Joint Statement on the Pentagon: David Chandler and Jon Cole

Overwhelming Evidence of Insider Complicity on 9/11

If you watch our videos and read the links on our site ( you will understand why we assert that the weight of the evidence points to the fact that 9/11 was orchestrated by insiders…

* with access to high tech military-grade nano-energetic materials (aka nano-thermite)
* with access to the infrastructure of some of the most highly secure buildings in New York over an extended period of time
* with the expertise to accomplish the most difficult demolitions in history
* with the ability to manage public perception of the event despite numerous contrary contemporaneous eyewitness reports
* with the ability to coordinate the take-downs of the twin towers with the airplane flights
* with the ability to coordinate with the military to not intercept the airplane flights
* with the ability to stage a highly coordinated cover-up, starting on the day of 9/11 itself
* with the ability to prevent ANY investigation for many months
* with the ability to stage-manage fraudulent investigations once the demand grew too loud (the 9/11 Commission report the NIST reports)

All of this evidence comes from the investigation of the World Trade Center, based on public evidence and the laws of physics. The evidence is overwhelming, consistent, persuasive, and broadly agreed upon by the “scientific wing” of the 9/11 Truth Movement. The concrete physical and video evidence leading to these conclusions narrows the field of possible perpetrators significantly.

The Pentagon

There are also anomalies in the events at the Pentagon. The biggest anomalies, in our opinion , have gotten some of the least attention.

* How could the Pentagon, the hub of the US military, have been so poorly defended that it could be hit in the first place, after the buildings in New York City had already been hit and other hijacked planes were known to still be in the air?
* Why was Norman Minetta’s testimony about Cheney’s response to the approach of the aircraft discounted in the 9/11 Commission report?
* Why was the target the newly reinforced west face of the building, occupied primarily by accountants that were tracing down what happened to the missing trillions of dollars announced just a few days earlier?
* Why would the purported hijackers perform a difficult spiral descent to hit the face of the Pentagon that had the least number of people in it, and was opposite from the offices of the Pentagon high command?
* Why would the purported hijackers risk mission failure by choosing a difficult ground level approach when they could have simply dived into the building?
* How could an untrained pilot have performed the difficult maneuvers? Was the plane flown by some kind of automatic controls and/or guided by a homing beacon?

Instead of these important questions, from very early on the focus has centered on what hit the Pentagon. The nearly unanimous testimony of over a hundred eyewitnesses, is that a large aircraft, consistent with a 757, flew very low at very high speed, clipped several light poles, and crashed into the face of the Pentagon at ground level. Still, speculation persists that the Pentagon was hit by something else, such as a Global Hawk or a cruise missile. The eyewitness testimony is consistent with the pattern of damage both inside and outside of the Pentagon ( Read through the many eyewitness accounts (

What is very clear is that there is a consistent and blatant ongoing cover-up at the Pentagon. Those INSIDE the Pentagon have all the physical evidence and all the confiscated videos. They undoubtedly have the definitive proof of what hit the Pentagon, and how it was done, but they are not saying.

The problem with focusing on a protest of the Pentagon cover-up is that the population at large attributes to the military the right to keep secrets. Secrecy in wartime is understandable, if it is in furtherance of military objectives. It is not reasonable that the military should be allowed to extend this privilege to the cover-up of evidence of a monstrous crime, but the fact is, they can get away with it. The population is not willing to second guess military prerogative in matters like this. Therefore despite the absolutely blatant cover-up of the facts of 9/11 at the Pentagon, there is no public outrage, and there is no reasonable possibility that the public can be aroused on this issue.

Therefore the Pentagon is a dead-end for research. The puzzle of the Pentagon might be fascinating or intriguing, but as an avenue to determining the truth, it seems doomed to failure. The ones who want it covered up literally hold all the cards.

Fortunately the evidence at the World Trade Center makes the investigation at the Pentagon almost irrelevant. If anything essentially new (and verifiable) can be discovered at the Pentagon, fine, but the sparseness of information and the thoroughness of the cover-up at the Pentagon makes it an unlikely venue for significant new findings.

The Honey Pot

On the other hand the mystery that surrounds the Pentagon makes it an attractive target of speculation and the subject of truly wild conspiracy theories. (This kind of attractive diversion is sometimes called a “honey pot,” a “setup” to be discredited at a later time.) This is not the only instance of theories that seem designed to be easily discredited. There are groups that insist the towers at the World Trade Center were taken down by space lasers. Others claim no planes hit the Twin Towers at all: they were just holograms. What better way to tar the movement than to seed it with absurdly false theories that fuel a media circus, while making the Movement look ridiculous?

Despite popular belief, the physical evidence does not rule out that possibility that it was American Airlines Flight 77 that actually crashed into the Pentagon. Confidently asserting otherwise, then being proven wrong and discredited for sloppy research, would be disastrous for the credibility of the solid science-based research at the World Trade Center.

Why, then, the strenuous push to focus the attention of the Truth Movement onto the Pentagon? Does it sound too cynical to suggest that we are being intentionally set up? We must remember that we are in a situation where nearly 3000 people were murdered in a day not counting the thousands who have died since, and millions killed in the resulting wars. If agencies of the US government really are complicit, which the evidence shows to be the case, then the people who really know what happened are playing for keeps. Any movement with real potential for arriving at incriminating truth will certainly be highly infiltrated. This is not paranoia: it is a simple fact. The 9/11 Truth Movement must respond by policing itself and holding itself to the highest standards of intellectual rigor.

CIT (Citizen Investigation Team)

It is sometimes hard to tell the difference between simply foolish theories and intentionally planted foolish theories. The difference is generally speculative. The wisest policy is to avoid foolish theories altogether.

The generally accepted story regarding the Pentagon is that American Airlines Flight 77 was hijacked and flown to Washington DC, did a very difficult downward spiral maneuver, approached the Pentagon flying essentially eastward along Columbia Pike, descended to very low altitude, knocked over several light poles, damaged a generator sitting on the Pentagon lawn, crashed into the west face of the Pentagon at ground level, at very high speed, and created a trail of damage inside the outer three rings of the Pentagon in perfect alignment with the exterior trail of destruction.

Enter CIT, the Citizen Investigation Team. This grass-roots-sounding organization consists essentially of two individuals from California who fly back to Washington, conduct interviews with a number of witnesses on video who reconstruct the flight paths (from memory, years after the event) as being significantly further to the north than the generally accepted flight path. A north flight path is inconsistent with the trail of damage, both inside and outside the Pentagon, so this flight path would require that all the damage was intentionally and elaborately faked. CIT then asserts that since the north flight path is inconsistent with the damage in the building, the plane did not actually hit the building. Instead it pulled up and flew over the Pentagon perfectly timed with an explosion set off in the Pentagon. The plane was hidden by the explosion as it flew off and blended in with general air traffic. (How the passengers were disposed of is a question they don’t consider.) Interestingly, nearly all of the people they interview are certain that the plane hit the building and none directly confirm the flyover hypothesis. The best they can do is elicit sketches of northerly flight paths that actually differ significantly from each other. They compile their thirteen interviews in a feature-length video called “National Security Alert” (with an eyebrow-raising acronym shared with the National Security Agency: NSA), then further cherry-pick their witnesses and present the four who are most in agreement with their own views, and add a musical sound track for a second video they call their “Smoking Gun” version.

Think about it just for a minute. The Pentagon is completely ringed by major highways, including Interstate 395 which had stand-still traffic that morning. Any flyover of the Pentagon would have been witnessed by hundreds of people from all directions. If a plane flew over the Pentagon at low altitude leaving a major explosion in its wake, anyone who saw it would certainly think they were witnessing a plane bombing the Pentagon. Yet there were no such reports, and some who were questioned later, who were in a good position to see any flyover, said they did not see any such thing.

The CIT videos don’t qualify as scientific studies. Their witnesses are not representative of the overall eyewitness pool, the witnesses accounts are far from contemporaneous with the events, and the conversational style of the interviews frequently leads the witnesses. Who knows what conversations preceded the videotaped interviews to either shape or filter the testimonies? The “researchers” ignore the fact that none of their witnesses directly confirms their primary hypothesis: a Pentagon flyover. Some of the witnesses contradict themselves, but this does not count against their credibility. Furthermore, there is no mention of the voluminous eyewitness testimony that supports the conventional path in line with the path of destruction. Rather than subject their work to peer review, even internal peer review within the 9/11 Truth Movement, they simply disparage any who take issue with their methods or their results, and instead rely on a list of questionable endorsements. They posted a literal “enemies list” on the internet in which they attacked the character of those who disagree with them. [Ed. Note: we are not yet on that list, but after posting this essay we will surely qualify.] CIT has even gone so far as to disparage their own witnesses, accusing the driver of the taxi that was hit by a light pole of being a co-conspirator with the perpetrators of the crime. CIT has gone out of its way to make themselves a highly divisive issue in the 9/11 Truth movement. The “Flyover theory” had recent success in getting main stream media coverage on the Jesse Ventura “Conspiracy Theory” show. Whether CIT in fact represents an orchestrated attempt to splinter the 9/11 Truth Movement or not, it is having a splintering effect. “Divide and Conquer” has a long history, going back to Caesar in the Gallic Wars, and Alexander the Great before him. CIT is attempting to become the public face of the 9/11 Truth Movement. If it succeeds, the 9/11 Truth Movement will be seen as vicious, mean spirited, crazy, and ultimately discredited.

If the Pentagon issue intrigues you, we highly recommend that you balance your reading with the literature that sets Pentagon theorizing into perspective. Here is a short recommended reading list. (All of the authors are on CIT’s enemies list, but read them and decide about their credibility for yourself.)

In conclusion, we urge you not to be taken in by divisive speculation masquerading as research.

Recommended Reading

To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’ by Victoria Ashley

9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Witnesses Described

A Critical Review of "The PentaCon – Smoking Gun Version"

Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce or Critiquing PentaCon (Smoking Crack Version) by Jim Hoffman

American Memory Project of the Library of Congress (
— Interviews shortly after 9/11 by witnesses to various aspects of the Pentagon events.
Note in particular the interviewing style compared to the CIT interviews. There is no leading the witness. There is no agenda to prove a particular point. The interviewees are allowed to express themselves freely and fully with no coaching. Several of the witnesses interviewed here are also on the CIT videos. Notice the differences in the overall tone as well as the details of their stories.

The National Security Alert video and the The PentaCon: Eyewitnesses Speak, Conspiracy Revealed (Smoking Gun Version) are available to view online on various CIT web sites.
The National Security Alert:
The PentaCon (Smoking Gun Version):

Well said

Thank you David and Jon.

Eyewitness and video/photographic evidence indicates an AA 757 crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11. While some are justifiably perplexed and disturbed by the govt's failure to disclose hard evidence that this plane was AA 77, there is no evidence it wasn't (or that it flew over the Pentagon), and therefore there's no basis for claiming '9/11 was an inside job because AA 77 didn't crash at the Pentagon'.

There's a wealth of evidence that 9/11 can only be explained by insider involvement, including the points David and Jon listed at the beginning of this article.

The Complete 9/11 Timeline


Show "duplicate post" by Investigative R...
Show "Down voters can't read?" by Investigative R...

It didn't fly over the pentagon

Maybe you should look into the evidence for a Fly Under. You might find it compelling.

Show "It seems you fly over and avoid concessions" by Investigative R...

Hilarious ad hominem and no evidence for fly over again&again

This psuedo-response of CIT's is downright hilarious. How these guys insist there is a conspiracy at blogger to censor them is so preposterous. They have to just ignore all the stacks and stacks of witnesses. Have to keep acting like those few interviews and cherry picked quotes they have prove some ridiculous theory which they just don't provide evidence for. Ok Mr. Investigative, please why don't you tell us how this paper is poorly researched, show us Hoffman's mistake? Your rhetoric is ad hominem and ugly and needs to be backed up. You are accusing very bright experienced researchers of poor research. So you need to back up your claims. CIT's and responses and yours so far have not spoken to the evidence that Chandler and Cole and Bursill and many others have taken the time to compile. Instead of "censoring" which all the CIT supporters love to pontificate about, these researchers have used their great knowledge and credibility to research the flyover claims. We can't ignore the evidence. You must speak to the facts and not just name call.

Show "Did you actually read the article?" by Investigative R...

You ignored my question and tried to reframe the debate

Unfortunately I did sift through CIT's garbage response. He clearly has to just dance around his few witness's who's cherry picked quotes claim evidence of fly-over junk. You cannot speak to the burned corpses strapped to airline seats. You can't speak to the fact that there are NO witness's of a flyover plane. There would have been hundreds. You need to answer my question specifically. How is Jon Cole and David Chandlers paper poorly researched, gimme one example. You can't just keep saying read the CIT paper because his response just dodges him providing evidence for this debunked theory.

You want witness quotes and an example of how CIT is

deliberately deceptive and damaging to 9/11 truth here you go

What do you say to those links and thankfully, that blog response isn't a tiny bit as long as that exhausting bunk CIT response I just sifted through.

And just look below at the comments in this very blog:

Show "I don't care about RCFP article" by Investigative R...


Now you still haven't spoken to what I originally said and you are also repeating what I say. Cute and funny but mainly sad :(. People can just look up, but I asked you how the paper was poorly researched, but you just can't seem to answer. Just go on and on about CIT nonsense. You haven't really said anything. And you are saying to don't care about that link I put up when clearly if you spent two minutes reading it, you would have seen the scores of witness's you keep claiming don't exist.

Front page!

Front page!

Show ""He clearly has to just dance" by Investigative R...

awesome prove my point for me

Investigative R wrote:

"How is Jon Cole and David Chandlers paper poorly researched, gimme one example.

Geez, where to start? Let's start here...

Well they clearly didn't research what each other believed nor did Chandler research his memory or which side of the fence he is actually standing on:

"I'd also like to note here how Chandler seems to be trying to play both sides of this issue. He is implying here that the flyover "theory" is "foolish", and in recent interview with John Bursill he called it "bizarre" and "out of left field". Meanwhile, he (falsely) claimed above that "The nearly unanimous testimony of over a hundred eyewitnesses, is that a large aircraft, consistent with a 757, flew very low at very high speed, clipped several light poles, and crashed into the face of the Pentagon at ground level."

Quoting CIT get you into logical error. See John is correct in his statement here as is the statement about witnesses. I linked you to quotes about witness's but you just i don't know ignore them? And this also doesn't prove that the paper is poorly researched at all. Are you confusing people or something?

Investigative R wrote:

"Yet in the same interview with Bursill he said:

* "what happened at the Pentagon is a mystery" (59:04)
* "it appears that the damage to the light poles is consistent with the kind of plane that American Airlines Flight 77 was all about. So in other words it seems plausible and I'm just arguing on plausibility here I'm not saying 'this is what happened" (1:06:23)
* "My position in this is not that I am trying to say exactly what happened, I'm trying to say it is plausible for a plane like Flight 77 to actually hit the Pentagon and do the damage that's seen" (1:15:20)"

Would you agree that he is playing both sides of the issue and that he is not 100% certain of an impact as he tried to portray? You need to answer my question specifically."

To answer your question specifically hardly. First off you must now clarify who you are talking about, because you are confusing your statements between John and David and John Cole. Also all John does here is acknowledge that so much evidence has been withheld that we can only stick with what is most plausible to judge from the evidence we have. We have NO EVIDENCE to prove anything other than the United flight hitting it. So again specifically (cause you have loved repeating that since I asked you, yet you still haven't spoken to my specific question as I proved here). You have not at all proved this paper to be poorly researched. On the contrary your arguments seem to be incredibly flawed, repeated, and poorly researched as I have just shown above.

Show "No you are confused." by Investigative R...

The plane flew under the pentagon on 9-12

Why not just address the evidence? Are you "supporting the other side?"
Lloyd is a Cab driver, his wife is a cleaner. And planes flew into buildings on 9-11. Or maybe they flew under them on 9-12?
Check the date on the still....compelling isn't it?.....

I wonder what people paid more attention to a gas station, or a passenger jet? I wonder what building got peoples attention a gas station or the pentagon? DUH?
People saying they watched a passenger jet hit the pentagon is not evidence a passenger jet didn't hit the pentagon ask any 7 year old.

You got pentaconned! How embarrassing!

Show "No concession here" by Investigative R...

A Con Job

You got pentaconned.

Slandering INNOCENT people on the internet before they ever went to Arlington....

11 Jan 2006 Merc Mercy
"Meet Agent Lloyd A. England (Pentagon Plant)"

You see this INNOCENT cab driver was already targeted by the CIT loons before they ever went to Arlington because they already had a stupid theory and for it to work he has to be in on it........

"If his story is true, it really is make or break for the official story, it proves that plane hit the building." --Ranke 26:53 mark

How about an apology and an admittance they lied here.......

Interview with Craig Ranke 12/12/09
2:15 mark: "myself and Aldo Marquis went to Arlington with no pre conceived notions of what happened, went there with no particular theory in mind...."

Aldo posting as Merc Feb 2006 before going to Arlington to slander as many people as possible to promote his pre conceived retarded fly over conspiracy theory...

"Or maybe it was a flyover and then bombs blew up the damage in the front. Throughout the interior. And so on."

Aldo posting as Merc Jan 2006 before going to Arlington and talking to a single witness promoting his "Lloyde is an operative and the Cab damage was faked" conspiracy theory...

"So we have a traffic accident that causes traffic to be at a standstill on Route 27. How convenient. The same highway Lloyde is on. Well he is on the other side, moving just fine. Remember, he tried to stop. I wonder if the accident was staged also."

Interview with Craig Ranke 12/12/09
2:15 mark: "myself and Aldo Marquis went to Arlington with no pre conceived notions of what happened, went there with no particular theory in mind...."

Jan 2006 before ever talking to a single witness, he promotes his retarded "fly over"......

"so naturally some people would be planted witnesses,"
"we also have reason to believe there may have been a commercial airliner that simultaneously was flown overhead as a distraction." -- Ranke Jan 2006 before talking to a single witness, promotes his retarded fly over theory

They are liars and con artists.....

Interview with Craig Ranke 12/12/09
2:15 mark: "myself and Aldo Marquis went to Arlington with no pre conceived notions of what happened, went there with no particular theory in mind...."

They flood the internet with their insane BS that people like you fall for. Crazy people read this and believe it putting INNOCENT cab drivers at risk for their lives. But that is good for CIT because if something horrible happened they would get even more attention. And that is the reason for the entire charade. Attention. It is sick and demented, which says much about you. At best you got conned and are a "Usefull idiot".
Take your disgusting BS elsewhere.

Show "Well, unlike you I have" by Investigative R...

Don't listen to the voices

If you hear voices in your head telling you to do bad things to the cab driver don't listen to them they are bad voices. Instead see a Doctor and explain to him "The North side evidence".

Thanks but no thanks

Ive seen enough from these disinfo agents. I have no inclination to waste any more moments of my life reading their pedantic bullshit. Ive been contributing to this site for 4 years, to the movement for 7 years. Ive put too much of my time, money, and energy in to this movement only to be disappointed again and again by 'experts' and 'leaders' who have lead us down poisonous paths. Jim Fetzer and laser beams from space. Kevin Barrett and his thinly veiled jew-hating. From Richard Gages unbelievable endorsement of this bullshit to David Ray Griffins' appeal to the authority of AK Dewdneys' junk science that the phone calls were all faked, Ive seen enough.

In my not so humble opinion, CIT are disinfo agents. The people that fall for their ruse are gullible and easily led at the very least, if not outright morons and willing dupes. If that offends you, then you are in all likelihood a very easily led, gullible person, or an outright moron. Or you're faking offense because that's your job.

Hey-- when you've got a big old storage unit filled with useless, debunked DVDs, you tend to ignore reality if it'll help you unload them. Sure is the type of behavior Ive come to expect from sickos trying to make a quick buck off of this movement. The truth hurts, alright.

CIT supporters, take your faked phone call, flyover bullshit and shove it up your ass. You support frauds. You're morons or worse, and I dont care if this post results in me getting banned here.


for all to see.

This is FRONT PAGE material

More people should be able to view this information.

Front page policy re Pentagon

Same reason for putting the Ventura show in the blogs; the only new info here is that Chandler and Cole are taking a public position on this issue. They are significant figures, so it's newsworthy in that regard, but as the 'what hit' issue has been extremely contentious and divisive, articles related to it are going to stay in the blogs section. One exception will be if credible new information surfaces, or significant new research is published.

Of course, everyone is welcome to circulate this widely.

Show "Hey, Jeff." by 911ARTISTS

"no planers" = no comment

thx for pointing that out 911ARTISTS - that didn't even register when i left my comment as a reply.

WARNING to everyone at 911Blogger: the rules for commenting require civility; no insults, ad homs, accusations, etc.


I wasn't aware of the rule, but by definition it is true!

This new policy

is wrong. "No planer" isn't profane and it isn't merely an ad hominem. It reflects on the position of people who believe no plane crashed at the Pentagon.

Nobody, certainly not me, is arguing for incivility, but every once in a while, people will feel insulted, will feel offended, and sharp language will be used. Moderation should be done in moderation, lest the supervision becomes so suffocating that it has a chilling effect on the debate as a whole. When somebody consistently and harshly disrupts and insults, maybe with profanity, in debate, then a moderator should intervene in that thread. When this behavior persists across threads, and the majority agree the person is becoming a nuisance, then one can put him/her in the moderation queue. Finally, somebody can be banned.

But to declare the two words 'no planer' illegal is beyond the pale. There are many similarities between the two phenomena of NPT and Pentagon no plane crash theories. Discussion about this should be allowed. This new policy is overreaching. If some sort of symbolic gesture is sought to underscore 911blogger's objectivity, I suggest it be achieved by other means. Moderating disruptive behavior, fine, but this should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

I would like this new policy rediscussed among the moderator team. If commenting and blogging on 911blogger involves this level of policing, then I'd rather invest my research and commitment somewhere else. I love this site, I'd be very disappointed. This new policy truly infringes upon my core values and principles, and I simply have to speak up. Come to think of it, speaking up because my principles were offended is why I am here in the first place.

I find the removal of Jeff's comment offensive and wrong.

The reason

I started using the term for CIT people was because (I think) its the worst possible thing someone could be called when it comes to 9/11 and a person should feel insulted if they are labeled as such. If someone believes that there were no planes at any of the locations it is only because they haven't bothered to do the research and shouldn't be accepted by anyone in the 9/11 research community. Initially I was kind of mad when I saw that it was not allowed to use the term, but now understand that 9/11Blogger is a mature respectable place for people to discuss the issues. Alot of people read the threads here and if they are skeptical in the first place all the mud slinging might turn them away from looking any further. There are enough places out there this kind of behaviour is accepted such as 911oz which has been overrun by CIT and their small group of staunch supporters. Just look at the Chandler/Cole thread over there:

I can understand that if all someone has looked at concerning the pentagon is CIT's videos, how could they not be convinced that the plane flew NOC, after all, it looks like thats what the witnesses all said, but looks can be deceiving!

I'm sure most people are familiar with Sgt. William Lagasse and how he was "100% sure", he would "bet his life on it!", but it turns out that what Sgt. Lagasse said on video is NOT true!!!

How do I know you may ask? Well a very smart researcher named achimspok noticed that Lagasse had been caught on the CITGO security camera that morning and it proves he wasn't being completely honest in his interview. In fact, if you go through the various accounts Sgt. William Lagasse has given through the years such as the library of congress testimony, the email exchange with Dick Eastman and the CIT interview, every account he gives is different. Thats ok though because the CITGO video clarifies what he did and didn't see!

Please watch achimspok's CITGO video analysis:

Also, thanks again to achimspok for the following thread where he does some further analysis concerning various accounts:


the discussion of 'no planer' and moderation

is continued here:

There's a button called Tracker in the menu bar at the top of the site, which lists all blog posts recently submitted or commented on.

Lagasse is good value

I don't know why people give Lagasse a hard time. He very clearly showed with his hands on the video how the plane hit the Pentagon at an angle.

“It didn’t hit it at a 90 degree angle…it hit it offset.” “When the plane hit it just kind of disappeared.” “…there is only one thing that is irrefutable…the fact is American Airlines plane went from here into the building… you can pick apart everything else…”

In another video when drawing the path of the plane on the map he says “the angle may be wrong”, so apparently we are allowed to "pick apart" the north path approach. In correspondence he has had with others he was adamant that the plane hit the building.

In fact he provides us with a classic example of cherry picking by CIT which they cannot logically deny. And of course it is not the only cherry picking they did. Cherry picking is their standard procedure. It is not science.

Thank you,

Mr. Larson.

Thank you very much!

"...divisive speculation masquerading as research." That sums up the work of Aldo and Craig quite nicely!


more here -


i like this one too (think it's by shure)

We need more statements like this one ...

... from some other people I can think of. Thanks to David for leading by example!


those people whould have to admit they made a mistake to give that statement and nobody likes to admit that. Most of the division we have in this movement stems from people not wanting to admit when they were wrong!

My new favorite quote:

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" - John Maynard Keynes



Intelligence does not consist in having the right ideas. It consists in rejecting bad ideas once you realize they are wrong.

You got that right

That's why Jeff (shure) rejected NPT when he realized it was wrong.

Thanks David

Its refreshing to see people I regard as 'leaders' in this movement act responsibly and take a stand for truth and sanity.

...Now that I think about it, its kind of sad that its 'refreshing', but I'll take what I can get. Once again, thanks to David and Jon!

Very good essay

Exactly. The biggest crime at the Pentagon that can be easily shown is the cover-up. I especially like and agree with the point that what happened at the Pentagon is at this stage largely irrelevant given what we know about NYC.

Is defaulting to the official explanation adhering to the ...

principles of the scientific method? I don't think CIT proved anything, but that does not mean I will endorse the official story. I will just state that I don't know what happened at the Pentagon. I am still skeptical about the official explanation.

I admire the work of Mr. Chandler and Mr. Cole and appreciate their significant contributions to the cause.

I wonder if this joint statement was encouraged or if it manifested itself organically.

Scientific Study of FDR?

Great summation of the blatant Pentagon Cover-up, which is the reason WHY the 9/11 truth movement should focus on the Pentagon as well as the WTC. In fact the Mineta testimony could even be used for a public awareness ad campaign similar to BuildingWhat?

As for research, I would like to see a scientific study of the FDR , just as there was a scientific study of the dust. Subject both dust and data to peer-reviewed 9/11 analysis.

FDR new analysis

You won't have long to wait. Finishing touches only.


It is because I reject CIT as science that I would like to see some real scientific analysis.

This is a wonderful essay by David and Jon that sets forth responsible criticism of the Pentagon attack w/in the context of insider complicity. Well done!

skepticism is fine and healthy

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

"Is defaulting to the official explanation adhering to the principles of the scientific method? I don't think CIT proved anything, but that does not mean I will endorse the official story. I will just state that I don't know what happened at the Pentagon. I am still skeptical about the official explanation." - ROBinDALLAS

Chandler/Cole can speak for themselves, but in reading their piece I don't see what they said about the 'what hit' issue regarding the Pentagon as an endorsement of the official story. As I noted in my first comment, there's an absence of public evidence that AA 77 crashed at the Pentagon, but there's a significant amount of evidence that an AA 757 did - and, considering other evidence such as the FDR, radar data, reports that there are autopsy reports IDing passenger bodies, witnesses to personal effects, etc. - it's quite possible and even likely the plane was AA 77. That said, absolutely, the Feds should release all records that could demonstrate it was AA 77, rather than withholding it from the public and fueling speculation which undermines the public trust in the People's govt.

Imho, it's fine to be skeptical. What I have a problem with, is claims that '9/11 was an inside job' based on things for which there's no evidence, which are offensive to the victims families in addition to the average American, which have repeatedly been used to discredit, distract and divide the 9/11 truth movement, and which will be used against the movement to an even greater degree should hard evidence ever be released that AA 77 did hit the Penagon. For instance, the claims that a missile, fighter jet or Global Hawk hit the Pentagon. Regarding CIT's "conclusive proof" of a flyover; there are no witnesses to a flyover including Roosevelt Roberts, who said the commercial airliner he saw around lane one and banking 50' above the light poles was "headed east ... towards DC" (matching AA 77's reported path). And all the witnesses to the N of Citgo path said the plane hit the Pentagon- and the N path testimony conflicts with the accounts of other testimony, including by CIT interviewed witnesses, which put the plane more or less on the official path.

Thanks loose nuke for your thoughtful response.

It appears that I need to peruse the evidence again.

I am at this time comfortable with saying that "I don't know." Maybe that will change when I do more research.

Thanks for the link and your perspective.


I literally went to bed one night wanting ------- to make a bold statement that would be a definitive rejection of the conclusions, methodology, and divisive tactics of CIT. I was at a loss for how to persuade him to do this. It occurred to me as I got up the next morning that I was wanting him to do something I had not done myself. I have never made a public statement on this subject, so I decided it was time to "come out." So I discussed it with Jon Cole (since we share a website in common) then called ------- and told him I was going to be making this statement and urged him to use it as an opportunity to make a move on it too. The statement, by the way, is a consensus statement with Jon Cole. We each wrote independent first drafts and then I merged elements of both into the final document.

By the way, in response to the statement, I have received an email from Aldo Marquis characterizing it as a "hit piece." He said, "I just read some of your hit piece on us and I/CIT plan on responding in full." (I wish he had read the whole thing!) I don't view it as a hit piece. I do call out CIT explicitly, but the essay is more than that. I tried to make a clear, rational appeal to not let the public perception of the 9/11 Truth Movement be drawn away from the solid record of evidence established in our WTC research and become focused on inherently murky and divisive theorizing about the Pentagon event.

As I researched this essay I found that there is much more solid, convincing, eyewitness testimony of the plane hitting the light poles and the Pentagon than I dreamed existed. I urge you to listen to the recordings made for the Library of Congress in 2001 and contrast both the tone and content with the patently offensive, manipulative, so-called interviews conducted by CIT. I also ran across the telephone interviews of witnesses conducted by Jeff Hill, for the first time. (I have links at the bottom of the essay.) These interviews are amazing! Just listen to them!!!

So no. Jon and I were not manipulated into making this statement.

Thank you David for responding.

I have the utmost respect and admiration for you and for Jon Cole. The work you have done to further the cause is invaluable.

I appreciate your thoughtful response.

"I tried to make a clear, rational appeal to not let the public perception of the 9/11 Truth Movement be drawn away from the solid record of evidence established in our WTC research and become focused on inherently murky and divisive theorizing about the Pentagon event."

I agree with you completely on this statement.

I will check out the Library of Congress recordings and the Jeff Hill interviews.

Thanks to you and Jon for your brilliant works.

I am a big fan of you both and have learned much from your presentations.

It is good to know that you came to compose this statement without being encouraged.

Thank you for your patience and understanding.

I want what you want, a new and real investigation.

Hi Rob

It seems as though there is a lot of leftover bullshit from the Pentagate/Victor Thorn/Loose Change 2e era of the truth movement, but Im sure you can agree we've come a long way since then.
It seems to me like CIT is capitalizing off of the flawed wisdom of that time, and the people who still cling to it. To me it seems pretty clear that on 9/11, planes flew into buildings.

So, I have a question:

In your opinion, is asserting that planes hit the towers defaulting to the official story?

Hi zombie bill hicks

I appreciate your thoughtful response.

As to your question:

In your opinion, is asserting that planes hit the towers defaulting to the official story?

No. I think the video evidence shows that planes hit the towers. This has convinced me.

I don't have clear video evidence showing a plane hit the Pentagon.

If I am not convinced about a question, I default to "I don't know".

Thanks for responding

and that was fair enough.

I feel like we're moving in a more positive direction re: the Pentagon. Always place at least a kernel of distrust in anyone who will tell you that they have everything figured out. Even with all of the hard science we have concerning the destruction of the WTC, not one of us knows how it was done. Kevin Ryan would readily admit that, I feel.

I do have a bit minor quibble with the logic you're using, but we can skip that for now. Here's to having differing opinions and remaining civil ;)

I am not above occasional flawed logic.

I can and have changed my mind many times along the road to truth.

I know we both want the same thing, a new genuine investigation with subpoena power.

I appreciate you and your contributions to the many discussions through the years.

I may occasionally disagree with some on here, but I am not here to divide.

Thanks again zombie bill hicks. I appreciate your tact.


This post is so good and useful to our movement. It really sums up much of my own thinking about the proper intellectual rigor needed to conduct a movement of this importance. I say this post should be on the front page, it is too important to let this message be less than central. We have to guard against speculation, and poor research. We have to hold each other accountable, this is a great piece.

Show "Thank you, Mr. Chandler and Mr. Cole." by 911ARTISTS

Did I communicate with CIT?

NO. No way! Another element of my decision to come out on this subject is the hijacking of an email list and offensive comments made using that list by one of CIT's proponents. (Some of you may have been on that list and know exactly what I'm talking about.) This was followed up by a chance interaction with another CIT follower which included negative comments on a public forum about several key leaders of the "scientific wing" of the Truth Movement, this time specifically naming me. I've had my fill of these guys in just a few short days.

Show "Thank you," by 911ARTISTS

responding . . .

The behavior of CIT toward those who disagree is well documented, i.e., here:

BTW, re: 911artists, it's unfortunate that the 9/11 Artists and Actors site continues to feature people like Ace Baker (no planes hit the WTC) and Adam Syed (CIT advocate).

I know that Don Paul requested membership, but I don't see his name listed on there.

Show "Hello, Ms. Ashley." by 911ARTISTS

An example of leading the witness

911ARTISTS, by asking for an example you appear to be of the belief that CIT has not lead witnesses. In most cases we do not know about this because we were not present before the interviews to hear what was discussed. We do note however that a number of witnesses gave accounts to CIT years later that were somewhat different from the accounts they gave shortly after the event. There is one case however in which we can hear Craig letting the witness know that there were other witnesses who contradicted his position. This applies pressure to follow the lead of the other witnesses. It has been well established by psychological experiments that witnesses have a tendency to reject their own observation in favour of conflicting assertions.

The witness in question was Albert Hemphill. After a long period of discussion which was not producing the results Craig wanted he informed Albert that other witnesses had provided evidence that the plane was on a path too far north to have done the observed damage. To his credit Albert did not budge. He insisted that the plane came "over his right shoulder" over the bridge and "straight" into the Pentagon. When asked whether the plane would have been as far south as the VDOT antenna tower, Albert said "That would be a little too far". Given that he said the plane flew straight, he is a south path witness.

It is important to note that CIT claim him as a north path witness, thus they spread false information.


Manwell has a few things to say about applying pressure to get people to change what they claim to be true

WOW how juvenile

No surprise you didn't have the gaul to post that here. You should consider yourself lucky that a real live adult like Frank is actually taking the time to think of responses to your garbage. You give artists a bad name. We are definitely not all like you.

Request to Moderation Team

regarding this post:
kdub - "WOW how juvenile No surprise you didn't have the gaul to post that here. You should consider yourself lucky that a real live adult like Frank is actually taking the time to think of responses to your garbage. You give artists a bad name. We are definitely not all like you."

There doesn't appear to me to be any content whatsoever in this post. It's nothing but an insult. I think this is against your rules here:

"Post useful information and commentary, not ad-hominem attacks or insults."

victronix, Orangutan., LeftWright, loose nuke, and jkeogh I request your attention on this matter.

kdub, I'd be very happy to go on the air with you about this or talk to you face to face. Also, are you anonymous or is your name publicly known?

How do you like

... my artistic impression of you on wtcdemolition, Paul? (2011-02-17)


Nanothermite honeypot? Nice article, that. How about those "Sunstein infiltrator" polls, did you participate in those? Did you vote for me? Or Vulich?

Reprehensor about Responding to Libel


This is off topic here so I'll be as brief as possible. A person is not responsible for or endorsing the actions of others just because they may register and post on a forum. My policy has always been to communicate with as many people as possible regarding the Truth Movement. You can see that I registered there to make a joke on the poll that your talking about. I got the idea to do this because I saw you post a joke on that thread. You've brought up some very important points here about ethics in broadcasting and guilt by association. Let's talk about it in another location if you want.


Thank you David and

Thank you David and Jonathan,

I whole-heartedly support your point of view, stay away from the honeypot. Keep up the good work.

-Nathan Flach

We have needed this for a long time

and who better to pull it all together and make it easy to understand than David and Jon

These guys, and 9/11Blogger can expect to be attacked now. How do we know that? It is because attacking the messenger is all CIT has left - they have no science, no evidence....

... no photos of north path, no photos of overfly, no witnesses to overfly, nothing!

Their witnesses to north path are overwhelmed by witnesses to impact, all of whom are necessarily witnesses to south path because of the long, straight line of complex damage.

It's incredible

how CIT got their supporters to focus on a small batch of witnesses claiming they saw the plane fly north of some gas station, while attacking other witnesses who didn't, and simultaneously get their supporters to believe that when they saw the plane hit light poles or the Pentagon, they were lying or dreaming.

I made a mistake yesterday

I said CIT had only one thing left: to attack the messenger. In fact they have another: endorsements.

They have reminded us of these by posting the list at 911Oz. The list includes the following important figures:

David Ray Griffin
Aidan Monaghan
Richard Gage
Peter Dale Scott
Barrie Zwicker
Bruno Brukwiler
Dwain Deets

Are we sufficiently on a roll, after David and Jon's great contribution, to get these gentlemen to provide thoroughgoing retractions of their endorsements?

I hope so Frank!

With shows like Ventura's getting so much attention, these folks most certainly need to openly retract their CIT endorcements. It hasn't been the only reason, but certainly a large part of the reason why I have lost respect for those individuals.

Show "this is exactly what I mean:" by peacefulwarrior

Earlier this year I wrote a

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

Barrie Zwicker doesn't care about evidence - conversation with Zwicker

Dwain Deets is not an authority on what happened at the pentagon. Deets admitted to me he hadn't looked into it:



PDS doesn't endorse the flyover

CIT is all about the flyover, but PDS doesn't endorse it, either

Neither did DRG or Aidan Monaghan, from what i recall.

I Did Not Endorse A "Fly-Over" Theory

As I recall, I praised the information obtained from those interviewed as revealing and interesting.

As for what happened precisely at the Pentagon, declarations and debates are not entirely productive.

Don't get me wrong

Aidan, I know perfectly well that you have done great work for 9/11 truth. The point of my listing the names of those providing endorsement of CIT, is to remind us all that CIT uses these important names to promote their absurd ideas.

If you carefully examine the way CIT uses its interviews, as David and Jon have done, you will see that their methods are not scietific. They are the opposite. As such they should not be given any encouragement whatsoever.

I will enlarge a little on this theme.

1. Sgt Lagasse. Says his estimate of the plane's approach may be a bit out. He Insists that the only thing that can not be disputed is that the plane hit the Pentagon. CIT creates the opposite impression.
2. Robert Tucios. When asked if he saw the plane fly over says: "Fly over? No. The only thing I saw was … direct line to go into the Pentagon.…it collided.” CIT creates the opposite impression.
3. Sean Bogor. He was in the control tower with a perfect view of the impact point. He said: "I am watching the plane go all the way into the building”. “Once the plane went into the building it exploded, and once it exploded, I hit the floor and just covered up my head. It was like glass shattering and ceiling tile was falling and…” CIT says “more than likely he ducked”, trying to suggest that he couldn’t have seen the plane hit. This is plainly an attempt to create a false impression.
4. Roosevelt Roberts. Saw the plane pass over the light poles then heard impact and screaming. He is a witness to south pass and impact. CIT gives a different impression.
5. Edward Paik. Saw the plane through the window while he was inside his shop, therefore saw it south of his shop. CIT gives a different impression.
6. Terry Morin. Ran out from between the wings of the Navy Annex and watched the plane travel till it went out of sight below trees. Only if the plane was on the south path would this be possible. CIT gives a different impression.

So it goes on, witness after witness, confusion, obfuscation and wrong conclusions. CIT attempts to focus attention on the direction of approach - north or south. The real question is whether the plane was high or low - overfly or impact. Witness after witness provides evidence that it was low. Not one supports overfly. Switching attention from height to direction is a clever conjuring trick. It is not science. We should not fall for it.

Given that their presentations appear to be so consistantly misleading there is a need to reappraise their work. I reject the notion that this reappraisal would be divisive. It is their misleading presentations that are divisive. I reject the "big tent" notion that welcomes all comers regardless of quality.

CIT claims that their witnesses to north path, and therefore to overfly, are infallible because they have them on video. I have found an equal number of witnesses to impact, and therefore to south path, on video. Should we regard them as infallible too?

I am not suggesting that we should all attack CIT. All I am suggesting is that all those who have in any way supported their work would make a great contribution to healing the division in the movement if they withdrew their endorsements.

Show "Corrections" by Chris Sarns

I was trying to be brief

Chris, rather than spell out the full story which is available elsewhere I just put in a few words.

Terry Morin makes the case for south path even in the few words I gave. That was the point. CIT deception.

Re Roosevelt Roberts I believe you are mistaken. I think Broken Sticks provides a good analysis as you can see on this video:
You will see that CIT confuse the viewer about the explosion that Roberts referred to. He was clearly referring to the impact of a plane at the WTC he was watching on TV which occurred just before he came out and saw the plane over the light poles. Moments later the Pentagon was attacked and people were screaming. He did not see the impact because he was on the south side but he experienced it. He rushed inside and tried to get people to understand this was no fire drill. He is a south side, large commercial plane impact witness. Classic CIT deception - they call him a flyaway witness. What CIT want us to believe is that the plane could turn and fly away from a north path. This is absolutely physically impossible for the plane.

Show "Broken sticks is wrong" by Chris Sarns

Physics needed here

Chris, I agree it is possible to look at various parts of Roosevelt's testimony and come to different conclusions. Here we can use physics to sort out the possible from the impossible.

It is possible that Rooseveldt saw the replay of the impact at the WTC on TV, then walked outside and saw the plane briefly over the light poles, and then experienced the impact and heard the screaming.

Is it possible that Roosevelt saw a plane over the light poles which had come in from the north or south path and turned to fly away over the light poles? Physics says this is impossible. The turn required to go from the north path to the south west cannot be performed in the distance available from the Citgo to the Pentagon.

The turn is impossible. That part of the testimony must be discarded.

Show "Not possible at all" by Chris Sarns


It is absolutely impossible for a large plane to have flown away from a position low over the light poles to the south west unless it came over the roof of the Pentagon. Nobody else saw such a plane. So that cannot be what Roosevelt saw, no matter how many times he said it.

But he does describe these things in the following order: he was watching TV of a replay of the attack at the WTC and talking on the phone, "as I hang up the phone the plane hit the building", he ran outside, saw a plane over the light poles, "and then there was dust and stuff coming from the ceiling and you could hear people screaming".

The word "then" indicates sequence. If the dust and screaming came after seeing the plane over the poles, the "plane hit the building" must refer to what he saw on TV.

I know it is not very substantial but there is no way that a large plane could have been flying south west. So it must have been the one going east. It would "then" hit the Pentagon about a second later.

I don't think Roosevelt's testimony is clear enough to pursue further. There is heaps of testimony that the plane hit the Pentagon without him.

Roosevet's wife

I talked to Roosevelt's wife and she more or less told me that he had never mentioned anything about a plane flying over the pentagon to her. She also told me that people can twist his words and make it sound like anything they want. I don't know if that helps, but I thought I'd put it out there since he is being discussed.

Thank you Jeffrey

You have a gift for getting people to talk and your contributions are a major asset to the TM.

Thank you for all you have done to expose the CIT fraud.

I'm trying to catch up on all your calls and make a list. I'll post at pump-it-out when I have an outline. I've got so much info It's hard to get it all together. ;-)

Thanks to Stinke and Alpo, Roosevelt can't talk to anybody. But I believe I have established that he is NOT a flyover witness. Even if he saw a plane he describes, it could not be the one approaching from the west.


It is because of Craig and Aldo that Roosevelt will never speak again and those two guys know it. That is why, I think, Craig gave me Roosevelt's cell number, he knew there was absolutely no chance I would get anywhere and believe me I tried. (In fairness to Craig, he did tell me when he gave me the number he didn't think Roosevelt would talk to me)

I myself am personally satisfied from what his wife said that whatever went on in the CIT conversation, Roosevelt had no intention of implying 77 flew over the building. I have thought about the possibility that Craig and Aldo chopped the audio and mixed it around to make it what it is, but would never be able to prove it. Another strange "foul up" is that CIT said that they "accidently" didn't record another conversation they had with him if I remember correctly.

regarding this:

Chris Sarns - "Thanks to Stinke and Alpo, Roosevelt can't talk to anybody. "

My understanding of this sentence above is that "Stinke and Alpo" refers to Ranke and Aldo or Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of the Citizen Investigation Team. I think that "Alpo" is a shortening of "Alpo Buffet Slayer CIT" and that this is a phrase coined and used by people at the JREF Forum to insult Mr. Marquis' appearance.

Show "Important point" by Chris Sarns

I certainly agree

He is certainly not a flyover witness. But if the plane was not coming from the west, where was it coming from? If it was the second aircraft it must have been the C-130 and that would have been much higher, not "over the light poles". There are too many contradictions here for us to be able to say what happened, but I think we can agree on what did not happen - the plane from the west could not miraculously turn toward the south west in a couple of seconds.

Show "What plane? ;-)" by Chris Sarns

not easy

Chris, this column is getting ridiculously narrow. I will respond elswhere.

Show "No worries mate" by Chris Sarns

Which plane

approached from the southwest Chris?

Please think carefully before you answer. How could he have seen it if he was inside, felt the Pentagon impact, then ran outside? There was no preceding explosion.

Roosevelt is a SoC witness. CIT bamboozle him with their "second plane" chicanery. Let me help you with that. This is the crucial part right here:

Roosevelt Roberts:
Coming from the 27 side 27 heading, uh... uh east towards DC, coming from that area ..uh.. was the highway. If you would have come out 395 North heading towards the Pentagon you got off in south parking. You were like right there, except 395 went right into 27.

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

Roosevelt Roberts:
From the... uh.. can you repeat that one more time please?

Aldo Marquis:
Yeah, when it was heading away from the Pentagon, this .. this second plane, do you remember which direction it was heading?

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

Show "Lose the attitude " by Chris Sarns

Please rescind your endorsement


Not specifically endorsing flyover is meaningless as you have seen. CIT uses your endorsement for credibility and uses that credibility as leverage against anyone who opposes them.

As Kevin Ryan pointed out:
“endorsements” are a good way to pit people against each other, and that’s exactly what has been done. There has never been another issue in the truth movement that has required the pursuit of endorsements but, for some reason, this least important question about the Pentagon is promoted as an important issue requiring us to divide into camps. Divide and conquer is the strategy of the intentional disruptor.

You can help stop these disruptors by being the first to rescind your endorsement and condemning their attack on this website, it's owner Justin Keogh, [who is also a member of the Board at AE911Truth] and the other moderators.

CIT and their supporters have drawn a line in the sand that divides the TM.

Which side do you want to be on?

I'm Willing To Listen

Allow me to ask 2 questions:

- If the numerous accounts of a "south of Citgo" trajectory are wrong, why?

- If these accounts are correct, why is a "south of Citgo" trajectory not important with respect to the on scene physical evidence that corresponds to a north-of-Citgo trajectory?

Thank you for your reply

I take all witness statements at face value unless there is good reason to doubt them. It is well known that eyewitness statements are not necessarily reliable as to details. The thing that people will remember the most is the plane hitting the building. They did not think or care about the exact flight path until CIT made an issue of it. The whole rhubarb about NoC v SoC is psy-ops and a total waste of time IMO.

All the CIT witnesses who could see the Pentagon say the plane flew NoC, but they also it also said it hit the Pentagon so NoC is meaningless.

There is no doubt that a plane hit the Pentagon and this whole thing is meant to make the TM look stupid to the general public and cause division within the TM.

I regret to say that CIT has been most successful due in large part to the endorsements including yours. It is abundantly clear that CIT and their supporters are intentionally disrupting the TM as Kevin Ryan stated and now David and Jon have concurred.

Please join them in rejecting CIT and their video NSA so we can get rid of this rancor anchor.

Correct Me If I'm Wrong

To be honest, I haven't had the time to review all arguments in opposition to the CIT interviews. If I recall, the witnesses interviewed said the impact was out of view from their respective positions.

In any event, there seems to be no empiracally based evidence of a fly-over and those who insist that a fly-over occurred in the absence of reliable and empirically based evidence should refrain from such declarations.

The numerous "north-of-Citgo" accounts are still of interest to me. Resolving the discrepancies between the accounts and on scene evidence is of interest to me.

And I do agree with 9/11 Blogger's position that Pentagon blogs not containing new information should not be front-paged because such posts almost always lead to mostly unproductive, endless and heated debates.

Resolving discrepancies


I agree that the "north-of-Citgo" accounts are of interest. For some time I accepted them at the face-value presented by CIT and thought of them as just eyewitness inaccuracy, and not to be taken seriously because they were vastly outnumbered by the eyewitnesses to impact of a large commercial plane into the Pentagon close to the ground.

Now I see the CIT interviews in a different light. I see them as something we have in our hands to examine scientifically, just as we have the WTC dust and the videos of the controlled demolitions.

And what do I find when I examine the interviews? At the risk of being repetitive, I will mention Sgt Lagasse again. As he draws his north path on the map he says "Of course the angle could be wrong." Later he shows very clearly with his hands how the plane hit the Pentagon at an angle. Finally he winds up by telling us that everything he has said may be disputable but "the only thing that is American Airlines plane went from here into the Pentagon." He saw it, he remembered it clearly. Chris Sarns is right - you have to give more weight to the report of the impact than to the report of the prior path. See his excellent article.

Here we see CIT using Lagasse as irrefutable evidence of north path, yet it is not. Lagasse refutes it himself. Once my eyes were opened by that discovery I looked at other eyewitness reports and repeatedly found misleading treatment. What CIT has done is to focus on the north/south argument, while the real issue of concern is high/low. If high, perhaps the plane flew over. If low it could not have done so. The witnesses in every case say the plane was low. There is not one exception.

CIT tries to have us believe that their so-called north path witnesses have special significance because they have been captured on video. There are more witnesses on video to impact. So what does that do to special significance? I have assembled a short list of video eyewitness testimony to impact which I will send to you and to anyone interested who sends me their email address.

Should we endorse people who repeatedly mislead?

"If you think that someone

"If you think that someone saying that 911 was an inside job is on shaky ground well I disagree that's a slam dunk!"

Whether you think it's a slam dunk or not doesn't matter. Yelling it through a bullhorn on the street alienates people immediately. That was my point there.

"Lose respect for the committment and work done by these patriots? Why because they simply don't agree with your assessment of the available evidence concerning the pentagon? How can this be good for the movement?"

Oh no, I have lost respect for them not only for the fact that they disagree with every eye witness at or near the pentagon, but also for their support of CIT's offensive, disruptive, childish useless tactics. They must dissociate from these views or they will continue to be very easily discredited. Now if you read my comment above, I stated that these are not the only reasons why I have lost respect for some of the people on this list. DRG for instance with his re-issuing his debunked fake phone calls from the plane ideas in his new book. Barrie Zwicker's attacking blogger in a RCFP article and simultaneously attempting to prop up CIT's bunk research. There are many reasons. I think it is THE PERFECT THING for the movement to call out bad research and lies. This type of critique is the foundation of the movement. We saw a lie or bad research regarding OCT, so we called out people on it.

"When you know your government is lying it gets hard to know for sure where the whole truth lies."

Peaceful Warrior,
Do you STILL assert that there was no plane at the pentagon despite all the threads you have read (including this one), all the responses to your questions and claims, all of the eyewitnesses, all of the ad hominem attacks instead of simple explanations from those claiming 'no plane'? Do you just not want to believe that the gov't EVER tells the the truth? See I agree that it is hard to know where the whole truth lies. In regard to the pentagon however, this hard truth has been found. The research and evidence to prove the truth about a 757 hitting the pentagon exists in abundance.

I am not entirely convinced that a 757 hit the pentagon

I think some of the evidence does support that a 757 may very well have hit the pentagon. As I have said in that case it was remarkable from a great many standpoints not the least of which was the piloting, the lack of debris on the lawn, the impact at the accounting offices where extra reinforcement had been done, the c-ring round hole with limited debris, the fact that april gallop left the building shortly after impact without seeing a 757 plane wreck, the fact that Ms. Gallop has stood her ground not only in the hospital but since. Just the fact that agents went to the hospital to question her and strongly insist she was mistaken is somewhat suspicious. The lack of damage to the cab in question is also remarkable. I found some problems with some of the witness testimonies outlined in this site. The most credible witness IMO was the lady in the construction trailer who actually didn't see the impact. Her proximity to the "crash site" and her statement of a large explosion was very credible. However, why did she not speak about the sound of the aircraft (757) approaching before the explosion, she should have heard that. She talks about the plane only after saying others told her it was a plane. In the end do I think a 757 hit the pentagon, yeah maybe. Do I think it's important to be 100% sure or that the movement depends on it ? No, because no one area of the event is more important that the whole picture. WTC7 is the smoking gun but if we put all our chips on that then what if the limited hangout is that the bldg was pre-wired for security reasons. No the whole picture is what we need to remember. Nothing should have hit the pentagon, Mineta's testimony was not investigated, where the hell were the defenses, what was the EB4 doing in the air, these are my pentagon questions. People who have done very brave things and taken very brave stances with regard to the events of that day should never be cast out for their opinions on what happened at the pentagon or how they feel about Israeli influence or the holocaust. In the end at this point I would not 100% believe it even if the pentagon released new photos of the plane hiting it, sorry.
How many people believe in UFOs? There is plenty of evidence, ground radar, plane radar, pictures, videos, soil samples, millions of witnesses including military, security, policeman, high ranking polictial figures. The evidence far surpasses the current evidence with regard to a 757 hitting the pentagon by any reasonable standard yet the cover-up continues. Without a mass movement I would expect nothing more from the 911 truth movement. Was 911 an inside job you bet the bank it was! Shoot the messenger if you want.

Chris, Column got too narrow below

so I brought my response up here.

You made the point that with some letters after my name I might have more chance than you of getting some cooperation in the withdrawal of endorsements. It is not easy. I have already had considerable email exchanges with several on the list of endorsements with no success. I won't name them but report that the responses have been defensive, and in one case abusive, rather than scientific discussion of evidence.

I am hoping that the advent of David and Jon into the arena will provide moral support and give some the encouragement needed to review the evidence. It is now much easier to find evidence that CIT's investigative techiques leave much to be desired. It was easy to be deceived during the heyday of CIT. Now that their image is fading it is becoming easier to examine the evidence calmly, and sort statements on merit rather than being swept along by the crowd.

My favourite witnesses are Sgt Lagasse and Robert Hemphill.

Lagasse is the well known supporter of the north path which CIT relies on to conclude that the plane could not have done the damage, therefore must have flown over, the damage being done by explosives. Few people are aware that Lagasse shows clearly with his hands how the plane hit the Pentagon at an angle. “It didn’t hit it at a 90 degree angle…it hit it offset.” “When the plane hit it just kind of disappeared.” “…there is only one thing that is irrefutable…the fact is American Airlines plane went from here into the building… you can pick apart everything else…” Clearly Lagasse is a witness to impact and hence to south path. You don't get that impression from CIT.

Hemphill is interesting because his observation position, high up in the Navy Annex, is perfect. He says the plane passes over his right shoulder straight to the overpass of VA27 over Columbia Pile, [where the light poles are] and straight into the Pentagon. He also says that the plane passes over, or a little north, of Citgo service station. These statements are clearly contradictory as that straight line goes south of Citgo. He is not in his office when interviewed years later and is unaware that he has given contradictory statements. Which should we believe? Well he is adamant that the plane was on his right and went straight into the Pentagon. He repeats it many times with emphasis in two interviews, and in early and recent statements. Which bit does CIT sieze on? North of Citgo of course. This should get the Cherry Picking award.

So I don't think it is letters after the name that will do the trick. It is the tireless work of people like BrokenStyx and Shure, re-analyzing the evidence and re-interviewing people, that will make progress possible.

Thank you for your efforts

We disagree on some points but we manage to keep it respectful in public.

I think the best course of action is to encourage more respected individuals like David and Jon to "come out" and reject the disinformation and disruption by CIT and their supporters.

At the same time I suggest that we compile a complete list of witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon including the 7 that CIT interviewed and all those Jeffrey has interviewed. He has already made a short video of just a few.

Arguing which path the plane took is a waste of time IMO because it means nothing to people not familiar with the ongoing debate. Listing witnesses who SAW the plane hit the Pentagon directly refutes the flyover theory.

FYI: I did the research and discovered the statements by Lagasse, Brooks and Turcios. It is unfortunate that few people bothered to read my S&A or refer others to it as it clearly demonstrates that NSA qualifies as disinformation by definition.

I mentioned the letters after your name because my S&A, like the indisputable proof that the fire on floor 12 had gone out over 1/2 hour before the collapse of WTC 7 and therefore the NIST final report on WTC 7 is a fraud, my research is generally ignored for lack of stature rather than lack of content.

The Pentagon and 9/11/01

David and Jon,

I appreciate this post for the facts and evidence presented, some of its speculation and reasoning, but I also found what I believe is misleading and divisive.

You wrote:

"..The “Flyover theory” had recent success in getting main stream media coverage on the Jesse Ventura “Conspiracy Theory” show."

This may be more of your focus than of the Jesse Ventura program. It only briefly mentioned that it was an "opinion" of one of the researchers. What was successful for the 9/11 truth movement was the unanswered questions that were highlighted in the show, which were in part also in some of your commentary above. The simple realization that a plane could be in the vicinity of the Pentagon's airspace after the WTC strikes is a powerful realization of an inside job, plus the cover-up and confiscation of any proof of what the officials say happened. This alone justifies further questions, and more focus should be applied on the Minetta testimony of Cheney's appearance of providing stand-down orders to allow the Pentagon to be hit. Where's the black boxes, and why cover-up the ground to hide any evidence, intimidate witnesses. April Gallup walked through the hole where the explosion had been. She attempted a lawsuit for a real investigation. It was thrown out of Court.

I agree that focusing on a "flyover" theory has become divisive and a distraction. Thankfully Jesse did not get into the blogger-CIT rift. But I find 911bloggers do.. quite a bit.. so even discussing the Pentagon.. the discussion gets pushed over to the "flyover" battle.

I agree with you both that WYC-7 and hard evidence researched there is key.. but also the active cover-up of the government of events that day, including the cover-up of the Pentagon. Because of all the deceptions of that day, we must all demand proof or hard evidence of what happened. The Jesse Ventura Pentagon program was vital in this regard.. and should not get pushed into this point of "flyover" theory based on some eyewitness accounts.

Many sit in prison from eyewitness accounts that are innocent. Instead of fighting with one another.. we should use information where we most all agree to demand proof of what happened and highlight unanswered questions to be raised and dealt with. The cover-up has been proven over and over again.. which is why we are all still concerned on this issue.. and false justification for endless war and loss of civil liberties.

Flyby News
New 9/11 Investigation vs New World Order
perspective - archives - resources

Enough !

There is no need to fight amongst our selfs. We all know the official story is bullsh*t........ United we will stand.

This We Know:

9/11 was orchestrated by insiders…

* with access to high tech military-grade nano-energetic materials (aka nano-thermite)
* with access to the infrastructure of some of the most highly secure buildings in New York over an extended period of time
* with the expertise to accomplish the most difficult demolitions in history
* with the ability to manage public perception of the event despite numerous contrary contemporaneous eyewitness reports
* with the ability to coordinate the take-downs of the twin towers with the airplane flights
* with the ability to coordinate with the military to not intercept the airplane flights
* with the ability to stage a highly coordinated cover-up, starting on the day of 9/11 itself
* with the ability to prevent ANY investigation for many months
* with the ability to stage-manage fraudulent investigations once the demand grew too loud (the 9/11 Commission report the NIST reports)

No one wants to fight here.

There is clear information that needs responding to. Criticizing CIT's overtly audacious behavior is the opposite of fighting. WISDOM and critiques of theories with facts are the are the foundations of the 9/11 Truth Movement. I personally don't stand along side people who simply yell out 'the official story is BS.' There are far more effective ways to open minds over proclaiming your personal conclusions which include profanity.

P2OG.In the houses of shadow everybody Lies.

Hope we all feel better.

Question., do the people of the free world get to see the material evidence of 911 and TEST IT in the open courts of law? if those holding the guns and supeona power don't want it seen?

Whatever flight 77 was or was turned out to be, is in camera. Somewhere. In files, data stream alongside the puts and pulls and ambassadorial '12 minute Iran /Israelii attack' warning' signs.

Whatever flight 77 WAS, was followed by radar, security camera, and recorded. abstractedly, casually, could be argued pornographically observed and recorded by the great powerhorseE4B lazily overflying the operation.
the plane the military refuses to acknowledge as there. Was watching. Recording. data.
REPORTING the data.
to? whom?

The Military refuses to DISCUSS the E4B, a provable presence on the field of battle: just as NIST refused to acknowledge free-fall .

To whom do you do the asking?? or demanding?
If, as in mr Obamas court,
nobodies talking.
People are busy.

Is Bradly Manning is being tortured right now in heartland USA for his service to humanity?
Can anyone help him?

Timing is everything.

It doesn't really matter what hit the pentagon.

The more the official story is questioned the better. There are more holes in the official story than a spaghetti strainer. Now I am well aware that many folks here think the details are critical to the sucess of the movement, however I strongly disagree. This case will never be won because of evidence alone. Only a mass movement will suceed in getting attention and justice in this matter. Lots of evidence has been around for years now with members of congress being informed and informed again. The building what campaign and the Jesse Ventura show has helped to spread the seeds of doubt among the masses. This is a good thing. Those who feel the movement can be derailed by inconsistent or unconfirmed aspects of these questions are mistaken. The divide and conquer method of pitting activists against each other is the greater danger. If two million people called their representatives today with questions about 911 and more than half of them questioned what hit the pentagon would that really be unproductive? If 30,000 people joined Jon Gold at the white house will you turn them away if they don't have the right facts about the pentagon? Even if a plane did hit the pentagon as proclaimed there are lots of questions left unanswered and the more people question the official story the better. We need to make sure that it doesn't matter what hit the pentagon or how WTC7 fell, it's the whole story that fails to hold up to real questions. We must have a united and well rounded attack with as many troops as we can gather. If some of them are carrying some mistaken info I can live with that as long as they carry enough of truth at the same time. We can disagree over what hit the pentagon and still move forward as a movement. The attack at the pentagon brings the largest discussions at this site, discussion is good but hostile and divisive attitudes will continue to sabotage the movement.

If you have a problem with what I say why don't

you just respond.

I haven't voted you down (yet)

But I can say I believe in pursuing the truth, wherever it leads. That includes if the truth leads to an Al Qaeda-only affair, but so far, it hasn't. In fact, there are reasons to believe Al Qaeda themselves suspect the US government of involvement, or at the very least, geopolitical games around Afghanistan. What will the 'debunkers' say if they are forced to admit that their objects of supreme hatred, Al Qaeda, weren't even convinced themselves of being the sole instigator of 9/11? They will say it is propaganda of course, but in the context of the massive war propaganda machine in the US, such an excuse is laughable.

Now, as for the Pentagon, a plane hit there, and I will say so because it is so. Neither saying different, nor a position of agnosticism, nor a legion of recruits to the truth movement who believe no plane hit the Pentagon are beneficial. In fact they are detrimental, and cost huge amounts of time in terms of needless research to satisfy the most trivial and poorly informed questions about the Pentagon. However, I will not dodge such questions and admit if I don't know something. I do know, however, and clearly, that a plane hit the Pentagon.

If I'm wrong, I will bake Aldo Marquis a giant cake for his birthday party. But I'm not. So I won't. This is the truth movement, and it is therefore imperative that we tell the truth at all times, and that we do not cuddle up to exciting (but outrageously false) theories just because this enhances cohesion and facilitates 'recruitment'.

The one thing that distinguishes genuine truth seekers from 'debunkers' is intellectual integrity and a rejection of pseudoskepticism. The capacity to reject nationalist and semi-patriotic mumbo-jumbo and to shake off the burden of fear of anti-dissident reprisals. That's called 'backbone' and 'principle' and the reflexive professional hate speech 'debunkers' don't have any. Truth be told or may the heavens fall. A plane hit the Pentagon. It's that simple.

If you disagree, that is your full right, but I suggest you make a list of all the people and things that must be fake in order to satisfy the alternative hypotheses. It will be long, and the fakery scenario so quixotic as to be almost metaphysically impossible. Then question then becomes: can CIT make a plane disappear from the skies of Arlington or merely wipe it from your mind?

what plane was it, though? AA 77? Something else?

SnowCrash, I assume, from other comments you've made, that you believe it was a 757 that looked like an American Airlines 757.

The all important factor is whether or not it was AA 77. No one has presented evidence that AA 77 didn't crash there. otoh, there's not a whole lot of evidence it was AA 77. The FDR, which some think would be difficult to manipulate and hide evidence of manipulation (i don't know), apparently shows a continuous flight from Dulles to the Pentagon. AA 77 apparently disappeared for a short time from radar, but otherwise the data shows the same flight path as the FDR- from what I've read. Apparently, personal effects of passengers and crew were recovered at the Pentagon and ID'd. And, apparently, autopsy reports ID'd the passengers and crew. These have not been released.

If people are skeptical, fine- i can't prove AA 77 hit. At this late stage, it seems likely many people will never be convinced, no matter what evidence the govt releases. However, there's no basis for claiming '9/11 was an inside job cuz AA 77 didn't hit the Pentagon' cuz there's no evidence it didn't. So, depending on the context, I usually refer to AA 77 as having hit. There's so much other evidence that the OCT is false, so much other evidence pointing to the involvement of insiders.

I believe

It was AA 77, but I leave room for doubt there. There is this:

pentagon,aa 77,9/11

The primary reasons I believe something is very wrong with 9/11 are the military exercises, the Saudi-Bush-hijacker ties, Israeli/Pakistani involvement, Ali Mohamed, the cover up, the foreknowledge, the dereliction of duty, the motive, means & opportunity, the lack of air defenses, the WTC dust, first responders, the NCA's failure to properly give timely shootdown orders, the justification for war, the anthrax attacks, nanothermite, temperature anomalies, WTC 7, the insider trading, obstruction of justice, the visas, able danger... there is so much.

But... whatever it is, even if it was just a cover up, that would be enough for me to be a 9/11 truther.

You may very well indeed be right about the plane

however if you doubt that 911 was an inside job when your own primary concerns are "are the military exercises, the Saudi-Bush-hijacker ties, Israeli/Pakistani involvement, Ali Mohamed, the cover up, the foreknowledge, the dereliction of duty, the motive, means & opportunity, the lack of air defenses, the WTC dust, first responders, the NCA's failure to properly give timely shootdown orders, the justification for war, the anthrax attacks, nanothermite, temperature anomalies, WTC 7, the insider trading, obstruction of justice, the visas, able danger... there is so much" I think it's time to throw in the towel and just say it had to have been. No plane should have hit the pentagon, Norman Mineta told the truth, Osama didn't schedule any US military exercises that day and the israeli camera crew was no coincidence. False flags are flying everywhere NYC the 7/7 bombings, the moscow bombings, it's all been done and there's nothing new under the sun. History is filled with false flag events and the masses have been duped since the beginning of time. The US is now the number one tyrant in history dropping more bombs, killing more civilians, starving the most kids and then the criminals get decorated, rich, memorialized and are untouchable. Perhaps Mao starved more people and the case could be made that he killed more civilians however with respect to outright terror by bombs no one comes close to the mighty US war machine. Obama is a war monger, tortures people, and is just another puppet who is covering up 911 and using the war on terror to dominate the world and steal it's resouces for the greedy! Thats the real truth my friend.


I have thought about throwing in the towel, yes. Have you read the articles on my blog?

photo source/more info?

this is interesting- i've seen it somewhere before, forgot about it- where's it from/any info linking it to the Pentagon site/AAL 77?

Are there other photos available w/ ID #'s?

looking at 2 french language 911blogging sites

someone there called

says, talking about the number 5537 in snowcrash's pic

C'est un numéro de série utilisé pour la maintenance de l'avion.

translates as :
its a serial number used for maintenance of the plane


someone called Redford says:
Je suis assez de l'avis de JP, à savoir que ça n'est probablement pas sur ce type d'élément qu'on pourrait trouver le numéro de série de l'appareil (apparament ils sont collés par Boing, pas AA).

translates as:
I am quite of the same opinion as JP, in knowing that it's probably not on this type of piece that one could find the serial number of the plane (apparently they [serial number] are stuck on by Boeing, not AA)


To clarify

My intention wasn't to suggest that part contains the serial number of the plane. This is obvious.

It's a plane part, from an American Airlines aircraft, with a serial number. No more no less.

Yes, I just put 5537 into a

search engine (ixquick, recommended by Cynthia McKinney) to learn a bit more and found those 2 sites


claimed in 2007 that this part was "the power supply for the emergency lights".


"There is no basis for claiming 9/11 was an inside job cuz AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon." True because we don't know that to be the case for sure. But there are other ways that the Pentagon attack could be fairly called an inside operation:

1. If AA77 was under remote control when it hit the Pentagon.
2. If Dick Cheney issued a stand down.
3. If explosives were also used.

And obviously if anything other than 77 (any other Boeing or aircraft) in fact hit the building then it's game over. In addition to all of the other examples of a blatant cover-up that David and Jon posted above-- and suspicious behavior by that Brigadier General who relinquished his command the day before. (W. Montague Winfield)

Hopefully a scientific analysis of the FDR can shed some more light.

Show "Barbara Honegger sure seems" by sewalkie


Thank for at least not assuming we're all agents. This is refreshing and an improvement.

As you know, I've never claimed that either CIT or CIT supporters were 'agents'.

Back to the topic: Dwain Deets knows nothing about the Pentagon. He's a newbie.

Have you read my response to RCFP here?

What is your personal counter-response?

Did you see my exchange with Dwain here?

Did you know that Dwain Deets admitted to Jeff Hill he knew little about the Pentagon?

Given the preponderance of the evidence, a 'flyover with bombs' isn't only unlikely, it's utterly absurd...


Hi Michael. Taking a step back I am of two minds about the disposition of those who believe and write that something other than a plane hit the pentagon. Here's my charitable assessment: many people, and I count myself among this group, found their way to the 911 truth movement based on a combination of intuition and information available on the internet. Perhaps some people had heard vaguely of problems with the official story, or had stumbled unwittingly across the information by chance. Once people who later identified with the movement saw this information they were open minded enough, or critical enough to accept that the official story is false. But the question is what was the state of the information that many of these people found when they first started seeking it out? Unfortunately a mixture of credible information was mixed with the pentagon no-airliner hypothetical, and it was easy for people entering the movement and seeing these claims as pillars of the truth movement culture to accept them and share them with others. It was in that epistemic environment that many people entered the movement, and it is unfortunate because it has caused a lot of confusion. it is hard for people to reject ideas that once seemed to be part and parcel of a movement that had as profound a psychological impact on them as the 911 truth idea must have had. So it is in this charitable mode that I recognize the necessity of helping to instill in the movement and it's adherents high standards of evidence, realizing that many people, through little fault of their own, found themselves favorably disposed to implausible claims. But I am of two minds. Less charitably I sometimes think that it is too naive to assume that this pernicious no-airline theory is entirely the outcome of human error in processing evidence, but is something more disturbing. A manufactured diversion to discredit future researchers. In that case there would be two groups, one misinformed, and one DISINFORMING. I make no claims about any particular individual in this regard, and would expect such a phenomena to be extremely marginal, located centrally and then distributed by misinformed people. It is in this mode that I feel a greater sense of urgency in advocating for a more disciplined intellectual culture in this movement. In the end it is only something like that that can ferret out the sources of poor information that continue to plague our movement.

Good analysis

But I've said in the past, when I cited Duane Clarridge, what really works excellently, is sowing paranoia.

I have had so many experiences, it would be undoable to list all my reasons to be reluctant about labeling anything or anyone disinfo. Usually, though, it's because it just isn't true. I have discovered the identities of people who behaved exactly like one might think a 'disinfo agent' would act, only to find out they were simply individuals consumed with hatred for 9/11 truthers. Anti-conspiracy theorists, which is equally deluded as thinking everything is a conspiracy.

Furthermore, I know where the actual 'disinfo agents' hang out and their various modes of operation, I will write about that in the future.

Jon Cole speaks of the 'arbitration of competing hypotheses'. This is the scientific method. There is also the journalistic method. In order to protect myself and my research from erroneous judgments, I have set a high standard for labeling something 'disinformation', similar to the high standards of evidence you just described.

Making judgment calls on whether or not somebody is a disinformation agent or a propaganda asset is an extremely flawed process. There are usually two competing hypotheses: somebody is either disruptive because of a firmly held, but deeply flawed, belief system, willing to lie to prevent losing face, or somebody is actually intentionally deceiving, on instructions from a government or corporate linked entity.

Many people heavily underestimate the ubiquitousness of the former, in favor of the latter. Thus, a disinformation agent is defined as 'somebody who disruptively disagrees with me' or simply 'somebody who disagrees with me'. Sometimes, inductive behavioral, sociological or institutional analysis is all a researcher has to go on, but I have seen the disastrous consequences of people proclaiming to be 'disinfo experts', such as Adam Ruff or Barry Zwicker, only to completely come to nothing. We end up with camp based rivalry with both camps accusing each other of 'working for the other side'.

The exponent of this misguided thinking can be found in the superhuman, omnipotent, omniscient properties attributed to Mossad by deeply suspicious Middle Easterners, perhaps understandably:

Saudis detain Israeli vulture for being ‘Zionist spy’
Shark Attack in Egypt? Must Be the Work of Israeli Agents

This is, of course, the hyperbolic end of the spectrum, but in more murky cases I try to avoid this pitfall by raising the bar before accusing. When disruptive behavior can be sufficiently explained by obsessive irrationality, specific, tangible, credible evidence is needed. Otherwise, as the saying goes 'paranoia will destroy ya'. I believe CIT are captives of their own cognitive biases.

Show "Yes, purists not agents" by sewalkie

I guess it's convenient

to vociferously pretend there aren't mountains of evidence for a plane crash.

I guess it's a good 'debate tactic' to play dumb and be willfully ignorant. Nobody really cares about the video anymore. And I sure as hell aren't going to repost all the evidence I've littered over the Pentagon threads over the years.

You don't fool me. You do this deliberately, out of spite, and you have no intellectual integrity.

I suggest you politely contact every single witness CIT interviewed and tell them about your 'theory' and see what they think about it. Unlike CIT, this time, be up front with them.

I suggest you come with some evidence FOR YOUR THEORY for a change, instead of histrionic demands for evidence for a plane crash which has long since been provided... superfluously, but to no avail.

But you won't, because you are unable to just... let go of the things you thought you knew about the Pentagon, which were catastrophically wrong.

Pentagon no plane crash theory, slipshod and utterly incompetent as it is, is a huge embarrassment. You have no physical evidence, no witnesses, nothing. I'm writing transcripts of Jeff Hill's interviews as we speak. I know now why April Gallop saw no wreckage... because you couldn't see a hand in front of your face inside of the Pentagon.

I know now what might have caused the secondary explosions: not only the diesel-filled generator, but oxygen and acetylene tanks. Flyover is a hoax. I'm furious.

Show "My intention is not to make anyone furious" by sewalkie


Who are these aeronautical experts and pilots you are referring to?
Balsamo, Deets, Aimer, Lear?

Show "Yes" by sewalkie

g-force calculations


Are you aware that the calculations published by Pilots for 9/11 Truth are incorrect, vastly overestimating the g-force required for pull up?

Their claim that the official story is false, being based on their flawed calculations, is unfounded.

I know the police sometimes fabricate evidence in the hope of convicting someone they believe guilty but most of us do not approve of that practice. We wish to live in a society which is based on law, not bullying and deception.

Now P4T may believe their calculations are correct, but it is hard to respect that position given that they had the errors explained to them long ago.

Definition of disinformation

False or deliberately misleading information

Intent is irrelevant.

Not including in NSA, the clear statements by all CIT's witnesses who could see the pentagon, that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon, and claiming that these statements prove the plane flew over the Pentagon is deliberately misleading.

The intent is in your definition.

"Deliberately" speaks to intent. Apparently it was important enough to be included in your definition.

Point taken

I was just about to change that to "Motivation is irrelevant"

Not "my" definition. Windows word docx dictionary definition.

yin yang

I do not know if a plane hit.
I do not know if a plane didn't.
I refer back to first moment images of impact point b4 collapse and the notion that a fully laden 757 went through that hole, at ground level, over that pearly golf green lawn, shredding itself into the tiniest pieces of plane ever known to man [except 93].,

....try as I might, I cannot remove my doubt.


The plane hit, the hole was ample to admit the heavy parts of a 757, the plane didn't strike the lawn, yet the lawn was littered with debris because of the impact, and the plane didn't shred itself, the collision with a massive building did.

I retrospect, I understand that the biggest source of confusion are the unrealistic expectations of debris from high speed plane collisions. How much recognizable plane debris was there at the WTC crash site? Could you explain? Would you have believed NPT had there been no videos of any of those impacts?


What were Dick Cheney's orders? This should be the focus of a mass P.R. campaign by the Truth Movement . If the Vice President was tracking Flight 77 and giving orders, then we damn well need to know what they were. Stand-down or shoot down--- either way it's a problem for Cheney. And the fact that he told the 9/11 Commission that he didn't even arrive at the PEOC until almost 10:00 is problematic. Plus the fact that Mineta's testimony was omitted from the report is even more fuel for our cause. "What hit?" is divisive and could potentially cause problems if the perps provided proof.

"What orders?" is unifiying....... and serves to preempt the potential risk of the perps playing the "trump" card. It pays dividends for us. I personally think that this is deserving of a logo and website.

BuildingWhat? + WhatOrders? =

Douglas Cochrane could answer

Douglas Cochrane could answer that question if he wanted to.


oh to be so sure.

try as I do to cognitate your breadth and width,
I have DOUBT. I DOUBT this hypothesis.
unrelated to expectation of anything including high speed plane collision at ground level by the lumbering carthorse 757 being so beautifully driven,
against the odds.
For the odds are not good.

In the towers I see the figures of the craft gashed into their heart cores like knives, in outrageous graphic form,
clear as the bells of apocalypse.

In my wildest fantasy,
the pentagon footage gives me no such comfort.
Gives the outline of an aircraft no such credit.
Only smoke and mirrors.

All Smoke and Mirrors? Hardly "remo"

Take your doubts and let them guide you on a search through the stacks of eye witness testimony sited throughout this thread. All the photos of wreckage and bodies. I appreciate that you want to express doubt, however, your doubts have been sufficiently responded to and covered several times already. There is no point in pontificating your skepticism, since you have obviously not gone through the evidence which you are obviously quite concerned about. Please do not have the audacity to suggest that folks haven't been unwilling to be patient with the positions you are taking. (and this goes for many of the folks who still have questions about the pentagon). Thoughtful people have now devoted an exhausting amount of time to see if there is any shred of proof to back up your speculative skepticism. If you have some facts, lets talk about them.

speculative pontificated skepticism?

Thank you kdud, for your patience. Very kind. It certainly must be tiresome having to lead the blind to the doors of reason, notwithstanding the strange and opposite information streams under discussion here. I am not sure that 'speculative skepticism' makes sense, but I get your drift. 'Speculation' would probably do. 'Skepticism' certainly would.

So far I am up to the witness testimony of the two Pentagon Police admitting puzzlement at the official flight path being shown at total odds with their determined memory otherwise,
I reviewed imagery of the clean impact hole the 757 wings neatly folded into, a most remarkable act of avionics. Yesterday I reconsidered Sgt Sepulveda having seen part of the cockpit with a pilot and a terrorist still strapped in their seats in the D ring.
This I have great trouble with, but I am determined to consider the evidence presented in explanation.

This is a very important discussion, and to be frank, my part is nothing in it. Or at best, this is my part.
I have never visited the pentagon. I do not know if I would even want to visit the country again given the disgusting display of fascist aggression its military now exercises globally, so
all the information I have has been gained through media and internet. I am at the whim and wit of my own experience, and the evidence sieve within me is all I have to go on. Your comments included.
Who is credible. what they saw. when and where. The initial reports. subsequent reports. the commission report. The photographs/images. The doubts raised suggesting something other than 77. The vocal response to that and now the final frenzied push to overturn CIT. Very unhealthy.
How is this to be resolved.? Discussions by the major players so far expressed in these streams may engineer the truth. somehow. If they would talk to each other. I certainly hope so. An inquiry with full supeona power And, I will certainly be following it as it unfolds with or without your advice.
Meantime, in the spirit of your 'wanting to talk', perhaps you can help me with two questions. Is it true the bodies of those identified from 77 were autopsied at a different facility to those from Pentagon staff? And, where are the signed under oath witness statements from the personnel in the E4B? They could probably help me understand the situation better.

we spell that name


Tho the heavens fall.....

that link's a bit old now

some of the links in it don't work any more
nonetheless a lot of good info- i read every word and saw every available image
the person who compiled it writes in the comments:
As to why that 757 hit the Pentagon, or what were the driving forces behind it hitting the Pentagon that is entirely another matter for an entirely different discussion.

if we dont wise up as a movement then people will debunk us on the pentagon though we may have valid information on nanothermite and CD


Not my finest hour. Been a long and bruising night.

Thank you for calling me on it.



My strong support for David Chandler and Jon Cole

VERY well written comment, gentlemen.

Let's keep Norman Mineta's whistleblower testimony out on the playing field -- it is enough to bring charges against Dick Cheney, and one should add charges of prevaricating to get us into pre-emptive war against Iraq, and torture contrary to international law and the Geneva conventions.

Some of you will remember the "Impeach Cheney First" effort which peaked in 2006-2007, which I also supported.

Is it too late for justice to be served?

I agree with RL McGee and others that asking "What orders?" is much more important than asking "What hit?"

Just got off the phone

with another eyewitness, but he must be an agent because he works for USA Today. Or, maybe I'm an agent because I didn't focus on the CITGO:

Conversation with Peter Kopf 01/06/11 -


Just got off the phone

with Allen Cleveland who was at the National Airport subway station and would of had a perfect view for a flyover. The only problem is he didn't see no flyover!

Conversation with Allen Cleveland 01/06/11 -

(posted with permission from Allen)



Jeff, you are doing a truly wonderful job collecting these phone interviews, building up the evidence.

I wonder if it would be a good thing, if you are talking to someone like Peter Jopf, who had a very clear view of the impact, whether it would be worth asking them if they would be willing to go to the site where they were at the time and be interviewed on video there. If so, perhaps someone could be found to do the video interview. This would show the world that their view was clear.

The only tool CIT has to strengthen their case is that they interviewed people on video on site. It is powerful. We should be able to match that.

Thank's Frank :)

If anyone wanted to take on the project Frank proposed, I would gladly help get them in contact with the witnesses.


So who has a video camera and lives in Washington?

Not so fast

If this is done haphazardly and unmethodically, it will do more harm than good.

The witness should be presented a satellite image to draw on, just like CIT. Such a drawing should then be signed.

A witness testimony expert should be present. The time elapsed since 9/11 should be taken into account. No leading questions should be asked.

And so on and so forth. Like I said, a slapdash effort would be counterproductive. Just going out there with a video camera won't suffice.

Then, the security measures and possible Pentagon police interference will make interviews and filming almost if not completely impossible. The majority of witnesses won't even want to speak, considering the circus of defamation CIT has unleashed.

You are quite right SnowCrash

It would have to be done with great care. There are a number of questions which must be asked if the effect is to be convincing. We could start a short list now.
1. Where were you at the time? The camera must pan round and prove that the view was unobstructed.
2. Where was the plane when you first saw it? Camera scans landmarks.
3. Did you see the plane hit or just deduce that it must have? If deduced the deduction must be explained and valid. For example went behind trees but never re-appeared.
4. Did you follow the plane all the way in?
5. Did you see it hit light poles?
Interviewer should bear in mind that CIT draws the person into discussion of north and south path while the real issue is high or low. So any person who saw the plane approach but did not see it hit should be asked how low it was and whether it could have missed.

There will be difficulties of course but Shure has shown that there are people out there who are willing to talk. Some might well be willing to be interviewed on camera especially if they have been annoyed by previous misrepresentation. Needs a bit of thought.


I agree. Good thing you mention the topography, because CIT always has some obstructing treeline ready to help out if someone accidentally might claim they saw the plane hit. I don't buy it. No such standards are set for flyover witnesses.. for which they have none.

Interview with David...

The Visibility911 program will be interviewing David this week and will talk to hime about this statement and his new DVD compilation...should be very interesting indeed!

Kind regards John

Witness: DC 9/11 | National Geographic Channel

A video I have never seen until today! Thank you Matt for putting it online and letting me know.

Watch the witness starting at

Watch the guy starting at the (31minute12second mark) of the video and think about Roosevelt Roberts when listening to the guy talking at (31min51sec. mark) about what the lady saw!!!

everyone, FYI the smoking gen. is in the vid at


Porter Goss planes as weapons WAS considered- in vid at


Show "Lose the attitude SnowCrash" by Chris Sarns

Allen Cleveland told me the

Allen Cleveland told me the C130 was painted differently than he is used of seeing them. I now think after watching that video above, and hearing the guy describe what the lady said that RR was talking about the C130 as the second plane. Only he didn't recognise it for what it was becasue it was painted different than what he was used to seeing and mistook it for a commercial jet!

Show "Second plane" by Chris Sarns

Roosevelt Roberts

Saw TWO planes. Which plane came from 27, heading east towards DC Chris? Just answer the question. You don't like the fact that NoC + impact isn't viable, so you, like CIT, MUST deny Roberts is a SoC witness. I know the transcript Chris, I damn well wrote it.

Show "RR did NOT see two planes" by Chris Sarns

You need a cartoon to explain

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


But.. you know about this cartoon, you just don't want people to see it. It's a good explanation, but I 'got' it from reading my transcript... independently.

Now, go ahead and reply, deny it all, but the building Roosevelt refers to is the WTC. The building he refers to is NOT the Pentagon. The 'synchronized timing' Roosevelt speaks about is the South Tower plane crash replay he saw on TV while he hung up the phone. He ran outside, saw AA 77 approach the Pentagon, then stuff started falling from the ceiling.

Library Of Congress - Interview with Roosevelt Roberts

In the mean time, you still owe somebody an apology. And it's not me.

Show "Have it your way" by Chris Sarns


RR - "It was timed for precision"

RR watches a replay of UA175 hitting the tower on tv. The roof starts rumblimg at the pentagon at the same time. He runs outside to see AA77 near the lightpoles by south parking as it hits the pentagon. At pretty much the same time, he see's the C130 turning and flying away. RR does not recognise the plane flying away as a C130 becasue it was painted differently than normal C130's he is used to seeing in the area (just as Allen Cleveland stated) and RR refers to it as a commercial jet by mistake.

RR - "Yes sir, that's not what I think I saw it, it was two aircraft that's for sure."

Show "I saw it - singular" by Chris Sarns


The C130 "circled around". How would you know it didn't fly away to the south west?

Why do I get the feeling you are trying to confuse the issue like onesliceshort etc.. at 911Oz?

"As I hung up the phone the plane hit the building" - UA175

"I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot" - AA77

Show "Why do continue to ignore the fatal flaw of this hypothesis?" by Chris Sarns

CIT Interview

Facts? Reality? Impossible?

Where have I heard that before?

It seemed like that it came from uh... it... hold on a second... it seem like it came from uh... south west.. look, the same way it came in or appeared that it came in, almost right where that first plane had uhm... fell into the Pentagon right there, it.. it.. the.. it looked like it came from that direction.

Could Roosevelt possibly be talking about UA175 - No.

Could Roosevelt possibly be talking about AA77 - No.

Unless we are going to add a fouth plane into the picture, there is only one more choice!

What do you think he is talking about?

Show "I see no difference between OCTers, JREFers, CITers " by Chris Sarns

I don't want to waste energy

on Roosevelt Roberts. There is plenty of witness evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon. I hereby withdraw my comments on him and will discuss him no further.

I find plenty like Lagasse and Hemphill to show how CIT works.

I agree

You're absolutely right Frank. Roosevelt is an endless waste of time and energy. I will not bother talking about him here anymore either.

shure: the paint job on a c130?

I don't think the paint job on a c130 would ever make a difference. They are definitely nothing like a 757. They move much much different and the sound is unmistakable. I live on a direct flight path for some kind of military operations and multiple c130's fly over all the time. I would never think they are a 757 or any jet no matter what the color. Sorry but that dog won't hunt.

Show "Roosevelt Roberts said he was at East Loading Dock" by Investigative R...

No he wasn't

He saw AA 77 over lane 1. So indeed, 'this whole lane 1 business' is very important, because you can't see lane 1 from the east loading dock. Moreover, east loading dock isn't in south parking. In his LOC interview, Roosevelt explains he was walking from east loading to south loading, making the rounds. He was at south loading dock when he saw UA 175 hit the WTC, ran outside, and witnessed AA 77 approach on a path south of Citgo. So did Roosevelt see a commercial aircraft with jet engines fly over lane one heading east towards DC? Hell yes.

Summary: Roosevelt Roberts was listening to news reports of the World Trade Center attacks when the Pentagon was hit. He talks about watching the plane before impact, his immediate reaction, the removal of people from the scene, the injuries and physical condition of survivors, misinformation, rescue workers, and other aspects of the attack.


Goodbye flyover.

Show "Um no." by Investigative R...

Rookie antics

"So you are citing the edited LoC interview?"

Yes. Roosevelt pretty much confirmed his LOC account with CIT, proving a commercial aircraft hit the Pentagon.

"You do know it is edited right? Perhaps that is why you are confused. Here let me help you out.. Here is an important part of the unedited version of Roosevelt recounting what he experienced."

Your arrogance far exceeds your skill level. But I suppose you specifically registered here to be CIT's little popinjay. Tell them SnowCrash said hi.

"This thread may also help you:"

You mean on CIT's forum, where all the gullible tools converge that buy into CIT's laughable fantasy? They're the ones who need help. Professional help. Aldwin Marquis suggests the Roosevelt Roberts interview was "edited to cause confusion". So they published the interview so that CIT could discover a "flyover witness", that sure showed CIT! Good job! But then they also tried to confuse CIT! How mean!

Unfortunately, Roosevelt Roberts is a SoC witness, which means CIT's key witness actually rips flyover theory to shreds all on his own. Hilarious, isn't it? If you want a transcript of CIT's interview with Roosevelt Roberts, you can read mine, too. Just to "help you out" of course.

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

You see, that's Aldwin leading a witness. Roosevelt Roberts said nothing about hearing an explosion.

"Are you saying that the replay of the UA175/Tower 2 crash on TV caused the explosion with flickering lights, falling ceiling tiles?????? Is that what you are saying? Or are you saying that the explosion happened causing flickering lights, falling ceiling tiles then "10 second tops" later he runs to the edge of the loading dock and saw "AA77" approaching the Pentagon???? LOL. This is rich."

The laughter of clowns is entertaining, but not informative. Roosevelt saw an explosion on TV: UA 175 hitting WTC 2, as he hung up the phone. Then he ran outside, saw the plane and then stuff started falling from the ceiling, and people started screaming. That was the impact of AA 77. This is elucidated in the interview description:

Summary: Roosevelt Roberts was listening to news reports of the World Trade Center attacks when the Pentagon was hit. He talks about watching the plane before impact, his immediate reaction, the removal of people from the scene, the injuries and physical condition of survivors, misinformation, rescue workers, and other aspects of the attack.


Do you know who Jeniffer Brennan is? Don't answer that. Read this. You need to be deprogrammed from the cult you got yourself into.

"The flyover happened. Roosevelt Roberts saw it. Some of Erik Dihle's co-workers saw it. Others saw it."

* Roosevelt Roberts is a SoC witness.
* Erik Dihle's witness account is (A) hearsay and (B) confirming, through this hearsay, the presence of the C-130. Good job!
* There are no 'others', except in your feeble imagination. (Unless you think somebody's "mind's eye" seeing the plane hit the top of the Pentagon qualifies, but it doesn't, of course.)

"SnowCrash, do you agree or understand that a north side flight path plane can't hit light poles, can't show up low and level across the lawn in the gate cam videos, and can't hit the Pentagon in the first floor causing the directional damage? This question will be repeated if you avoid it."

You don't know the first thing about Pentagon research. I understand flyover is a hoax, preying on gullible fools who love to get conned. The plane flew to the South of the Citgo and hit the Pentagon. Witnesses cannot accurately determine flight paths. To the contrary, witnesses are pretty bad at determining anything at all. If you disagree, I expect you to cite me a scientific paper in a respectable journal expounding the 'unparalleled accuracy' of witness statements. You will cite no such paper, because there are none. Surprised? Yes, "something to the left or right of you" included.

Oh and by the way, a 'flyover' would have been visible in the fab five frames. And the black box, found at the Pentagon can't support a flyover. Neither can the bodies of the passengers of the AA 77, ripped to pieces, identified in DNA tests. But I guess that's all peripheral, isn't it? Anybody home?

"As for your Lane 1 reference. He must be referring to another Lane 1, because as you said, he can't see the parking lot Lane 1 from East Loading Dock. And he is sure it wasn't a C-130 as his second call revealed."

Another lane 1. Awesome. Welcome to another episode of "Make The Facts Fit The Delusion". Please show me me this other lane 1 in south parking. The east loading isn't in south parking. Did you notice this in the thread you linked to, Gumshoe McSherlock?

Okay, (inaudible) [gap?] uh my overtime day, and I was assigned to unit 156, which was scheduled to be at the heliport at 10:45 for a departing flight. So, uh, I was uh, doing my release, and making my way to that uh coming towards that side of the building, and I stopped at the south loading dock.(0:51)


So uh, as I hung up the phone and I ran to the center of the dock and I looked up, and I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot about like 9:12, 9:11 in the morning. And then uh there was dust and some stuff coming from the ceiling and you could hear people scream. So what I did was, I turned around and I drew out my weapon. I didn't know what was going on. I thought we was being invaded. I didn't know what was happening. (2:08)

So I ran back in the South loading, and I started forcing people out of the building. You wouldn't believe how people don't even think of the seriousness of of of any situation. They just think uh, ‘it's just a fire drill'. But this time it wasn't a fire drill. (2:24)

ZOMG. It's Roosevelt Roberts' LOC interview. You know, the one for which the description says Roosevelt was "watching the plane before impact". Wow. Makes sense. Fits with the description of a commercial aircraft with jet engines flying low above lane 1 in south parking, "heading east towards DC", doesn't it?

The thread you linked to debunks you hard. I'd be surprised if you ever even read it, because I have, before you ever mentioned it. Because, you see, I do my 9/11 homework, and do not barge in on people more knowledgeable than me, flapping my arms around, setting asinine, ignorant ultimatums and making assumptions. You are here six weeks. Get me some coffee.

"Either way, North of CItgo=flyover. Not sure how you think you can escape that."

Been there, done that.

The False Dilemma Fallacy

Your rookie antics are embarrassing, foolhardy and pathetic. You are in a dark place. And you appear not only clueless about the Pentagon, you also appear not to understand who you're prodding. It's puerile, but it pales in comparison to the fact that you're peddling shameless lies about the Pentagon and AA 77. You've been conned and you're proud of it. Congratulations.

You know what CIT should have asked Roosevelt when they called him?

Roosevelt, did you see the plane that allegedly hit the Pentagon, fly over the Pentagon instead?

What would Roosevelt's answer be, you think? Oh but I know, I know. He was 'fooled'. CIT's mountebank marketing in full swing. Too bad they 'forgot' to record their other call with Roosevelt, right? That's very impressive, given the fact that CIT never 'forgets' to surreptitiously record people when they refuse to be taped.

Read this, if you dare. Read my response to RCFP. Follow *ALL* the links at the bottom. Read Adam Larson's blog in its entirety.

Until you do, new member, you're profoundly unworthy of another single keystroke. There are legions of contwats ready to 'debate' me online, parroting the same braindead soundbites. You are interchangeable with any one of them.



Snow Crash

You pentagon ninja. Thanks for setting em straight and making me laugh in the process.

I was

being a bit harsh, but I do not like to be belittled by people who spread misinformation, and are, in fact, performing poorly in doing so. I've spent copious amounts of time on the Pentagon and I wish to be acknowledged for that. As should others, such as John Farmer, Jim, Jim Hoffman, Erik Bart, Jeff Hill, Adam Larson, Erik Larson and Frank Legge, with his patience and civility, who is a good example for us all. Thanks for the compliment and the support.



Show "Answer and a question" by Chris Sarns

I'll ask again

Which plane came from 27, heading east towards DC?

Should I quote the transcript? Will you sink that low by pretending it's not there, just like you pretended "two" is 'singular' ?

"Please answer this question:

Do you think he saw two planes in 5 seconds, one coming and one going?"

This is not what the transcript says Chris. Stop it Chris. I wrote the transcript Chris. The transcript does not say Roosevelt Roberts saw two planes in 5 seconds. Stop. Just.... stop. Your sophistry is frustrating, infuriating and embarrassing. It demeans us both.

Show "Insanity is asking the same queation " by Chris Sarns

You're mistaken, Chris...

Hat tip to Jimd3100:


Interviewee occupation: Pentagon Police Officer.
Poor audio quality.
Summary: Roosevelt Roberts was listening to news reports of the World Trade Center attacks when the Pentagon was hit. He talks about watching the plane before impact, his immediate reaction, the removal of people from the scene, the injuries and physical condition of survivors, misinformation, rescue workers, and other aspects of the attack.
Sound Recording, Non-Music.

Source: Library Of Congress
Cached version

Russell Pickering My PENTAGON

Russell Pickering: My PENTAGON MANIFESTO (In Retrospect)‏
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:53:44

Dear Patriots,

My name is Russell Pickering. I spent approximately 4 years of my life seriously dedicated to understanding what happened at the Pentagon. I used to have the Pentagon Research website. When I decided to leave the 9/11 movement I handed it off to Cosmic Penguin. They let the domain lapse and now it is a purveyor of 9/11 books.

The reason I’ve decided to share some observations here is so that those of us with a pre-disposition to myopia might look up for a minute and assess the current social climate and its implications for near future events.

Many here are astute observers and certainly the majority of you carry credentials far beyond my GED, so, bear with me and just consider this message fairly. Most of you here are sincere Patriots with a deep regard for Truth. Some here are not so benevolent!

After meticulous and dedicated research, including a trip to DC as part of Loose Change’s research team, I can assure you with 100% certainty an aircraft impacted the Pentagon. This is just a physical fact - albeit a counterintuitive one.

So, how did this all start? The forces behind 9/11 realized very quickly after Meyssan’s initial book, and the fortuitous circumstance that for all practical purposes there was nothing indicating an aircraft struck the Pentagon, the option of leaving a void of data was the best tactic.

Let’s test this hypothesis in the real world. How many hours have brilliant people spent arguing this? How many words typed? How much energy and passion has been drained from creating an orderly presentation of 9/11 Truth to the American public? How many people have sickened of this wretched debate and quit contributing all together? How many hours of public awareness of WTC 7 and many much more obvious facts have been sacrificed? This list goes on and on and on.

You see? This plane/no-plane debate at the Pentagon is responsible for more division, destruction and disgusting behavior than any other 9/11 topic. It has deterred more of the general public from understanding the BIG PICTURE than any other aspect of 9/11. It has misdirected more passion and energy than any other 9/11 Truth topic. It has fueled the egos and delusions of a few to the point they can no longer be regarded as honestly caring anything about the uninformed American citizen. They just want to win the argument, support themselves financially and be the gatekeepers of Pentagon “truth”.

If I had it to do over again I wouldn’t spend one minute arguing this issue. Not one! As an example, I recently watched Jesse Ventura’s presentation on the Pentagon. Despite the fact he was drawn into a non-factual belief about there being no plane, his work will do more to stir the thoughts of the American people than the thousands of hours and millions of words exchanged over the last nine years regarding this matter.

The American public generally won’t take the time to sort the details in any case. However, the fact that something is amiss will fuel their doubt about 9/11 and the elements within our government that orchestrated it. This is what we need now, not a bunch of egomaniacs yakking at each other on the Internet. If you haven’t noticed there is a Revolution brewing. At various levels, and for a multiplicity of reasons, the dense fog of sleep is lifting from those we originally claimed to care about – the average Citizen.

We have 8 months now to capitalize upon this phenomenon as the 10th anniversary of 9/11 approaches. It will be THE OPPORTUNITY we’ve all been dreaming of! 10 years of lessons learned. 10 years to refine data. 10 years to amass informed specialists in various disciplines. 10 years for the government to show its true colors.

What will you do with your 8 months? If you haven’t noticed, the coupe starting with 9/11 is so far successful. The Constitution is eviscerated, the illegal occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan has become an obvious disaster and the U.S. is descending into Banker controlled fascism. The general public is finally starting to ask why.

What will your answer be?

Sincerely and with great hope,

Russell Pickering

Show "Yes, I agree" by peacefulwarrior

I think it matters...

I think it matters because the plane DID hit the pentagon!

something positive

if for example the movement's objective was to swell from 10 million to 100 million
would it matter if 105 million joined but half of the original 10 million left?
as long as the movement has consensus based on peer reviewed facts we have a very attractive quality called....

and its not as if those who left did nothing to help- i applaud those who got of their backsides and did anything
i have a friend who came only once to help hand out leaflets and dvds and that on its own was cool

we stand on the shoulders of giants and we step on the bodies of fallen comrades to reach the objective

peacefulwarrior wrote:

"stop sweating the details until we have an investigation."

Sweating the details is THE ONLY reason people have been convinced they are being lied to. The devil is in the details and it's why it is the most powerful ally of the "truth" movement for the "truth" is in the "details." I think we would benefit more if some folks stopped sweating the valid critiquing of their "theories" with facts.

Show "Yeah Yeah Yeah" by peacefulwarrior

peacefulwarrior wrote:

"You have chased away tons of folks from this site with your ultra righteous attitudes."

Who are you talking to and who are you talking about. It is your attitude that is coming off as ultra righteous. I'm happy to tell you however that it will not scare me away from this site.

"You're so sure you know the details on the pentagon well good for you. Where exactly do you think you can get with a handful of scholars who don't make a mistake in your opinion about the details which you insist on?"

I don't accept a world of no mistakes. I expect scholars of all types do indeed make mistakes, and in turn they should humbly accept fault if it is pointed out. Most scholars surely agree.

"You people are missing the big Picture and I wish you luck! "

Who are you talking about again? and also...What big picture are you talking about?....The BIG PICTURE is that the truth movement has not developed at all because of big tent acceptance of every idea put forth which is different from the official story. On the contrary, these big tent views and spreading of materials which included them have served as the greatest adversaries of the 9/11 Truth movement. The average skeptic and intelligent individual will very quickly discredit the no plane theories. Cherry pick all the photos you want. It's downright silly to assert that we need theories (or in the case that they are discredited, LIES) and 'what if's?' to convince people to open up to the truth. If you lead people into the truth with a lie based theory, you will lead people right back to the OCT. IT ALWAYS HAPPENS! Discovering flaws in 9/11 Truth materials was a big part of why most people who resist the truth movement have their doubts confirmed! Also, in my experience when speaking to those questioning the 9/11 Truth Movement, a willingness to critique unfounded conspiratorial aspects of the 9/11 Truth movement has only served to encourage the skeptics to look further into the subject.

And the JFK example you have sited is a perfect example of how big tent views and unfounded theories can be used to discredit an easily creditable subject. The JFK assassination truth movement seems to have been plagued with tons of speculation and tons of assertion of radical theories as to who done it. This seems like the ONLY reason why people still can't accept the reality on that situation. People are scared off when you claim to KNOW EVERYTHING that happened in a certain situation. Don't you get that people don't care to be associated with ideas which are so FALSE that folks embracing them will be perceived as childish and offensive? I'm sure many who delved into JFK were immediately turned off by conflicting speculative assertionsr. Also the time it takes to spread info and critical thought has accelerated so much since jfk that I don't think we have to wait another ten years.

So peacefulwarrior, I hope that YOU stop turning people off from the truth movement by spreading your unfounded theories. The logical adult thinkers in the world are ready to open up. We have to behave like adults of course in order to reach them. Adults are willing to accept critique and hone their ideas from mistakes that have been made.

I did a complete u turn away from being an

AA77 crash skeptic and i'm ok
i could only do it by informing myself
i also didn't trust any of the peeps here while i did that, but took in info from both sides and weighed it up
beforehand the only exposure i'd had to the pentagon was mainly from LC2e
now i tend to share 99% the same opinions with those following the peer-reviewed work from the boffins and thank goodness they have done all the work that they have

Show "Look for yourself" by peacefulwarrior

So long as the topic of this blog is

Joint Statement on the Pentagon: David Chandler and Jon Cole

then surely it would be functional and regular to comment here on the pentagon, in the comments section below that blog on the pentagon

am i missing something ?

yes I agree

Peacefulwarrior, I have carefully read your post. What I find is that I agree with all your concerns. I think everyone I know would agree with everthing you say about the important concerns, like being lied to, anthrax, WMD, Gulf of Tonkin, suppression of Mineta's testimony etc. Do you think we don't care? Why do you think we are here day after day working on exposing 9/11 truth and trying to find out what the truth is?

What I don't find is anything new. This is just what you keep repeating. It implies you think we don't care about these things. That is not true and not helpful. Exactly what is it that you think is wrong? When you have presented a new analysis or new evidence, have you had it voted down?

the very last bit, where the plane is about to hit the pentagon

and there isnt a reduction of speed - could this be something to do with the following:

i remember hearing that the russians had a cargo plane that they flew over the sea extremely close to the water to benefit from the increased uplift from the air compressed against the water

so when a plane is extremely close to the ground could its flight be aided or less impeded maybe as a result of this increased uplift ?

Ground effect.


What you are referring to is "ground effect". Yes it increases the efficiency of a plane thus it needs less power or goes faster with the same power.

So it is right to wonder if the plane that hit the Pentagon would have been aided by ground effect. The correct technical answer has to be yes, however the effect would be extremely small and totally overwhelmed by the fact that the engine power was increased to maximum in the last few seconds. The FDR file shows the acceleration and the increase in engine rpm. Several eyewitnesses reported hearing the plane increase power, so they provide further support to the new decoding of the file. Everything seems to fit together.

Show "Frank thanks for the comment" by peacefulwarrior

Why do you say facts don't

Why do you say facts don't matter? This is the 9/11 TRUTH movement. What is truth? The whole idea is that we are trying to get people to reconsider the events of 9/11 because the official story cannot be true. So the entire basis of the movement is that we have information to provide people with that will make them rationally reconsider what they think they know about 9/11. So if we go out making arguments that are poorly constructed, or with insufficient evidence to support them, then we appear ridiculous to outsiders, here we are calling ourselves a truth movement when we aren't even confident of the supposed facts that we cite. This movement has to embrace epistemic humility, otherwise we should call ourselves a 9/11 hypothesis movement, or a 9/11 speculation movement. We should only stand behind credible claims, facts that we can demonstrate beyond doubt to other rational people. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that a plane did hit the pentagon, photos, eyewitness accounts, and common sense since AA77 never reached its destination. In the face of that it would be stupid to go out and make bold claims that it appears no plane hit the pentagon. How is that truth? If a movement is concerned with truth then facts are not just important, it's the only game in town. And no, the goal is quality not quantity. If we can attract way more members by making sensational claims like Alex Jones then yes we will be bigger, but we also lose all the potency of our message because we will have too many people with us that aren't really concerned with truth, so much as sexy conspiracy theories. If all we were trying to do was get more membership we could just turn the movement into a cult and recruit people by being the loudest and most aggressive in pushing any argument that will leave a person with the idea that "9/11 was an inside job". That's not the truth movement that I aspire to be a part of. This is an intellectual movement, and as such we have to take our intellectual responsibilities seriously. We are not in the business of telling people what to think, but providing evidence and asking people to come to their own conclusions. Sometimes when I see this pentagon issue being discussed by partisans of the no-airliner theory it seems as if a new official story is being created, only this one says that "no plane hit the pentagon" instead of "Muslim Terrorists attacked America". Unless somebody is being indoctrinated to believe it I don't see why someone would believe that no plane hit the pentagon, all of the facts indicate otherwise.

Focussing on evidence

Right Vulich,

We have already had the "big tent" problem discussed ad nauseum. Remember the damaging tensions created by Jim Fetzer in Scholars for 9/11 Truth. The response there was that nearly all the substantial members left that group and started another called Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. That site is now performing a wonderful job of laying out the known evidence and avoiding unsubstantiated claims. We can confidently direct newcomers to their site.

So far the "no plane at the Pentagon" people have not produced a single piece of evidence to support their claim. They rely entirely on the eyewitness testimony of 13 people to a north path. For some reason these people are claimed to be infallible because they have been interviewed on video. There are many more eyewitness testimonies to the plane hitting the building. 13 of them have been interviewed on video. Clearly, if CIT's logic is correct, these 13 must also be infallible. Then when we examine the 13 CIT witness accounts we find that 5 of them said they saw the plane hit the building, 2 were crudely misquoted and one was not a witness at all, merely picked up contradictory rumours. So much for the value of "big tent" if it holds that sort of rubbish.

Show "Ok so you think the facts will change " by peacefulwarrior

controversy history + comment to peaceful warrior

For many years some have stressed the many disturbing facts about the Pentagon attack, such as the the lack of air defense, where it was hit, Hanjour's lack of flying skill, Mineta's testimony, etc., while acknowledging the existence of evidence that AAL 77 crashed there. These people were consistently attacked by people who claimed that AAL 77 couldn't have crashed there, due to misinfo/misinterpretation of photos. Many of them claimed adamantly or speculated the Pentagon was hit by a missile, fighter jet, Global Hawk or bomb/flyover, again w/o any substantive evidence. Many of these people also claimed that anyone who suggested AAL 77 hit was a shill/fake/plant/agent/disinfo, etc.

MSM have rarely acknowledge the controversy over these claims in the movement - instead they have portrayed these claims as a major tenet of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Certainly, these claims have been prominently promoted by a number of books, films websites and people associated w/ the movement. The 'didn't hit' claims have always divided the movement, but, as far as I can tell, the division wasn't being created and aggravated by those who drew people's attention to the evidence that AAL 77 hit, or even those who refrained from making a judgment on the issue, the division/disruption has been caused by those who who were claiming it was absolutely not AAL 77/it was absolutely something else.

Peacefulwarrior, in most of your comments on the Pentagon, in the past and in this thread, you've promoted the idea that AAL 77 didn't hit, using claims, such as about the lawn, hole, etc. that are based on misinformation. I hope that, rather than continue to repeat these things, you'll thoroughly review the links people have already posted for you- here's another very useful page:

More researchers are rejecting the 'AAL 77 didn't hit' claims, based on the lack of evidence for these claims, and the evidence that AAL 77 hit. New research was just published showing the FDR data supports AAL 77 impacting the Pentagon. Now you are saying people should focus on the other disturbing facts about the Pentagon, not on the 'what hit' question, which, as i said, some people have been saying for many years. Now you are objecting to people considering and discussing the evidence of 'what hit' when, afaik, you haven't before.


I am not dividing the truth movement into factions. I do not say I know that a plane hit the Pentagon. I say it cannot be proved that it did not. What divides the movement is people who say they know what happened. Mostly this is people who say they know no plane hit the Pentagon. You would not believe the number of people who have emailed me to say without a shadow of a doubt that no plane hit the Pentagon. They say the testimony of 13 north path witnesses is irrefutable proof of it.

You would no doubt agree that these thirteen do not provide irrefutable proof. Then along comes the public and sees these earnest activists asserting that they have irrefutable proof that no plane hit the Pentagon. They see convincing websites preaching the gospel. They are easily taken in. The public must be easily taken in because even some pretty astute 9/11 experts have been taken in, as you can see by their endorsements.

If activists are lead astray, they in turn will lead the public astray. That causes division where it matters.

I will not share my tent with those who say they know that no plane hit the Pentagon. I believe on the average they do more harm than good.

Show "Many people on this site insist that a 757 hit the pentagon" by peacefulwarrior

share my tent

Peacefulwarrior, you have made it clear that you are not one of those who assert that no plane hit the Pentagon, therefore you can share my tent.


peace out.``````````````````````````````````````````````````````


I have a hard time reading your posts

because of your refusal to embrace paragraphs. Just sayin.

Talkshoe conversation...

From Saturday, January 08, 2011:

I talk with Paul Tassopulos aka "911artist" about Craig Ranke's CIT / Rob Balsamo's P4T and their effort to push the pentagon flyover theory:

If anyone is interested in listening, here is a link to the conversation:



Good work Jeff.


Hey, thanks Frank. I thought it turned out to be a pretty good conversation ;)


This post by Dave Chandler and Jon Cole is one of the most lucid explanations of the phenomenon that plagues the truth movement - the support that exists for the "honey pot" fly-over at the Pentagon. We should look at it now and then to remind ourselves how damaging and dangerous is this support.

Despite the clear facts presented here there is no sign that the supporters are willing to give an inch. If anything they get more strident with blatant disregard for logic. Here is an example:

Readers may like to view an image showing the FDR path of the plane in relation to eyewitness Hemphill's position and study the logic for themselves.

Show "Pentagon Debris" by kawika


"I commend you both for an excellent review, but I don't think the case is closed quite yet regarding the flyover."

I think it is. In fact, I think flyover theory is severely delusional, given the fact that there is exactly zero evidence for it.

"My focus has been on the debris, particularly the debris thrown into Route 27, Washington Blvd."

Excellent. What does plane debris sitting near the site of a plane crash tell a rational person?

"Can you please address the question of inertia and how debris can be thrown opposite the direction of travel?"

By bouncing. By being hurled by a fuel-air explosion. (Or hitting stuff, like trees and light poles) Ingenious, isn't it?

"In opposition to any trailing winds that follow the aircraft?"

Was there a localized hurricane going on in Arlington? I must have missed it.

"(I reflect back to the JFK assassination and the explanations about head jerk opposite from the direction of the magic bullet.)"

There is no comparison, and you know it. Plane parts on the scene of a plane crash. Got > 0 witnesses who saw plane part planting? Thought so.

"I am not a scientist, so I lack the physics skills to analyze this as throughly as you do."

Tip: If you don't understand it, then stop promoting flyover. Stop asking questions that don't make any sense. Start reading physics text books.

"How do I convince my eyes that debris into the roadway equals evidence of jet fuel, not explosives?"

You don't think a plane crash is explosive? Have you done the requisite calculations for kinetic energy and explosive energy of the jet fuel? The problem isn't your eyes, it's between your ears.

"Also, can you please address the straight line path of destruction through several reinforced rings of the Pentagon?"

You make a common mistake. Read the Pentagon Building Performance Report. No ifs or buts. That's the least you can do before asking 'questions'.

"Shouldn't the path be increasingly deviating from straight?"

You mean the pilot was trying to execute a turn while crashing through the building? That's some persistence right there.

"The plane debris (if any) entered the building on a steep angle relative to perpendicular."

Yes. What's your point?

"Shouldn't it lose even more inertia/momentum as it penetrates?"

Yes, the plane loses momentum. It's smacking into the Pentagon. What's your point?

The "several reinforced rings" remark is one of the primary reasons I get so agitated whenever I read these comments. The ignorance is so persistent. Its purveyors so learn-resistant. This question has been answered how many times now?

Please note also

...that these questions by kawika are insincere; these are users representing Pilots for 9/11 Truth by proxy.

Show "SnowCrash is a psychiatrist" by kawika

CON salutes you

kawika said...."I have not posted at Pilots for some time. I study in many different places."

You "study" in many different places. LOL! Yes, and the let's bowl forums where you are a Mod and "friends" with Phil Mayhem is one isn't it?

Didn't CON salute the fine work being done over there recently?

Phil Jayhan?!

Phil f---- Jayhan?! That's who you're virtual friends with at lc forums, kawika?!?!

I doubt all users here know who he is, but let me just say from what I learned a while ago, Fetzer, Woods, Hufschmidt, Reynolds, pick your nut, they all pale in comparison.

Yes, now I understand why after I denounced NPT and began looking into the pentagon I started getting messages from Jayhan where he ended up wanting me to call him.

While we were talking on the phone he suggested I start looking at the exif data of the victims pictures and see if I could contact their families to prove their dead relative wasn't real. That would have been great ehh? Of course I entertained him on the phone to see what he had to say as I chuckled to myself thinking what a clown he was!

Source: Jeff Hill

(...) fruity Phil Jayhan's forum who supports such ludicrous theories such as robotic mannequins being thrown out of the WTC's to simulate people jumping.

Source: Jeff Hill

Whenever I read that brilliant last sentence by Jeff, dealing with Jayhan, I get the very strange sensation of wanting to laugh uncontrollably while being upset and extremely disgusted at the same time. Robotic mannequins thrown out of the WTC? That really sets the bar for the bleeding edge of nose licking, bed-wetting, diaper wearing insanity in the 9/11 Truth Movement. We're talking truly unparalleled, groundbreaking senility.

An example:

"WARNING: Below is a very graphic image; Do not click on it unless you want to see it. We now have doubts that this was even at the WTC on 9/11 as well as doubts as to whether this is really even a person or some kind of splat dummy or mannequin. This person, 9 years after 9/11, still has no name nor anyone claiming him as their own, which is remarkable and hard to believe. "

— Phil Jayhan

Source: hxxp:// (Change hxxp to http to make the link work)

kawika, your letsrollforums buddy Phil Jayhan is a man without sanity, decency or humanity. Jayhan is the worst, most over the top piece of ---- I have ever, ever, ever seen involved in 9/11 Truth since I started in 2004. From the bottom of my heart I mean that. I dare anybody to find me another delusional poltroon the caliber of Phil Jayhan.

So that's who you hang around with at the letsroll forums, huh?

Unforgivable... and unredeemable.

Show "Who's censoring my comments?" by kawika
Show "Clarifications" by kawika

Credibility matters

I can appreciate getting FOIA requests. But credibility matters. Crazy theories do not help. I ask that you seriously consider how it is important to use common sense, and how damaging it is to be associated with crazy BS.
Lloyd is a cab driver, his wife is a cleaner. CIT are lying loons and Phil Mayhem has batsh*t crazy theories. Just something to consider. Credibility matters and if you are serious about "your work" you will realize this, and it will
be beneficial to you.

And I

had a response, but I'm going to leave it here.


Hangin by a thread
Without no cred

See how in his response above me here he just try's attacking you. Doesn't speak to any of the points which you took the time to speak to.


but now he's tied to Phil Jayhan as well... We're talking the true gutter of the 9/11 "Research" here. The bottom feeders.

Kawika, just facts

You want to know how debris could have been thrown back from the Pentagon crash. I was once building a fence in a remote area using steel fence posts. One post had a hole missing, and having no drill with me, I decided to punch a hole using a high powered rifle. I got the hole I wanted but was astonished to observe that a piece of metal flew back from the post, narrowly missing my head. It seems in the chaotic situation arising when a really high speed object hits a solid object, surprising things can happen.

At the Pentagon there was also an explosion of a fuel/air mixture after the plane impact, which could have easily carried substantial pieces of metal quite a long way. A fuel/air mixture does not explode with the sharp destructive force of high explosive, rather it generates a huge volume of hot gas which must expand in all directions, including back toward the road.

Regarding the penetration of the building by shattered material from the plane, you are apparently unaware that there was only one wall, the outer wall, which had to be penetrated. The interior walls did not reach the ground. The partitioning would have had no discernible effect.

The cumulative evidence for a large commercial plane hitting the Pentagon is overwhelming, even if some things seem a little odd. There is certainly no proof that it did not hit.

Show "Statement from CIT and co:" by Investigative R...