CIT is useless

UPDATE 8/15/10: Added a segment about closing statements.

Originally posted: http://arcterus911.blogspot.com/2010/08/cit-is-useless.html

Some time ago I wrote an article about the importance of not wasting time on CIT. Most of their followers are impossible to convince and consequently the endless debates with them are entirely fruitless, resulting in nothing more than distraction. But that's not to say we should ignore them completely. Just because we ignore them doesn't mean they won't be zipping around spouting their flawed testimony, their aggressive behavior, anything that discredits those of us who are careful and have realistic standards of evidence.

There's an issue I just don't see talked about often enough in regards to CIT. People are ready to talk about the things I mentioned above and more. The contradicting testimony, the over-zealous nature of their followers, the fact that the testimony contradicts physical evidence, all these things that relate to debunking them. What I don't see talked about is how this all plays into the legal implications of what CIT is proposing.

Let's say that CIT is right. For the sake of argument, let's say that all of those unsupported excuses, all of that "all the other witnesses are wrong/disinfo" and that "the physical evidence was faked" was, indeed, how it went. Well, perhaps you are satisfied with the evidence CIT has passed on and agree with their proposed conclusion, but bear in mind that when it comes to the big picture this means nothing. What convinces you and what can pass convincingly in court are two entirely separate things, and if our goal as a movement is to merit a new investigation to achieve accountability, then the court method is the more important one, correct? If you agree that trial is going to be a necessary factor in the grand scheme of things, so to speak, then you also have to acknowledge that, well...CIT is useless.

Let's run by a quick list of what we can all agree on.

1. CIT has 13 witnesses who support a north-side path.
2. There are other witnesses who support a south-side path.
3. The physical evidence supports a south-side path.

Bear in mind that none of those 3 points are asking for validity. They are simply pointing out, at face-value and without cross-examination, what it all appears as initially. Do you think the south-side witnesses are wrong? Fine. But we should still be able to agree that these witnesses support a south-side conclusion, however valid or invalid that testimony may be.

Let's also add to the list:

4. Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, nor anyone else would be allowed to divulge in aggressive behavior, even if given permission to treat as a "hostile witness".
5. Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, nor anyone else would be allowed to give opinions.
6. Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, nor anyone else would be allowed to speculate on possible explanations.

For #4, there is a certain court etiquette by which all participants must abide by, else they are held in "contempt". For #5, Lawyers present, examine, and cross-examine the evidence to the jury. They do not lead the jury by offering their personal thoughts on the matter. For #6, that's more or less the same thing. It just means they can't say "But you see, it only seems that way because..." You can not offer explanations until you are presenting the evidence that you believe explains away whatever it is you are opposing, and even then you can not do so in a way that leads the jury.

I clarify this because it means, first and foremost, that Craig, Aldo, and everyone else involved on the legal team would have to act like civil, adult human beings. That's something that has been a problem for them. It also means that their normal way of arguing would not be admissible. They could not say "this part of the testimony is right, but he was mistaken on this part" because they can not give opinions. The best they could do would be to bring up additional testimony or evidence to contradict it, which would also be a problem because it discredits the witness (I'll go more in-depth on that later). CIT can absolutely bring up witnesses and examine their testimony, but they CAN NOT offer opinions on what the validity of the testimony is or what that testimony means, which is basically their entire process for arriving at the conclusion of a flyover.

Now I'm going to start offering several scenarios which, I think, show how horridly CIT would hold up in court.

Let's start with their own witnesses being cross-examined with each other. CIT's own witnesses state that the plane impacted the building. Their case for claiming the physical evidence was faked revolves around the testimony that the flight path as on the north side of CITGO. They would HAVE to find some way to convince the jury that part of the testimony was right and another part was wrong without directly saying so. Now even if they made this possible, invalidating a witness discredits their ENTIRE testimony. Even if you're only arguing against part of it, it only makes the entire testimony look bad. It's so unlikely it might as well be said to be impossible that an entire jury would accept a testimony to be PARTIALLY accurate. They would almost definitely disregard it. Even if, by some miracle, each and every one of them thought in this way, that would go out the window upon cross-examination. Take, for example, Sergeant Lagasse. CIT says that Sergeant Lagasse giving irrefutably wrong locations of the taxi cab and light poles actually supports their theory. Well, that's all fine and dandy, but back in the realm of reality, all it means is that he's WRONG. And if he's wrong, it means the entire testimony could be wrong. That and, of course, they wouldn't be allowed to say why they think it supports their conclusion. They can not speculate.

I don't want to make this article too long by going through each and every witness, but I assume we can all agree that the majority of CIT witnesses report testimony that CIT themselves disagree with, mostly concerning whether or not the plane hit the building. Again, I remind you that CIT can not give their normal explanation of the whole thing being like a magic trick or sleight of hand. They can not offer opinions. They can only suggest as much by objectively examining the evidence. Evidence which they lack, since the entire premise is built on speculation.

But how about the other witnesses? The witnesses who support a south-side path? No longer can CIT accuse them of being liars without adequate proof, no longer can they insist that they were influenced by media reports without reasoning. No, I'm afraid CIT can only call forth the witness, listen to their testimony, and try to find holes in it. Even if they find holes, which they probably would for at least some of them, given the vast quantity of witnesses, the witnesses who support a south-side path outnumber the north-side witnesses so greatly that right off the bat it would be more convincing. More importantly, many of these witnesses were interviewed immediately after the attacks. Most of the CIT witnesses were interviewed years later. The opposing lawyer would undoubtedly bring up an expert to talk about how A) Trauma distorts the memory (it does not strengthen the memory as CIT so erroneously claims in their documentary) and B) How memory fades with time. More importantly, there are so many holes in the CIT witnesses that would be revealed upon cross-examination that any found in the south-side witnesses would be underwhelming. In a best-case scenario, you have the jury not being convinced by either side. More likely though, the jury is leaning towards the side with more witnesses, more credible witnesses, and of course witnesses who corroborate the physical evidence.

Ah yes, that pesky physical evidence. It's been quite an issue for CIT, as it's quite damning to their conclusion. CIT has basically offered that their claim of the evidence being faked is supported by the witness testimony, but in fact it's quite the other way around. In the legal world, physical evidence trumps witness testimony, always. This is explained in detail by Edmond Locard, a pioneer of forensic science and the creator of Locard's Principle of Exchange.

"Wherever he steps, wherever he touches, whatever he leaves, even without consciousness, will serve as a silent witness against him. Not only his fingerprints or his footprints, but his hair, the fibers from his clothes, the glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or semen he deposits or collects. All of these and more, bear mute witness against him. This is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses are. It is factual evidence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, it cannot be wholly absent. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it, can diminish its value."

In short, this means "Every contact leaves a trace." Are the implications of this clear? Physical evidence is always correct, because it can not be wrong. IF the physical evidence was faked, then there'd be some sign, some EVIDENCE that it was faked. Does everyone understand? You can only trump physical evidence with PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

Were the light poles blown away by explosives? Then there should be some explosive residue. Was that segment of the Pentagon blown up? Then like all bombs, there must have been some shrapnel. Were the plane parts planted? Then it should be clear to forensic examiners that the locations of the plane parts are all wrong, that they flew in the wrong trajectory, that they weren't traveling at the right velocity, anything to suggest that they didn't originate from a high-speed plane crash. Did the examiners miss all of this? If so, it doesn't matter. It means CIT has no case here. If the evidence was missed by those examining the scene, there's nothing that can be done about that. It still means there's no documented, verifiable physical evidence with which to suggest that the whole scene was set up.

It is this portion, this matter of physical evidence, where CIT falls short that it makes the witness matter pale in comparison. That whole mess is such a wishy-washy roller coaster ride filled with holes and mistakes that I only include that out of thoroughness. In truth, all I need to point out is this right here. That CIT has NO physical evidence to back them up, and without that they have no case. All signs point to a plane striking the building. CIT would not only have to disprove that, but they would have to also prove that the south-side path was faked, and they would have to do so objectively and built on a mountain of evidence which they lack. THEY CAN NOT SPECULATE.

At the end, CIT and the opposing side would give their closing statements. Note, it is ONLY in the opening and closing statements where either side can offer explanations. This is the one time where a tiny fragment of speculation can see it's way in. Each side tells the jury how they view the evidence at hand. Both sides are still bound, however, by the evidence presented, so they can't delve too much outside of that. Here's an example of what a closing statement might look like for two different sides.

A man is having money troubles, but did not share his concerns with his family. He is an avid hunter who regularly used guns and kept one in the house. He is found in his study, dead, with a gunshot wound to the head. His shotgun is nearby as are cleaning supplies for the gun. Shortly before his death, he spoke with a friend on the phone. He gave no sign - to anyone - of depression or impending suicide. The friend said he sounded completely normal on the phone. He was a devoted family man, committed to his wife. Widow is suing insurance company which claims the man commit suicide and is therefore refusing to pay the life insurance claim.

Both attorneys have the same facts to work with, right? Some are good for them, some are bad. Here's how they would explain the evidence to fit their theory of the case:

Widow's Attorney: This was a tragic accident. Man makes a terrible mistake while cleaning his gun and it accidentally discharges. Widow lost her husband and now Insurance Company is trying to make things even worse. This was not a suicide. Friends and colleagues testified that Man was not depressed and gave no hint of suicide. In fact, he spoke with Friend shortly before his death and there was no hint that he was moments from taking his own life. Why is that? Because he wasn't. He may have had money problems. Lots of people do. But that doesn't mean they are all suicidal. The evidence shows that this was a tragic accident. Don't extend the tragedy. Return a verdict for the plaintiff.

Insurance Company's Attorney: This was a tragedy. On that I think we can all agree. But it was no accident. Man was clearly adept at hiding things. He hid his financial troubles from his wife and his severe depression from his friends. On the day he spoke with Friend and sounded as he always had, it was because he had found a solution to his troubles. After hanging up, he walked over to his shotgun and pulled the trigger. Why were the cleaning supplies out? Well, Man was a smart man and knew about the suicide rider, that the insurance company would not pay life insurance if the death was a suicide. So he left out the cleaning supplies to make it look as if it were an accident. We feel for Widow, but that doesn't mean that the rule of law doesn't apply. It doesn't mean Insurance Company should pay to make things better for her. We ask that you review the evidence and draw the only sensible conclusion. Return a verdict for the defendant.

What we see here is how two completely different stories are formed using the same body of evidence. Now imagine the case with CIT. Remember that, outside the possibility of their opening statement, they'd have been incapable of even mentioning things like "flyover", "faked evidence", "sleight of hand illusion", or anything else that didn't reside in speculation, since none of those can be supported by any witness testimony or evidence of any sort. Still, as long as they make it fit with the evidence, they can still mention those things in the closing statement. But that's a problem for them, even here where their speculation is granted the most leniency. Here is probably something it might look like:

(Although Craig/Aldo would probably have a professional lawyer hired, I'll use "Craig" as the lawyer for simplicity's sake.)

Craig: The American people were all lied to about what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. We showed you 13 witnesses who all reported a flight path completely different from the one suggested by the damage path. This can only mean that the path was faked, and the plane did not actually strike the Pentagon.

Here are some important things to note on that. I simply have to make sure how clear it is that they are bound by the evidence in hand. They can not talk about other witnesses "lying" or "being agents" without evidence that was brought up in court to suggest as much. They can't bring up "sleight of hand illusion", since there's no evidence that any such distraction occurred. It is an entirely speculative excuse for why the witnesses would have said there was an impact. They can't even specifically say the plane "flew over", since their witnesses don't say as much. They can only imply it, to the subtlest extent, with a line like "It didn't strike", using the contradiction between their proposed flight path and the damage path as support. CIT is so limited in what they can say that they're forced to do more ignoring of evidence than framing it to fit their conclusion. Now here's what the opposing attorney might say.

Opposing attorney: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there is almost certainly nothing suspicious about the evidence brought up in court today. The 13 witnesses contradict each other and have indisputable mistakes in their testimony. We have also brought up experts to show how trauma and time are both severe factors in the preservation of memory, and we've brought up several witnesses of our own who give testimony consistent with the flight path of the official story. Even without that, do 13 witnesses really trump something as damning as the hard, physical evidence of the damage path? It all comes down to this, are you going to trust physical proof, or the aging, mistake-ridden memories of some trauma victims?

If you were on the jury, which way would you decide?

So to recap:

1. The north-side witnesses would be discredited and/or counter-productive towards CIT's case both upon direct examination and cross-examination.
2. The south-side witnesses would, at the very best for CIT, make the jury neutral.
3. The physical evidence is sound and completely inarguable unless CIT was to come across legitimate, verifiable physical evidence.
4. They would have to be civil.
5. They could not speculate.
6. Their closing statement would be heavily restrained, and would possibly make them look ignorant or even foolish with such a short, weak closing statement followed by a long, convincing one.

With all this, I don't see how CIT could even get to flyover outside of their opening/closing statements. Their entire case for flyover is built upon speculation, and that is inadmissible in court. Without being allowed to offer their own opinions and speculations, it is impossible for them to lead anyone to believing that their witnesses are more credible, that the physical evidence was faked, or that there was a flyover.

Do you agree with CIT's conclusions? Do you think they are right? If so, I'd recommend devoting your time elsewhere. Unless CIT can bring up MUCH stronger evidence, they will never accomplish anything other than being laughed out of the courtroom. At this moment, CIT just doesn't have a case. This is not a debunking article. It's simply here to objectively analyze the testimony and hypothesize how it would hold up in court under federal and state laws. Whether or not CIT is right is not the issue. The most important issue here is that they can not benefit the cause of the movement.

Show "Question about #2 in list of "what we can all agree on"" by nobodyparticular
Show "More south-side witnesses than north?" by nobodyparticular

Witnesses

I love how CIT followers are constantly pretending that they don't know about these south-side witnesses, even though they've been presented repeatedly.

Arabesque has documented, in detail, the statements of the Pentagon witnesses, including the CIT witnesses.

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/03/pentagon-eyewitness-testimony.html
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/pentagon-eyewitness-testimony-m...

Note, when reading these statements, keep in mind that these witnesses would not be talking about the flight path in relation to the gas station, as there would be no reason to. You have to infer from the details they give that the flight path they are describing is a south-side path.

It has also been covered by Adam Larson, aka Frustrating Fraud.

http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/08/south-path-impact-documente...

"You further write "Most of the CIT witnesses were interviewed years later" - I think it important to point out that Roosevelt Roberts, a Pentagon Police officer on 9/11, is on record with the Library of Congress from 2001. That is in fact how CIT found him. This is also the case for many of the other witnesses, such as William Middleton, Darrell Stafford, George Aman, Darius Prather, etc., who are all on record with either the Library of Congress, or the Center for Military History. They all reported the seeing the plane on the north side of the CITGO gas station back then. That's how CIT found them as well."

I think it is important to point out that I used the word "most" knowing this fact fully well. Also, it is not uncommon for the witnesses to change their story from their initial testimony to their more recent interviews with CIT. Using Lagasse as an example, in 2003, in an e-mail to Disk Eastman, he said about the light poles and taxi cab impacts that they were struck "near the top...yes I saw the plane hit them...I did remember a black and orange cab that was struck by one of them." In a 2006 CIT interview, he claimed he didn't see the actual impacts, saying "I don't have eyes in the back of my head."

"Arcterus, have you read and/or listened to these earlier, officially documented quotes from these eyewitnesses? If so, what is your take on Roosevelt's claim, made to both the Library of Congress and later to CIT, that he saw a large commercial airliner flying away from the Pentagon at an extremely low altitude seconds AFTER the explosion?"

This has nothing to do with the topic. Also, it has been covered.

http://911blogger.com/node/22328

Although descriptions of the

Although descriptions of the size of plane differ (a few mention a smaller plane), none of the witnesses interviewed on 9/11 describe a plane flying over the building, and as far as I know none of those interviewed by CIT do either.

How weird!

(8:16)- How weird to have a piece of the plane (evidence taken from a crime scene) hours after the event. This smacks me as a set-up.

Yeah so what's wrong with this comment?

The whole operation was a set-up!

I think people misunderstood

I think people misunderstood and did not watch the video I embedded.

There's a guy, Aziz El Hallan, in the studio, with what he claims is a piece of the plane, at 4:39 PM on 9/11.

I have the clip on my YouTube channel, but YT keeps reporting 'an error occured', Here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iqLyf1dLgU

Luckily, someone else uploaded the same clip, here it is.

I too think it's strange that the authorities let that guy wander off with a piece of the plane, although I do not see it as evidence for a plane hitting or not hitting the building.

This too is a very strange clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-Pj_EZMydA
in which an alleged witness, Don Wright, claims to have seen a small plane. Just watch it, you will see what I mean. (Or watch the video I embedded in my first post, it contains both clips.).

In my opinion the whole Pentagon deal is deliberately being kept shrouded in mystery and disinformation to keep investigators busy speculating and diverting attention from more fruitful lines of questioning.

Show "2:18 in the video" by Swingdangler

Good points,

and let us not forget what has happened before: the Wood-Reynolds court case on an absurd 9/11 scenario

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread308595/pg

If I remember correctly it was thrown out, with prejudice, by the court. As a result, it is unlikely that this court will EVER hear any other case on 9/11, even a VALID one.

Of course, this is probably one intent of persistent efforts to promote absurd scenarios.

The flyover--Pure Genius

Evil NWO perp Pre-9/11:--"I say we don't crash a plane into the pentagon."
Fellow Perp: "huh?"
Evil NWO perp: --"Hear me out...this is genius, instead of flying a plane into this particular building, let's fly over it, everyone will be fooled."
Fellow perp: --"What?"
Evil NWO perp: "Yup, everyone will be fooled, and they will be fooled good to, because we will make sure everyone in the area looks at the pentagon as it flys over, because we will explode bombs at the same time, that way hundreds will look at the pentagon as the plane flys over, and they will be fooled."
Fellow perp: --"What?"
Evil NWO perp: "And the best thing is, no one will take pictures or record it because I feel lucky, I can just feel it"
Fellow Perp: "huh?"
Evil NWO perp: " And then we can plant parts, inside the building and outside too, giant engine parts, the works, no one will notice because they will be to busy being fooled by a jet airliner flying over the pentagon as a loud noise goes off gauranteeing they will not notice a huge airliner flying over the building as they turn to look at the building because of the noise."
Fellow perp: --"What?"
Evil NWO perp: "But that's not the best part"
Fellow Perp: "uh oh"
Evil NWO perp: "The best part is, we can also set a fake direction for the plane to come in, create a fake flight path with planted light poles"
Fellow perp: "Why?"
Evil NWO perp: "Just for fun, to see if anyone notices, they will be to busy being fooled into thinking they watched a passenger jet fly into the pentagon."
Fellow Perp: "Why create a fake flight path?"
Evil NWO perp: "Why not?"
Fellow Perp: "What about the radar, and the Air traffic controllers seeing the plane on radar."
Evil NWO perp: "Not a problem, they're all "in on it." So are most of the witnesses on the busy highways and roads in the area around the pentagon. The ones not "in on it" will be fooled, because they will be to busy looking at the pentagon to notice the huge arliner flying over it, no matter what side of the pentagon they are on."
Fellow Perp: "Why would you want to get all these people involved, that doesn't even make any sense."
Evil NWO perp: "Yup, that's the beauty of it."

Show "the only problem..." by Swingdangler

Something smells wrong here

A lady from the pentagon was in the hospital said she heard explosions and would not recant her testimony to the FBI and went out of her way to claim she was being harassed right?

The cab driver says him and another guy lift a light pole off his car which only has damage to the window. Ever try to lift a light pole? Take a closer look at one.

Hani Hanjour was allegedly the pilot who pulled this off? No mess to the lawn either, nice work Hani.

The fab five frames certainly don't look like much of a large jumbo jet airplane.

Oh yeah and this is one of those rare crashes when most of the airplane just vaporizes and....

Do you really think this will really ever go to court? Based on what evidence are you planning to present? We don't know what hit the pentagon or how it was done and I doubt it's the best issue to argue for 911 truth either.

My point

That's sort of my point. I don't expect it to go to court. Even if it did, it would be impossible to get anywhere. That's why I never promote it. What's your strategy, exactly, if you don't expect it to go to court? Yell a lot? Call the politicians mean names? Anyone who thinks we can get anywhere without the use of legal prosecution is deluding themselves.

"Oh yeah and this is one of those rare crashes when most of the airplane just vaporizes and...."

Most crashes don't happen at a high-velocity into a dense substance. The planes mostly vaporized at the World Trade Center too.

"The fab five frames certainly don't look like much of a large jumbo jet airplane."

They don't look much like a flyover either.

"Hani Hanjour was allegedly the pilot who pulled this off? No mess to the lawn either, nice work Hani."

There was actually a lot of damage to the lawn, but the idea that Hanjour pulled this off is, indeed, suspicious. It is another example of evidence of HOW or WHY it was hit is far more compelling than WHAT hit it.

"The cab driver says him and another guy lift a light pole off his car which only has damage to the window. Ever try to lift a light pole? Take a closer look at one."

HAVE YOU!? I admit, I've neglected to go around lifting light poles. I guess I haven't really had the opportunity.

"A lady from the pentagon was in the hospital said she heard explosions and would not recant her testimony to the FBI and went out of her way to claim she was being harassed right?"

I admit, I'm not familiar with the details of this event. However, it doesn't dissuade from the physical evidence.

Ultimately, all these points are also irrelevant to the initial topic of the legal implications of CIT. Debating it's validity is not the point, only it's validity in court.

EDIT: I accidentally posted twice, so would a mod please delete one of these two posts?

My point

That's sort of my point. I don't expect it to go to court. Even if it did, it would be impossible to get anywhere. That's why I never promote it. What's your strategy, exactly, if you don't expect it to go to court? Yell a lot? Call the politicians mean names? Anyone who thinks we can get anywhere without the use of legal prosecution is deluding themselves.

"Oh yeah and this is one of those rare crashes when most of the airplane just vaporizes and...."

Most crashes don't happen at a high-velocity into a dense substance. The planes mostly vaporized at the World Trade Center too.

"The fab five frames certainly don't look like much of a large jumbo jet airplane."

They don't look much like a flyover either.

"Hani Hanjour was allegedly the pilot who pulled this off? No mess to the lawn either, nice work Hani."

There was actually a lot of damage to the lawn, but the idea that Hanjour pulled this off is, indeed, suspicious. It is another example of evidence of HOW or WHY it was hit is far more compelling than WHAT hit it.

"The cab driver says him and another guy lift a light pole off his car which only has damage to the window. Ever try to lift a light pole? Take a closer look at one."

HAVE YOU!? I admit, I've neglected to go around lifting light poles. I guess I haven't really had the opportunity.

"A lady from the pentagon was in the hospital said she heard explosions and would not recant her testimony to the FBI and went out of her way to claim she was being harassed right?"

I admit, I'm not familiar with the details of this event. However, it doesn't dissuade from the physical evidence.

Ultimately, all these points are also irrelevant to the initial topic of the legal implications of CIT. Debating it's validity is not the point, only it's validity in court.

Typical divide and conquer crap.

So for the last few months we isolate the folks on this blog because of CIT, I ask reasonable questions and people just vote it down without any real response. I have emailed the questions to individuals on this blog on various occassions without response. They always seem to have so much to say except when they are confronted with specific concerns. This site has become more and more divisive and dissappointing in the past year or so. I find it hard to believe that everyone on this site has honest concerns for 911 truth.

Show "Critiques like this are worse than useless." by painter
Show "Implications" by influence device

Learn "Straw-man"

"Claiming "objectivity," the author invents a straw man argument in the guise of a hypothetical court case."

A hypothetical is not the equivalent of a straw-man. I'm not sure how you even connected these two. A straw-man is when you distort an argument to make it sound like someone said something they didn't say. I'm only taking their arguments and analyzing how they would hold up under the legal system. These are so far from the same thing that I'm not sure how you even thought this was sensible.

"Even allowing this fantasy, in cross-examination any of the North of Citgo witnesses who indicated they "believed" or "assumed" the plane they saw impacted the Pentagon would have to admit that they did not directly witness such an impact."

They WOULD!? Why? Where did you come up with that one? When they say things like "I saw it hit the building", I take that kind of thing at face-value.

Either way, you won't have a witness who says they directly witnesses a "flyover".

"The author indicates there are many more South of Citgo eyewitnesses but the reality is there are none that have been confirmed and independently verified, as have the 13 North of Citgo eyewitnesses reported by CIT."

Back in the REAL world, look above to see the links I supplied to nobodyparticular that list a myriad of witnesses who report south-side paths. And they HAVE been confirmed. One of the links even supplies video of the testimony, in other words, on camera. Just because it's a media source and not a CIT source doesn't mean it loses it's validity, although I know you CIT types like to pretend that's how it works.

"The fact that CIT found these witnesses and brought their stories to our attention contradicts the stated claim that "CIT is useless."

Back in the REAL world, CIT is useless because none of these witnesses would get anywhere in court, which means the case would fall apart which means nobody could anything at all about CIT's claims. I have yet to hear anyone address the topic of the legal system, instead talking endlessly about the "evidence" of a north-side path and flyover, as if saying it enough times will change the way trial works. The only time it's mentioned is when they admit that they don't think it would GET THAT FAR. How, exactly, is CIT helpful if nothing can be done about their claims, valid or not?

"Critiques such as this are worse than useless because they are not objective, do not give credit where credit is due and further a divide in this movement which serves one purpose: To deflect investigative and inquisitive attention away from the events at the Pentagon on 9/11."

I'm completely objective. Are you just listening to yourself speak now? Nothing I stated had anything to do with my personal views of CIT and dealt entirely with how they hold up to scrutiny in a case of legal prosecution. Just because you say I'm not objective doesn't mean it's true.

"This begs the question, why would it be imperative to deflect the attention of the 9/11 Truth Movement away from the Pentagon and down-play the significance of the NOC witnesses?"

Because it's distracting, questionable, and useless in terms of progress?

"My answer to that question is quite simple: Because the events that occurred at the Pentagon as revealed by the witnesses CIT has made public directly implicates the US DoD in the 9/11 false flag attack and its subsequent cover-up. That is something discussion of what took place in New York does not do."

Damn, you caught me. It's because the Pentagon evidence is TOO sound and conclusive. That whole "trial" crap was just made-up. I also don't know what I'm talking about at all. I'm probably just a nutcase.

Show "Why has Barrie Zwicker's Endorsement of CIT not been approved?" by painter

Probably because Zwicker completely discredited himself

by claiming that CIT's critics are agents.

Show "So it's a free country and everyone should still be " by peacefulwarrior

Everyones entitled to their opinion

Good. Then I have every right to say that a flyover is f**king retarded. Planting poles to create a fake flight path is retarded. And anyone that falls for this stupidity deserves to be marginalized.

BTW- the WTC buildings were holograms, that used super secret technology, that made people think they were real and Judy Wood will no doubt discover this super secret technology. And the plane didn't fly over the pentagon it flew under it, by way of a secret tunnel, which is why no one saw this flyover and were "fooled".
Sound good? If it helps increase our numbers it's good right?

Show "So what exactly do you believe about the pentagon?" by peacefulwarrior

The flyover- Pure genius

peacefulwarrior said -"Did Hani fly the jet or just thought he flew the jet."

Did M Atta fly the jet or just thought he flew the jet?

peacefulwarrior said - "Was there any explosion?"

Yes, peacefulwarrior, it went boom.

peacefulwarrior said- "Did the cab driver move the Light Pole?"

Of coarse not, that would have been the light pole fairy, two grown men could not possibly remove part of an ALUMINUM LIGHT POLE, could they? Or could they?....
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rddesign/rd/rtds/06/17515.pdf

BTW, how come his hood wasn't damaged, the same reason the hood of your car isn't damaged, something has to hit it first, maybe you are a perp?

peacefulwarrior said-- "If we know that explosives were planted in the three towers why not a few light poles."

Uh...because it's f**king retarded to make a fake flight path?

peacefulwarrior said-- "I don't think a jumbo jet hit the pentagon and I don't think Hani could fly it so prove me wrong and release the tapes if they still exist."

No, I wont do it.

Maybe if you asked the Gov to they might. However I'm guessing since they already told us about a thousand times that they have no video of the impact other than what they released, I would guess you are wasting your time. This is the part where you are supposed to say, "but they have to have a video of it, they just have to."
Yea, they have videos, but they have already said they have no video of the impact. So spend the rest of your life demanding they release a video they already told you doesn't exist. Good luck with that.

In the meantime I would suggest ignoring all the physical evidence and eyewitness accounts and common sense that points to a passenger jet hitting the pentagon. You know, to try and generate more numbers and keep your no plane theory alive, by trying to pin 9-11 on INNOCENT people. It can only help us right?

peacefulwarrior said -- "Maybe you could limit the sarcasm and tell us what you think and why."

No, I wont take retarded theories seriously.

Show "I thought you were a fraud and you just " by peacefulwarrior
Show " YT- on Zwicker : Sorry but that makes no sense to me" by peacefulwarrior
Show "CIT has no evidence right?" by peacefulwarrior
Show "Keep playing games with the vote counts" by peacefulwarrior

This is boring stuff you should hide it with my comment!

Evil NWO perp Pre-9/11:--"I say we don't crash a plane into the pentagon."
Fellow Perp: "huh?"
Evil NWO perp: --"Hear me out...this is genius, instead of flying a plane into this particular building, let's fly over it, everyone will be fooled."
Fellow perp: --"What?"
Evil NWO perp: "Yup, everyone will be fooled, and they will be fooled good to, because we will make sure everyone in the area looks at the pentagon as it flys over, because we will explode bombs at the same time, that way hundreds will look at the pentagon as the plane flys over, and they will be fooled."
Fellow perp: --"What?"
Evil NWO perp: "And the best thing is, no one will take pictures or record it because I feel lucky, I can just feel it"
Fellow Perp: "huh?"
Evil NWO perp: " And then we can plant parts, inside the building and outside too, giant engine parts, the works, no one will notice because they will be to busy being fooled by a jet airliner flying over the pentagon as a loud noise goes off gauranteeing they will not notice a huge airliner flying over the building as they turn to look at the building because of the noise."
Fellow perp: --"What?"
Evil NWO perp: "But that's not the best part"
Fellow Perp: "uh oh"
Evil NWO perp: "The best part is, we can also set a fake direction for the plane to come in, create a fake flight path with planted light poles"
Fellow perp: "Why?"
Evil NWO perp: "Just for fun, to see if anyone notices, they will be to busy being fooled into thinking they watched a passenger jet fly into the pentagon."
Fellow Perp: "Why create a fake flight path?"
Evil NWO perp: "Why not?"
Fellow Perp: "What about the radar, and the Air traffic controllers seeing the plane on radar."
Evil NWO perp: "Not a problem, they're all "in on it." So are most of the witnesses on the busy highways and roads in the area around the pentagon. The ones not "in on it" will be fooled, because they will be to busy looking at the pentagon to notice the huge arliner flying over it, no matter what side of the pentagon they are on."
Fellow Perp: "Why would you want to get all these people involved, that doesn't even make any sense."
Evil NWO perp: "Yup, that's the beauty of it

Show "This thread is useless" by peacefulwarrior

Ugh

Why is it that you CIT people think you know everything about your opponents? You obviously don't even comprehend our arguments, much less are you able to refute them.

Also, you say the thread is useless, but nothing you say has to do with the thread, in terms of the initial topic.

Show "I say this thread is useless" by peacefulwarrior

Complete, utter ignorance

"Because it is based on unrealistic expectations of some type of trial and then goes on to determine the outcome of such a fictitious situation in a condescending tone."

If you think it's unrealistic, then why do you promote it? Why do you people not understand this? If you don't think you can obtain justice through a court method, then what method do you think you can take? There is no other way, no other realistic direction of obtaining accountability.

"It is also naive to assume that any evidence trail left or created by the perps should be considered valid in these circumstances."

WHAT!?

It's naive to think that evidence is valid? This has to be the most ridiculous thing I've read on this thread so far.

"Not to mention the intention is to isolate and somehow try to ridicule the efforts of what may be very patriotic concerned people."

Get the fuck over yourself and stop telling ME what my intentions are. My intention was to show that CIT is incapable in it's very nature of allowing any progress for the goals of the movement. It has nothing to do with "ridiculing patriots" and everything to do with being realistic about the situation.

"In addition the endorsement of these efforts is censored."

Censored? You're just making a fool of yourself. If I had said "Nobody has ever endorsed CIT's work" then yes, I'd be lying and you could definitely accuse me of censorship. However, endorsements have NOTHING to do with the issue, and I had no reason to mention them. Not saying something is not amount to censorship, only when it's done in a deliberately deceptive manner such as through lying, editing, or quote-mining. By this logic, I can say that you committed censorship by not naming these endorsements specifically. I can say Chris Sarns committed censorship in his above post by not mentioning these endorsements. I can say that all of us in this topic committed censorship by not talking about Elena Kagan's role in shielding the Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits. If your idea of censorship is simply not saying something, then everyone, whenever they open their mouth or type on a keyboard, is committing censorship.

"Most of all it's the presumption of knowing what the hell happened at the pentagon that day and completely discounting the reasonable doubt created and demonstrated by CIT and others in these matters."

Okay, back in the REAL world, my article had nothing to do with what happened at the Pentagon, it certainly did not make any claim to "know" such a thing, and DIRECTLY INVOLVED the evidence CIT has presented. All my article did was take that evidence and show how it stands up to legal scrutiny. So far, given your ignorance of the context of my article, among other things, I'm feeling like this topic was pretty damn useful.

"Get off your high horse. I have raised numerous concerns and questions in this matter only to be marginalized without direct response."

Get off your high horse, and accept that there's a vast difference from what you THINK happened and what you can PROVE happened.

Also, I'd argue that taking your quotes one by one and replying to each one is pretty fucking direct, but then again, I'm probably just a nutcase.

Show "Keep your F-bombs they don't mean anything to me" by peacefulwarrior

"Keep your F-bombs they don't

"Keep your F-bombs they don't mean anything to me"

Contrary to what you may believe, I don't swear for the purpose of intimidating you. That's just how I talk when I'm displaying incredulity.

"I am saying that your description of this trial is unrealistic because you presume to know the evidence and the testimony that could potentially be given etc. All the facts have not yet been determined and the actual testimony of the witness could result in additional lines of inquiry."

It's not unrealistic. I used CIT's current body of evidence in addition to all other known evidence relating to the Pentagon and demonstrated how it would seem in court. You are right that all the facts may have not yet been found, which is why I say, at several points, that CIT would NEED TO FIND NEW EVIDENCE to make a case for themselves.

"Your own title is that CIT is useless. I rest my case."

It's a statement, not a ridiculing. CIT is useless to the movement with it's current body of evidence. Even if I WAS just trying to ridicule them, it wouldn't mean the entire article was dedicated to that. Your logic is reeking of stupidity.

"My point here is that the Barrie Swicker testimonial was censored by the site. How foolish of me? Why?"

Apologies, I assumed you were talking about ME censoring the endorsements in my article. I didn't realize you were referring to 9/11 Blogger.

"My point was that you presume to know what evidence can be obtained. Thus it is way too early to know what can be proved. CIT has attempted to demostrate resonable doubt of the official story."

I don't presume anything of the sort. I am looking at a PRESENT body of evidence. I'm not going to twiddle my thumbs waiting for some magical evidence to make all the problems go away when I could be taking REAL action for the progression of this movement.

I can also tell you FACTUALLY that if there is such evidence out there, it won't be found with more witness testimony. Even if CIT got EVERY SINGLE WITNESS to recall an SoC path, it would not trump the physical evidence. That's how important physical evidence. At that point, it would be more suspicious, but on a legal level it could still not prevail.

"In addition most of the posts on this thread just dealt with sarcasm, ridicule, etc. Without any real discussion of specifics. Most likely the politics of putting down what may be honest efforts made by people such as CIT will result in fracturing the movement with such infighting and confusion that it will be rendered impotent."

How dishonest and misleading. I used sarcasm, ridicule, etc... in CONJUNCTION with facts and analysis. So who gives a fuck?

And CIT has done more ad hominem to fracture this movement than myself or any other critic of theirs could ever hope to.

"For example: The history of the UFO movement was and continues to be sabotaged and marginalized inspite of overwhelming evidence including testimony of insiders, witnesses, scientists, military personel, police officers, pilots, and concerned reputable citizens. However after at least 60 years it's still relegated to conspiracy theory."

.............

I'm not sure where to begin....um...read here:

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5231

As an example of how weak UFO conspiracy theories are.

Show "You fail to mention" by peacefulwarrior
Show "This whole thread is moronic." by keymanwst
Show "Yeah I couldn't agree more" by peacefulwarrior

Oh yeah, and you

It's delightful to see you agreeing so wholeheartedly when he does this bullshit like say I should stick to masturbating after all that talk about "ridicule". Nice double-standard there.

WARNING to commenters re insults and accusations

Keep it civil, if you want to keep your commenting privileges
http://911blogger.com/rules

It just says basket weaving

What's your comment really about?

Yeah, real insightful

"Arcterus 'lawyering' is laughable"

YEAH LOL SO FUNNY!

Actually, I know a great deal about American law, and I sent this article to several lawyers to verify it as well. Putting it simply: I am right.

"He should stick to basket-weaving."

Where did that come from?

"The moderator should have scrubbed it immediately before the disease could spread."

I don't get it, too much factual information?

"What's next on this site? 19 Arabs with box-cutters?"

You're fun.

Show "Let's try this another way." by peacefulwarrior

You're dreaming

It doesn't look like any jumbo jet ever crashed into the pentagon. Sorry but there are people who don't accept what you keep trying to cram down their throats. Your comments are less than convincing.

Show "...or how about this way..." by keymanwst

You are out of line!

Your comments using the F* words , terms like idiots makes it very easy to question your judgement or agenda in these matters. You want to believe the official story on the pentagon then go ahead. No one is trying to stop you. For every real question or lack of evidence in anyone else's mind you just get abusive and feel your analysis is superior. You create circumstances to make your theory work in every instance. I don't believe a jumbo jet hit the pentagon and I am not saying I am right. I just have sincere doubts. My real point in this was that the thread itself was pointless with respect to a trial which presumed to know all the evidence that would come to light under cross examination of the testimony. I believe CIT has demonstrated reasonable doubt of the official story. If you think not , then that's your right, but to dismiss the efforts of these people may very well be a mistake at this time,

Hey Arcterus,

I'd really like to bury the hatchet on the CIT post. I am not at all sure I handled things very well and I apoligize for offending you and your honest efforts. I guess I would have liked to see that plane hitting the Pentagon in one of those fab five frames or some other pictures or extended footage. Perhaps in a future trial the confisgated video could be obtained. In the end I don't know what happened at the Pentagon and in these murky times it's hard for me to decide what to believe.

I don't know what happened at the Pentagon

Indeed.

We do not know for sure what happened at the Pentagon and the CIT claim that they have "proof" is incorrect.

All the ranker caused by Ranke is for naught except to divide and distract the TM.

Forget the Pentagon. It's a can of worms.

The important question is:

Building what?

Apologies here too...

I try to stick to the topic at hand and not go into ad hominem comments--sorry about the "basket-weaving". The Pentagon is indeed a can of worms. There is not one truthful word in the official story issued by The Empire. They say a 767 hit the Pentagon so my first reaction is to consider that a lie, considering the source. Obviously something "hit" that building, but it sure wasn't a Boeing airliner. I am a pilot who has never flown a 767 but I have studied many aviation accidents for 25 years and have never seen an accident site with no engines, no wings, no tailplane assembly, no landing gear trucks, no wing spar structure, no seats, no carcasses of passengers, no luggage, ...and so on. I still would like to know why the security camera footage was confiscated so quickly and never leaked. That right there is "guilty demeanor" that puts The Empire and their "employees" right at the top of my suspect list. I would suggest that they should be at the top of your suspect list as well.