be very interesting to see anything go to the court", that "it adds to the weight of why we need a new investigation". You won't find Bursill on this thread anymore - he seems to have fled in embarassment after being reminded of his very own words here, but maybe you can track him down and ask exactly what he meant by saying that."

And I agree. I think making an effort to gather up evidence is a worthwhile one. Distorting that evidence and using it to form half-assed conclusions, however, is where I have a problem with CIT and their methods.

"Assuming this all does go to court one day, let's just all make a point of making sure not to hire you, Arceterus, as part of the legal team, because it doesn't seem like you've got that good a grasp on the evidence here."

Um...what evidence did you provide again? I thought you only provided a couple of unconvincing endorsements and did nothing to counter anything I said, but I could be wrong.

Also, did you ever get around to explaining how CIT detractors are suspect for disinformation? You stated your post out that way, but then rather than giving examples of aggression and analyzing them, you started talking about DRG and stuff....maybe I missed this one too. It would mak sense, what with the magic pixies having moved up to my brain.

You provide no evidence for your own assertion, do you?

You started your own post out by claiming that CIT were suspects for disinformation, but never got around to explaining that either. The reason I use so many of your own words back at you (and sometimes other posters), by the way, is a) it seems ironically appropriate, b) I can't be accused of engaging in bad language - after all, I am only using someone else's phrases, and c) it's not worth the effort composing responses to people who have obviously already made their mind up.

You asked "Um...what evidence did you provide again?" Of course you know the evidence I'm talking about, the evidence presented in CIT's latest presentation National Security Alert, so your snide question here doesn't make you look either particularly smart or as if you're operating in good faith.

Sure, go ahead and contact Griffin, Lankford, Bursill, or any of CIT's other many supporters and try and convince them, despite their assertions otherwise, that "this would still not be able to go to court" - let me know if you have any success. Because you certainly do not make a convincing case to me.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with subscribing to whatever elements of the official story that prove to be true after sustained examination, but there's also nothing wrong with subscribing to whatever elements of CIT's analysis that similarly prove to be true after sustained examination. I was only turning your "Cool, for a non-CITer, you sure do seem to agree with them a lot" back on you - couldn't you detect the sarcasm? What's wrong with agreeing with some of what CIT has proposed, if it's OK to agree with some of what the OCT proposes?

Of course, just because you're a truther, you don't have to disagree with everything an OCTer says. But lots of people want to dismiss CIT's work entirely, just because they don't agree with one or more of their conclusions (i.e. flyover). Yet you seem to have a problem with people - understandably, in my view - who want to dismiss the official story entirely, just because they don't agree with one or more of their conclusions (i.e. al Qaeda was solely responsible, WTC fell due to fire and impacts, etc.) Seems like you're employing a double standard here, don't you think?

If you'd like to cite a specific example of CIT "distorting... evidence and using it to form half-assed conclusions", that you would be willing to support with evidence and defend here on this thread, I'd like to hear it. But so far, not a single poster on this thread I've asked the same question of has bothered to do so. I'll be impressed if you can do so successfully.

You know, you're right

I should have been more detailed.

Here's an article I wrote about their behaviors:

http://arcterus911.blogspot.com/2009/05/cit-world-where-facts-are-irrele...

Here's one written by Arabesque:

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-an...

Arabesque's is more detailed, but both discuss the aggressive nature of CIT.

"The reason I use so many of your own words back at you (and sometimes other posters), by the way, is a) it seems ironically appropriate, b) I can't be accused of engaging in bad language - after all, I am only using someone else's phrases, and c) it's not worth the effort composing responses to people who have obviously already made their mind up."

Speaking of ironically appropriate, c) really speaks to my heart.

"You asked "Um...what evidence did you provide again?" Of course you know the evidence I'm talking about, the evidence presented in CIT's latest presentation National Security Alert, so your snide question here doesn't make you look either particularly smart or as if you're operating in good faith."

Are you fucking stupid? I wasn't talking about whether or not such evidence, or at least something passed off as "evidence", existed. You started talking about me not having a good grasp on the evidence when you weren't even talking about it. Either you have an attention disorder or you meant to talk about the actual evidence and forgot.

"Sure, go ahead and contact Griffin, Lankford, Bursill, or any of CIT's other many supporters and try and convince them, despite their assertions otherwise, that "this would still not be able to go to court" - let me know if you have any success. Because you certainly do not make a convincing case to me."

Um...I can tell you right off the bat that I know way more about he law than you do. I'd like to note that you never said anything about why it WOULD be acceptable in court, so I'm not sure what it is I said that's so unconvincing. But it's not a matter of opinion. When you tell the jury that your witness it only PARTIALLY correct, it undermines the ENTIRE credibility of the witness, and you'd be lucky if the judge didn't outright throw it out as evidence and demand the jury disregard it. Even if you ignore that and just focus on the flight path portion of the testimony and ignore the impact testimony, which would be impossible to get away with but for the sake of argument, your witness would still be discredited since it's contradicted by other witnesses and, more importantly, contradicted by PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. As I said, physical evidence trumps witness testimony. This is because forensics is a science, whereas humans are fallible. Absent a reason to believe the physical evidence has been faked or misinterpreted, the physical evidence will triumph.

Anyway, I'd still gladly contact those guys. I asked if you know how to contact Lankford. Do you? I'm sure I can find out on my own, but it'd go a long way if you told me.

"Of course, there's nothing wrong with subscribing to whatever elements of the official story that prove to be true after sustained examination, but there's also nothing wrong with subscribing to whatever elements of CIT's analysis that similarly prove to be true after sustained examination."

By no scientific standard has CIT provided "proof". They've only provided evidence, and it's extremely weak evidence at that. It's contradicted, not only by outside sources but by it's own self, as well.

"I was only turning your "Cool, for a non-CITer, you sure do seem to agree with them a lot" back on you - couldn't you detect the sarcasm?"

I got the sarcasm. I assumed it was to make a point, rather than being pointless. If it was the former, then it was a stupid point, and I told you why. If it was the latter, then what's your problem? Get that attention disorder checked out.

"What's wrong with agreeing with some of what CIT has proposed, if it's OK to agree with some of what the OCT proposes?"

Are you feeling okay? The person I was talking to basically agreed with the ENTIRE PREMISE of CIT's findings. It wasn't an aspect. He didn't say "I'm not a CITer, although I do wonder about the north path...." he said that he thought the physical evidence showed whatever hit the building was not a plane, that CIT HAS PROVIDED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE that a plane was there and on the north path, therefore I don't know what conclusion he was implying other than flyover. I agree with the OCT in a certain way, and it's very minor. I agree that a plane hit the building. I don't agree with the official explanation of how it was hit, why it was hit, A MYRIAD OF OTHER ASPECTS about the Pentagon attack. Furthermore, my reasoning for believing a plane struck does not have the OCT as a source, whereas vert directly praised CIT's work, saying they demonstrated a north path. Furthermore, outside of that post, vert has been a total lackey for CIT. Even that last point aside, your analogy is depressingly weak.

"Of course, just because you're a truther, you don't have to disagree with everything an OCTer says. But lots of people want to dismiss CIT's work entirely, just because they don't agree with one or more of their conclusions (i.e. flyover)"

I'm not talking about dismissing their work. By work, I mean the witness testimony they've gathered. Although spotty and questionable, it is part of a body of evidence and should be submitted for review in any court hearing. However, CIT themselves have acted irresponsibly, aggressively, and stupidly. Their conclusions are deeply flawed, and rather than follow one of the many Sherlock Holmes principles of "You don't twist facts to suit your theories, you twist theories to suit your facts", CIT will faster defend their conclusions than their evidence. They openly oppose certain bits of their own witness testimony, and only for the sake of making it fit with their flyover theory. This behavior is not acceptable, especially not in a movement like the 9/11 Truth Movement which is so fringe in the public eye in the first place.

"Yet you seem to have a problem with people - understandably, in my view - who want to dismiss the official story entirely, just because they don't agree with one or more of their conclusions (i.e. al Qaeda was solely responsible, WTC fell due to fire and impacts, etc.) Seems like you're employing a double standard here, don't you think?"

Are you vert in disguise? Where as you getting this stuff? Why are people putting words in my mouth?

I don't have a problem with OCTers. I disagree with them, and I argue against them just as I do CIT. May the stronger evidence win. I fail to see a double-standard. This is nothing short of a straw-man.

"If you'd like to cite a specific example of CIT "distorting... evidence and using it to form half-assed conclusions", that you would be willing to support with evidence and defend here on this thread, I'd like to hear it. But so far, not a single poster on this thread I've asked the same question of has bothered to do so. I'll be impressed if you can do so successfully."

There have been plenty of documented examples. Let's see, I recall Rancho Truth having something like that. I think this is the one:

http://911reports.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/dawn-vignola-account-vs-cit-m...

The videos by broken sticks of "The CIT Deception" also discuss ways they lead the witness and distort their statements.

I can also cite a few off the top of my head. Lagasse gives indisputably incorrect testimony about the location of the taxi cab and downed light poles. CIT doesn't distort this per se, but rather than admit that his credibility is completely in question since he was WRONG in his locations, they use it as an argument that he's even MORE credible. Yeah, great knowledge on evidence standards. Any cop would be kicking the witness testimony out the door by now.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure Chris Sarns talked about some of that stuff in this entry:

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-01-06/summary-and-analysis-national-secu...

Why do we have to be in sects?

We don't "have" to be in sects, but it does seem to happen, naturally, when you have a lot of people who share some interests, but not all.

Let's face it, the 9/11 truth movement is a broad church, it is only to be expected that differences of opinions and divisions will arise from time to time. The challenge is to remain civil and open minded enough that we can continue to communicate and share ideas.

The CIT way is...

..is the CIT proven "flyover" way or the highway!

That is why there are two camps because CIT don't harbor reasonable people, just like Pilots don't.

Wake up to who is causing the division here!

Regards John

I'm quite aware who's causing divisions here

Since CIT are not even allowed to represent themselves here, they can hardly be accused of causing any of the divisions we're experiencing here.

I think it's pretty obvious, the divisions here have been caused by the overtly hostile reception afforded this originally benign post (blog entry).

No, the challenge is to share

No, the challenge is to share a proper standard of evidence so we don't have to discuss this ridiculous crap in the first place and don't cause an internal war. The media has enough fun with us as it is, we hardly need to be distracting ourselves internally as well.

You are reading from the CIT playbook.

The fact that CIT did not include the unambiguous statements that the plane hit the Pentagon in NSA qualifies it as misinformation.

The damage being incompatible with a 757 has nothing to do with NSA. That was already known.

Please address the issue at hand. CIT claims that the NoC flight path proves flyover. That is not true.

I must respectfully disagree

If the plane came from north of Citgo and did descend and hit the pentagon at the known impact point, its enormous momentum would have ensured that it did considerable damage inside the Pentagon in a line running north of Citgo. No such damage was observed therefor if the plane passed north of Citgo it did not hit the Pentagon.

Your questions are the right ones, but it's a lost cause here

Vert, nice to see you ask the plainly reasonable questions about the actual evidence, but don't hold your breath waiting for answers. If you haven't already realized, this is not a crowd interested in calm, rational discussion of conflicting pieces of evidence in good faith, with the aim and hope towards forging a common consensus - you'll have to go elsewhere for that. Here, people just post silly mock videos, long debunked attacks on CIT by people who have never agreed to debate their attacks in public, and healthy doses of character assassination, innuendos and insinuation - in fact, anything other than the rational discussion you, I and a bunch of others on here honestly seek. And don't forget a lot of posters who might have something useful to contribute to the discussion have long been banned from this site, usually without explanation. But if you've been reading through the pages of this epic thread (the longest in recent memory on 911blogger), you have no doubt already gathered that by now, as has johnscriv it would appear. Just be sure to click on all the blue one-line comment subject lines everywhere that have been deliberately and methodically voted down - they contain the most concrete information and analysis.

A fair hearing

If we are going to give the "flyover theory" an endless "fair hearing" then we should also give particle beam weapons, mini nukes and the "no-plane theory" fair and endless hearings too.

Absurd

that's an absurd statement devoid of any reason or logic.

Why? Because if it can be shown that a Boeing 757 was not responsible for the damage to the Pentagon, but that a Boeing was flying low at the scene on approach to the Pentagon, then it flew over.

What is so outlandish about that?

Furthermore if the plane was on the more northerly flight path, and it can be shown that not only was a Boeing incapable of making the initial impact damage, but the directional damage as well, through the Pentagon rings, then again, if a Boeing was there, then it must have flown over.

Such things are not in the same league as the "no planer", DEW, and mini-nuke theories, don't be ridiculous.

Considering who made the statement, it's hardly surprising

Reason and logic are noticeably absent from the comments of several posters on this thread, so while I fully agree with you here, Robert, I think your perfectly good points will be falling on deaf ears here, as these folks have long ago made up their minds on all this testimony, and they're not about to change their minds - no matter what evidence you bring up. What does that then tell you about what's really going on here?

Testimony is fine

It's not so much the invalidity of testimony as evidence as it is the specific testimony CIT presents. For some us, especially those of us who know a thing or two about law and the standards for evidence in court, we feel that witness testimony is more credible when they corroborate with each other. CIT witnesses contradict each other all the time, not to mention a myriad of witnesses who report an entirely different flight path, and not to mention they also contradict the physical evidence.

That's another thing about the court of law. Physical evidence trumps witness testimony.

"Why? Because if it can be shown that a Boeing 757 was not responsible for the damage to the Pentagon, but that a Boeing was flying low at the scene on approach to the Pentagon, then it flew over."

Oh yeah, definitely. It would be awesome if someone could show that a 757 wasn't responsible for the damage. Then we could give CIT and all the other no-planers a listen. Until then...

The term "no plane" should be

The term "no plane" should be reserved only for people that believe no planes hit the WTC. Or are people going to start attacking me if I say there is no evidence of plane debris at shanksville too?

In my opinion "no planes" is disinfo, and to the extent that they get people afraid to say that they don't see evidence of a 757 at the pentagon they've succeeded. I remember years ago no one thought the damage at the pentagon was consistent with a 757. It was only when the "no planes" campaign started that people started suddenly saying they saw evidence of a 757 at the pentagon.

No, it should not.

No, the term "no plane" should be used as it is written: Anyone who believes a plane was not involved. I see no difference from saying no plane hit the Pentagon than saying no plane hit the World Trade Center. Sure, the WTC one is slightly more ridiculous, which inversely means the pentagon one is SLIGHTLY more acceptable, but only in the same way that it's better to die of natural causes than from crucifixion.

"Or are people going to start attacking me if I say there is no evidence of plane debris at shanksville too?"

Oh my, well this is awkward...

"In my opinion "no planes" is disinfo, and to the extent that they get people afraid to say that they don't see evidence of a 757 at the pentagon they've succeeded."

There is nothing "disinfo" about it. Just because it doesn't look good on you doesn't mean it's not accurate. You don't think a plane struck the building. That makes you a no-planer. I don't get it. If you think it's so ridiculous, why do you advocate it?

"I remember years ago no one thought the damage at the pentagon was consistent with a 757. It was only when the "no planes" campaign started that people started suddenly saying they saw evidence of a 757 at the pentagon."

Well, I don't want to speak for everyone, but FOR ME it was when I saw a plethora of physical evidence that showed it the damage was entirely consistent with a 757 crash. But your theory's good too.

Are you kidding me...there is

Are you kidding me...there is no video evidence of a 757 hitting the buiding...there is no evidence whatsoever. I guess we just disagree. It's kinda sad but I'm starting to see the people who don't think WTC7 was an obvious CD in a whole new light. What's obvious to one is apparently not so obvious to the next.

Damn, got me there

You're right, I'm crazy for saying that there's video evidence of a 757 impact. You got me.

I mean...I DID say that...right?

The reason no plane people

The reason no plane people are so crazy is because they believe that no planes hit WTC even though there is video footage of it. Why isn't there video footage of a 757 hitting the pentagon? Are you claiming a 757 did hit it but they won't release the footage for some reason or are you claiming there is no footage?

The reason

The reason no-plane-at-the-WTC people are so crazy is BECAUSE IT'S COMPLETELY STUPID!

http://arcterus911.blogspot.com/2010/02/911-hoaxes-no-plane-hit-world-tr...

It goes beyond the fact that there's video evidence. Are you suggesting that, without video evidence, there would be some merit to this theory? That's completely ridiculous.

"Why isn't there video footage of a 757 hitting the pentagon? Are you claiming a 757 did hit it but they won't release the footage for some reason or are you claiming there is no footage?"

Even more ridiculous, however, is that you're somehow inferring from my saying that the no-plane-at-the-Pentagon theory is more or less just as stupid that there must be video evidence of it somewhere. I'm not sure how you even arrived at this one. I said nothing about video evidence. Nor did I say anything about DNA evidence (although there's that too...), audio recordings, or anything else outside of physical evidence/witness testimony. I've dealt with plenty of straw men, but this is just ridiculous.

Of course there is or was

Of course there is or was video footage of what occured at the Pentagon somewhere. Or am I to believe that every convenience store in America has better surveillance than the Pentagon? That's just moronic.

And yes, if the footage of the planes that hit the pentagon was as blurry as the Pentagon footage then I would doubt the planes in that situation as well. Or do you think the planes actually made WTC 1,2, and 7 fall and not CD? The planes are a trick. They flew them into the WTC so that an hour later people would think that the planes caused the complete destruction. They played that footage over and over and over to scare the fuck out of us. Now where is the footage of the Pentagon plane?

"Of course there is or was

"Of course there is or was video footage of what occured at the Pentagon somewhere. Or am I to believe that every convenience store in America has better surveillance than the Pentagon? That's just moronic."

Maybe you should believe that the FBI was gathering all potential evidence as part of their investigation into what the fuck was happening. This is something called "standard procedure". For God's sake, guys, if you're going to point out the government's actions on 9/11, don't point out one of the few things they did RIGHT. There is nothing suspicious about collecting evidence in the middle of a national attack.

"And yes, if the footage of the planes that hit the pentagon was as blurry as the Pentagon footage then I would doubt the planes in that situation as well."

Get realistic. It could have been high-definition at several angles with all the signs of an American Airlines 757 and even the flight number, and all you no-planers would say is "FAKED!" I know your game.

"Or do you think the planes actually made WTC 1,2, and 7 fall and not CD? The planes are a trick. They flew them into the WTC so that an hour later people would think that the planes caused the complete destruction. They played that footage over and over and over to scare the fuck out of us. Now where is the footage of the Pentagon plane?"

These are two completely different animals. First of all, video evidence wasn't immediately available to the media. THE FBI HAD IT. There'd be no reason for them to play it over and over. Secondly, the psychological factor is completely different. I'm sorry, but the Pentagon just isn't the same symbol to America as the World Trade Center was. The World Trade Center is large, rigid, a skyscraper among skyscrapers, it feels like a reason symbol. The Pentagon is only a few stories and the footage was grainy. Even if you tried to replicate the psychological effect, it would fail.

one piece please

Just give me one piece of evidence that proves no 757 (or plane of similar wingspan) hit the Pentagon.

Mhm, sure

Oh yeah, totally simple. Making a plane fly over a building when roads and highways circle all 360 degrees of the building and making sure nobody saw it is easy. Right up there with that magic trick where you pull the quarter out of someone's ear.

Actually I don't think it is

Actually I don't think it is all that different. Were people looking at the big explosion or in the sky?

Assuming that the majority of

Assuming that the majority of the people in the area on that day didn't have brain disorders and had their peripheral vision intact, they would be perfectly capable of seeing an explosion AND seeing a plane fly over it. C'mon guys, it's not like a plane is bloody invisible. Although the plane would have been going on, it it still BIG and SHINY and VERY EASY TO SEE IN BROAD DAYLIGHT! I think you all also miss the problem that the Pentagon would not be the only area of concern. When the plane flies over, it's not going to just disappear. It would have to FLY TO AN AIRPORT. This would mean even more witnesses who were farther away from the explosion would be even more likely to see a plane, and it would also mean there would have to be necessary clearance for the plane to land. This means not only SOMEBODY noticing the plane, in all likelihood, but on a more definite level, documented evidence. Yet, nothing of the sort has arisen to suggest that a 757 was seen flying over the Pentagon and landing at a nearby airport shortly after the impact.

You also need to think about how, frankly, stupid this plan would be. Why not just fly the plane into the damn building? Why risk all these witnesses? Are they really THAT confident that EVERYONE will be too focused on the explosion to notice the plane? It's too big a mess, too far from immaculate to be a remotely competent government operation.

Show "If a plane flew over the top" by vert

"If a plane flew over the top

"If a plane flew over the top of the pentagon it would be out of almost imediately out of sight from anyone that could see the explosion directly."

And you know this how?

Actual experimentation would suggest that you are wrong.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentacon/index.html

Feel free to prove your beliefs before spouting them.

"Ronald Reagan airport is about 1 minute away after that."

I know. I've heard this argument. That is still plenty of time to see a plane, and plenty of distance as well.

"You do know that there is evidence that ATC was forced to destroy audio tapes they made that day of what they witnesses."

Enlighten me. I'm pretty sure I know what you're talking about, but I want to make sure we're on the same page. What evidence are you referring to?

"As far as other witnesses seeing the 757 after the fact...so what? They could just say it was the C-130 in the area, or another 757 on the way to Ronald Reagan, or jsut ignore their evidence like they ignored the firefighter testimony of secondary explosions."

Your analogy is bogus because even if the testimony was ignored there would SITLL BE TESTIMONY. Just as the secondary explosions testimony is all over the place, we'd be open to any testimony that a plane may have been seem immediately after the attack.

"In fact the more I listen to you the more you sound like someone that can't believe the WTC were demolished."

WHERE DO YOU COME UP WITH THIS STUFF? I wasn't even talking about the World Trade Center. How, from that, did you deduce that I don't endorse controlled demolition?

(P.S. I do)

"You are asking the exact same types of questions: how did they plant 1000s of tons of explosives without anyone noticing, it would have taken thousands of people why wouldn't someone talk?"

Odd, I don't remember saying that. I'm almost positive I didn't say that.

"Was the WTC an immaculate operation or was it a big mess and remarkably incompetent?"

Assuming it was demolished as I believe it to have been, it was nothing short of immaculate. Not only in the physical execution of the attacks, but the psychological factor it ingrained into everyone's minds.

"As to why their plan wasn't to ram the plane into the buidling I don't know? Maybe they thought they didn't have to ram the plane so they didn't?"

They didn't have to? That's your argument? Seriously? Am I on Punk'd?

"But can someone please give me an intelligible reason why if they did ram the plane they didn't show the footage over and over again on TV? Afterall, the whole operation was to scare the American public right? Where is the footage?"

Impacts require video evidence to occur? Well this is new. From now on, when a plane is crashing, the pilot can calmly tell everyone to turn their cameras off, and disaster will be averted.

I'm not even following your logic anymore. Somehow you started off by assuming that I thought there as video evidence, and now you seem to have incidentally convinced yourself of that, so your original straw man has now become your own worthless piece of evidence...Is Punk'd back on the air, guys?

My bad, I completely owned

My bad, I completely owned myself right here. I was so busy trying to figure out where you got the assumption I was talking about video evidence that I forgot there actually WAS video evidence. You know, that tape from the security camera that they released? Sorry, that one I really did forget.

As for why it was not released...well...it was released...so I guess that's my argument.

Make it fly over?

They don't need to make it fly over. Fly overs happen all the time...people are going to call in and discuss what they see on a daily basis...aircraft flying in Pentagon airspace to land at Regan National Airport?

http://www.belch.com/img/airplanedc.jpg

http://www.orwelltoday.com/obeliskwash.jpg

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/Pentagon_Approach_2.jpg

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/Pentagn_Approach.jpg

911 myths is good for something...lol

Agreed

The point is: "NoC proves flyover" is an absurd statement devoid of any reason or logic.

"What is so outlandish about that?"

CIT does NOT have any proof, just some BS double talk. about directional damage.

"Furthermore if the plane was on the more northerly flight path, and it can be shown that not only was a Boeing incapable of making the initial impact damage,"

You are not qualified to say what the damage should be nor do you know for sure if it was a 757 or a 737.

The JREF sidestep

Please address the point:

CIT claims that the NoC flight path proves flyover.

This is not true.

First of all don't accuse me

First of all don't accuse me of being a JREFer alright? No hitting below the belt.
Secondly, it would be very hard to prove anything pertaining to the pentagon agreed?
In my opinion a NoC flight path disproves the OTC correct? No light poles hit, no C-ring damage.
At the same time the witness testimony indicates there was a large aircraft.

So that in my opinion leaves us with two options;

1) For people that believe that the Pentagon damage is consistent with a 757 then the NoC plane simply hit the building from that angle. This of course doesn't answer why no footage was released, videotapes were confiscated by FBI, and the OTC directly contradicts this flight approach. On the other hand why wouldn't the OTC just have the NoC approach? I don't get that.
2) For people that think that Pentagon damage is not consistent with a 757 impact then flyover sounds reasonable.

Question for Chris Sarns

Hey Chris,

Does NoC = staged light poles?

A simple yes or no will do.

What you should ask....

Does a NOC flight path match the damage pattern prior to impact and at the impact point?

If so, no fly over needed and the government story stands with the exception of some questionable light pole destruction and a damage cone that doesn't match the flight path.
The problem is a NoC flight path can not be reconciled with the damage path. Which means the damage path was staged. But why stage a damage path if your going to have a plane hit the Pentagon in the first place? It doesn't make sense. The only reason to stage the pre-impact damage scene is to convince your audience a plane DID fly along that path. But 13 different people, including the ATC at the Pentagon, in different locations tell the same story....the plane WASN'T on the official path.

If it does not fly on the official path, what happened to the plane and what caused the damage prior to impact and at impact?

Chris, this is the problem.

Can the CIT eyewitnesses and their on camera testimony be reconciled with the damage path? If the answer is no,which I believe it is, what caused the damage path and where is the plane?

1. The plane hit and the damage path and cone were manufactured...but again, why manufacture anything if the plane hits in the first place??

2. The plane didn't hit and the damage path and cone were manufactured. Manufacture everything to ensure a 100% kill rate of your targets.

3. The official story for everything else is false, and the Pentagon story is true. The 13 eyewitnesses are either all lying, confused, on drugs, paid off shills, (add your own excuse here).

This thread is about NSA, not WTC 7

Will you address the point?

CIT claims that the NoC flight path proves flyover.

That is not true.

I am discrediting a fraud

Would you care to address the point rather than pointing a finger?

CIT claims that the NoC flight path proves flyover.

This is not true.

Can you deal with this reality?

Can you state what the proof is? How does the NoC flight path prove flyover?

If the directional damage

through the Pentagon outer rings cannot have resulted, then your statement is not true, that CIT's claims that the NoC flight path proves flyover is not true, and secondly, if the plane, to just clear light poles to the south could not have gotten into position to impact the 1st floor of the Pentagon, if it was eronautically impossible, then again, no, you cannot state with certainty that it's "not true", I disagree, given the light poles and the directional damage through the walls/rings.

In signing out from this debate, let me just say this. I cannot advocate for the idea that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, that it flew over the lightpoles, and then impacted the first floor of the Pentagon without making a mark on the lawn, and left the impact damage (prior to outer wall collapse) observed, it's just not physically possible, and not based in reality, regardless of what may be the implications.

That we have 9/11 truth people unwittingly doing the governments' work for it in attempting to prove the OCT about what happened at the Pentagon essentially true, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, just because they do not like CIT and those guys and their investigation (as if it defines reality), strikes me as absurd, and highly regressive, from the old days when everyone was convinced almost to a one that no Boeing 757 impacted there.

CIT has certainly failed in a big way in terms of communication, and demanour, but in my view, what does that matter, when all any of us have ever tried to do, was to understand just WTF happened there at the Pentagon, on September 11th, 2001.

BYE!

I can't take seeing these posts anymore, or this debate. It's been horrible.

CIT claims that the directional damage

had nothing to do with the plane in their flyover theory. It was caused by explosives.

In other words, the plane did not cause the directional damage in either scenario. It is not proof the plane did not hitting the building.

The plane did not hit the light poles so they had nothing to do with whether or not the plane hit the Pentagon.

The last double speak and the exit with an aloof attitude. Anything to avoid admitting CIT did NOT prove NoC = flyover.

"just because they do not like CIT and those guys and their investigation"

Grow up please. That ridiculous whining is so grade school. You all claim it's just a personal dislike. that's BS. It's because the so called "investigation" is a sham that omits all evidence that refutes the predetermined conclusion. They have to say their witnesses were "deceived" when the statements are quite clear.

Concur...

That an airvehicle which proceded to the Penatgon on a course NORTH of what the OCT claims, is NOT proof positive that there was a fly over.

There needs to be more witnesses, or a more thorough analysis of existing witness testimony combined with more exacting "times of observation" by those witnesses...and of Roosevelt Roberts regarding what he saw and when he saw it.

I would like to remind everyone that the airvehicle in question "could have" made the 330 degree turn in about two minutes of total time...so this is a small "time window" of observance.

This is all interesting and Cris I ask that you keep the methodologoical work up...and gain some additional patience.

My sense is that this story will not be able to be accurately told for years because there are too many conflicting scenarios...with strong eveidence for each...but something comprehensive will eventually emerge.

CIT has presented VERY, VERY important witnesses to a North Course in lieu of a central or south course which gives us at least three courses to contemplate. And each data source has its own problems with it...and its own strengths.

Each theory has its strengths and its weaknesses...and THIS is our challenge...and...this is just something that we do need to deal with as we try to figure stuff out.

And please do not forget Honegger's 09:30-09:32 first explosion time...this may give some important clues as does the damage pattern surrounding the generator..

Just and FYI...I seem to remember that one researcher made solid points that BOTH a north and a south course could be true...IE:

...that an initial North Course with the airvehicle in a slow flying right bank could have manuevered into a left bank so indicated by the damage to the Pentagon and the generator. Indeed, some witnesses have the airvehicle over the Naval Annex etc.

As a pilot I have always been interested in some of the eyewitnesses claiming that the speeds were slow. Speeds are relatively easy to establish by the eyewitnesses...especially since thse guys get a good sense of speeds by observing DCA's arriving and departing aircraft on a daily basis.

Slower speeds REALLY change the equation here.

And, if anyone does not remember, I believe that the FDR and animation are "plants" and not either original to AA77, or they have been "hacked" to confuse the Truthers considerations of the HI PERP's OCT storylines.

Its often stated that the best defense is a good offense...and this seems to be how the HI PERPS are operating regarding AA77 and the Pentagon.

Anyway, this "S-TURN" flight path would have to be a slower airspeed event...and again for a deliberate repetition, I feel that the FDR and animation are HI PERP'S red herrings or at least "hacked or replaced".

But again, one does not KNOW as of yet.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

I am not comfortable with ANY explanation about the light poles as of yet, but I do suspect some malfeasances because all of it could have been accompished during the night before without ANY motorists noticing etc. [the England issue excepted]. To me, the long curved bends just do not fit a high speed strike by a wing.

The light poles....UGH!

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

What The Pentagon Mission Demands

Robin writes, "Just and FYI...I seem to remember that one researcher made solid points that BOTH a north and a south course could be true...IE:

...that an initial North Course with the airvehicle in a slow flying right bank could have manuevered into a left bank so indicated by the damage to the Pentagon and the generator. Indeed, some witnesses have the airvehicle over the Naval Annex etc."

Response:

Such an unnecessary maneuver would confirm that whatever hit the Pentagon was after a specific target within the Pentagon. As such, a smaller, more nimble aircraft would have been used.

Even if a 757 were flying at a slower airspeed, the aircraft would have encountered obstacles on the ground that would have jeopardized the mission of hitting the specific target inside the Pentagon.

Conclusion: a 757, or an aircraft anywhere near its size, didn't impact the Pentagon. Therefore, the larger aircraft seen must have flown over or past the Pentagon.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

It is really quite amazing

just how similar the scornful, contemptuous derision of CIT on display here at 911Blogger is to the never-ending tirade of abuse leveled at the 9/11 truth movement by mainstream media pundits and politicians.

What has happened to 911Blogger, I used to think it was a site for 9/11 truth activists to share news and views ... now I see it more as a battle field, where sincere truth activists are constantly attacked for their opinions by those who don't share them.

The commentary posted here clearly illustrates my point ... it is predominantly petty, puerile and pointless.

When cornered, change the subject

JREFers try to make it a personal pissing match to avoid a point they cannot dispute.

Craig and Aldo are NOT sincere investigators so put away your crying towel and address the point.

CIT claims they have proof of flyover. They do not.

You will continue to do the JREF two-step but you will never concede the point. I have seen this movie many times. I'm not calling you a JREFer, I'm just pointing out that you are acting like one.

your point is pointless

there's no point responding to a pointless point

The point is

CIT is FOS ;-)

And you have no proof that NoC = flyover.

Have a nice day. ;-)

I signal two

I signal two comments of the airline pilot Ralph W. Omholt :

« The first clue that something is wrong with the Flight 93 story is the same as the Pentagon and the purported demise of Flight 77; the predominant smoke color in the photo (immediately above) is clearly NOT that coming from burning jet fuel.  Again, that was also true in all the photographs of the purported Pentagon strike.  In all pictures of the Pentagon fire, the ONLY prominent "thick black smoke" emanates from the generator unit, within the construction area fence, not from anything associated with the supposed aircraft.  An aircraft full of fuel, crashing at 300 Knots, will NOT experience a delay in the full burning of its fuel; not at the Pentagon and not in Pennsylvania!
Beyond the Pentagon “hit,” there is plenty of "curious business" behind the supposed crash of Flight 93.  Try to imagine the odds of a second crash site with no tail, no wings, minimum “parts” and a missing tattle-tale black column of burning jet fuel.  A second trans-continental flight with hardly any passengers and no cargo.  Far too much for “coincidence;"   IMPOSSIBLE! »

« “Look to the evidence provided by elementary geometry. From the bottom of the 757 engines to the mid-line of the wing spar is right at ten feet. Add eight feet for the fence / cable-spool height & you have a wing impact at 18 feet - absolute MINIMUM! That assumes a one-inch clearance of the fence and/or cable spools. Any such impact would be on the second floor - IF there had been a 757!”

http://physics911.net/omholt

http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/flt93.htm

Someone who thinks that a Boeing 757 hit the pentagon can explain me why these comments are false?

I just wonder

If Chris Sarns (and others) are suggesting that flight 77 hit the Pentagon on the 1st floor and was responsible for that impact damage, is that what they are putting forth?

If I understood your question

If I understood your question (I'm french) the answer is yes.

Jim Hoffman has suggested that the plane's wings were at an average elevation of 8 feet upon impact. The plane would have lost 30 feet of altitude in 600 feet of travel, averaging one foot of altitude for each 20 feet traveled. This means that the Boeing 757 might have crashed into the Pentagon with a slightly downhill course. This would allow the wings of the Boeing 757 to hit the first floor of the pentagon and at this aircraft to fly above the Cable Spools. See:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

I do not know if the official version supports the hypothesis that the plane «  averaging one foot of altitude for each 20 feet traveled » .

If the hypothesis of Jim Hoffman that « the plane's wings were at an average elevation of 8 feet upon impact » is true it means that the engines of the plane almost touched the ground at the time of impact and, also, if the aircraft is in a slightly downhill course at the time of impact why there is no crater at the impact site and why there has been no seismic signal of the crash of a Boeing 757 at the official speed of 530 mph?

According historycommons.org :

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?day_of_9/11=complete_911_time...

« Unlike Other Three Crashes, Pentagon Attack Does Not Produce Clear Seismic Signal

The strike on the Pentagon does not generate a clear seismic signal. A study by the Maryland Geological Survey will state, “We analyzed seismic records from five stations in the northeastern United States, ranging from 63 to 350 km from the Pentagon. Despite detailed analysis of the data, we could not find a clear seismic signal. Even the closest station… did not record the impact. We concluded that the plane impact to the Pentagon generated relatively weak seismic signals.”

Jim Hoffman in his analysis does not include the assertion of The ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Report that the angle of approach of the Boeing 757 was 42%. According this report the aircraft was at the moment of impact tilted to the left. See also:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/sy-k/pentagon/asce_en.htm

Collapse area at end of burned grass approach track...

I'm not an engineer and admit that I favor pictures, so, I am biased here.

But from the little analysis of the kolumbus report that I have looked into so far, one of the first things that I notice is that it is interesting that there is some disagreement about the approach angle of collision...the OCT being 42 degrees and this report noting 31 degrees...or closer to the North Approach Track.

The second, and far more interesting thing that I notice is that the area of column collapse shown inside the Penatgon seems to be at the end of an extended line from the burned/damaged grass strip on the Pentagon lawn...and NOT, for some reason, along the 42 degree angle line. This is very interesting...are we not seeing something that is right in front of our eyes?

Why the dislocated [the majority well to the right] column collapses from the 42 degree entry angle? Could the grass streak be from a ground vehicle loaded with "stuff" from a B757 and some explosives...powered by a rocket? But this would mean that I am "buying" that the FAB FIVE FRAMES are truthful...and I doubt that they are. But, the grass strip is there...and so are the column collaspes along an extended line...?

And does anybody know what those two white dots are...one towards each end of the burned/damaged grass strip?

Its also interesting to look from a greater distance at the angle or "routing" of the airvehicle contained in the OCT that is created between the line formed by the light poles and the rather symmetrical "C" ring hole. The particular damage to the light poles remains counterintuitive to me still....similarly, so does the hole in the "C" ring.

Can we perform a test for shearing the tops of the light poles that are struck at high speeds with an edge that replicates that of a high speed air vehicle? This might be instructive. Or, since so mauch can be accomplished with computer modeling now, and surely there has to be some engineering standards involved with the strength of design and manufacture of such light poles because they need to be strong enough for high winds...and oddly I think, for "breakaway" needs during auto accidents, can such an analysis be conducted via computer simulations?

The light poles...HMMM?

Logic instructs me that because there was "some light pole mass" above the impact point, that this "mass: would remain in place and not be accelerated very much with a 400-500MPH impact of a narrow-ish leading edge of a high speed wing. The "mass" below the impact point, as well as the bolted attachments to the foundations, surely will resist any accelerations caused by the high speed collision below the impact point, so that's not counterintuitive. I liken this action to that of a weed whacker in that the first cut is made to the weed and bothe the top and bottom of the weed remains mostly unmoved. [Lighten up, I KNOW that a weed is not like a light pole...its just an example...]

And the long curved distortions of the poles...HMMM...wassup with that?

I'm not making any claims here at all, and I sure am finding this stuff very interesting and it helps me keep thinking outside of the "tidy boxes" that some researchers have encouraged us to climb into. And I do notice that this report was made in 2003 and updated in 2007...and that it hasn't been seen in much discussion within the 9/11TM since then...why?

Seems its been Hoffman and Legge ever since...with the later arrival of CIT. Lets back-up and re-evaluate...

There are probably many other interesting reports that might be re-analyzed or at least reconsidered.

My guess is that IF we can back off, consider Honegger's work, consider CIT's eyewitnesses, and dig into some of all these "buried?" reports, as well as use the volumes of good stuff provided by our solid researchers, maybe we will see something that everyone has missed, or misinterpreted.

And of course...an exacting examination of the damage tof the low cement wall to the left of the generator...to the left top of the generatorthe...and to the top center-right of the generator...will pay dividends soon.

Of course, it would be helpful if all the snickering and all the knee-jerk defense of pet theories would diminish...if not go away totally. That would be nice wouldn't it?

If we are 10% of the way to understanding what went on at the Pentagon, it would be alot...and then if one looks at the GOVERNMENTAL sources of some of the information that some "pet theories" are based upon or have been influenced by, and questions such subjective information, then we are back to about 2% of our way into "getting" the AA77-Pentagon-Cheney-PEOC-SS-NORAD-FAA scenario.

Its gonna be a long time here...surely beyond 9/11/2011...but we have that 10 year anniversary covered with emphasis being on WTC7 and the Controlled Demolitions. So, we have time to crunch some numbers and rethink some things...

9/11 truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

Pentagon Mission Requirement: Smaller Aircraft

Robin says, "But, the grass strip is there...and so are the column collaspes along an extended line...?"

Response:

I already posted pictures showing that long strip of damaged grass as being present BEFORE 9/11:

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

There's another long strip of damaged grass nearer the parking lot. See it?

A 757 would not have been used to take-out the specific target in the Pentagon. Too many obstacles on the ground that could have sabotaged the mission. A smaller, more nimble aircraft would have been used.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief Dnotice.org
Washington, DC

Some things don't tell us much

The fact that someone quoted a figure of 42 degrees for the angle of the plane from the perpendicular on arrival at the Pentagon does not mean much. The ground track was about 62 degrees and the wall was about 10 degrees. So the perpendicular was 100 and the difference 38 degrees. That's 4 degrees different. Does it prove anything?

Regarding the hole in the C ring, many say that it is the wrong size. When an object passes through a brittle material the size of the hole it makes depends on speed - the faster the smaller. At high speeds there isn't time for the load to be distributed. If the hole was made by some small heavy object like a front suspension, we don't know the size it should make because we don't know the speed.

But some things are pretty persuasive. I think you are right about the mass of the light poles and the velocity of the plane preventing them from being accelerated much. They are cut and left behind. The bends look right to me. Of particular interest is the bottom of the poles. If these had been chopped off by some explosive device there would be evidence of it, but there is none - the poles are meant to snap off if hit and that is what they did.

Couldn't agree more about the need for calm analysis of the evidence. And of course we should all be looking for new evidence. That has the potential to be far more effective than arguing the point.

Cindy Sheehan paraphrases the evidence spectrum well.