Clarification from Richard Gage AIA regarding his review of "National Security Alert"
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
Original Review:
The exhaustive effort by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of Citizen Investigation Team to contact, record, document, and analyze numerous first-hand eyewitness accounts of the actual flight path of the airliner at the Pentagon on 9/11 has been long overdue, but worth waiting for. The evidence they have uncovered and compiled in their DVD "National Security Alert" deserves serious attention - particularly in light of what we now know about the explosive destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises that day.
- ae911truth's blog
- Login to post comments
That's encouraging!
Thanks for the clarification, Richard. Maybe we can start eliminating some of the confusion surrounding this topic and make some real progress. Keep up the awesome work!!
REMINDER to commenters about the rules
These debates about 'what' hit the Pentagon often get heated and contentious; please remember to present your evidence and arguments in a respectful and considerate manner. Thank you.
"Be civil. There have been disagreements about what happened on 9/11 since it happened. If you feel compelled to point out factual errors in a blog entry, back up your observations with linked documentation. Calling another user a liar or a disinformation agent won't be tolerated. Don't make this site a rallying point for competing factions to battle and waste our bandwidth and time. (If the only comments that you bother making here are to tell others users how stupid that you think they are, your comments will be added to a moderation queue, and your user account may eventually be closed.)"
------
"Post useful information and commentary, not ad-hominem attacks or insults."
http://www.911blogger.com/rules
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
"Conspiracy Theroies"
The law enforcement community regularly evaluate and prosecute criminal conspiracy theories.
The official story of 9/11 is a "conspiracy theory"
Some seem to suggest that open evaluation and discussion of potential plausible alternative criminal "conspiracy theories" related to 9/11 reflects poorly on the 9/11 Truth cause. (a view possibly shaped by major media portrayals of "conspiracy theorizing")
Yet the same individuals who disagree with open "conspiracy theorizing" regarding 9/11 must necessarily reject the official 9/11 "conspiracy theory" to qualify as a supporter of the "9/11 Truth" cause and necessarily imply that another criminal "consiracy theory" would explain the 9/11 attacks.
The controlled demolition "conspiracy theory" is the most plausible explanation for the WTC collapses and qualifies as evidence of an alternative criminal conspiracy. Efforts originating within the 9/11 Truth cause to suppress open discussion of this apparent criminal conspiracy to destroy the WTC via demolition (for the alleged sake of public perception of the 9/11 Truth cause) is not helpful to the 9/11 Truth cause.
Likewise, one should not declare a theory as fact without complete evidence.
Not a conspiracy theory
WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.
This is not a "conspiracy theory", it is a collapse theory and the free fall acceleration for 100 feet is indisputable proof that this theory is true.
Official Response to this Clarification from CIT
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=927
our alleged "methods"
I am still not sure what CIT's 'alleged methods' are that have caused such a controversy. Certainly, it's not in reference to their methods of gathering witness testimony, because I can't see any possible issue in regards to that. Can someone clarify what is the controversy over their 'methods' and how this is cause to discredit the witness testimonials?
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.
Interesting background information from Craig
When I read Richard Gage's "clarification", I got the impression that he tries to sit down on the fence. He's very careful in his wording, he hasn't retracted anything, and the only "clarification" is that he doesn't "endorse" a point of view that he himself never propagated.
Where's the problem here? And why made this harmless statement it to the front page?
http://911woodybox.blogspot.com
9/11 Pentagon. Yes, a big question.
It is really a big question and nobody really knows, funny enough, what happened at the Pentagon? ..We can only speculate.
The government is withholding ANY and ALL satellite and security cameras footage of the events. ( the one released with no airplane in sight is said to be a clear falsification)
1. It doesn't look like a big airliner crashed into Pentagon, remotely controlled or not. The hole, the damage, the surroundings /lawn, spokes/, just so not look like it. ... What is the word on photographed airplane engine remains /rotors/ ? it may be polluted by misinformation by now.
2. Second impact WTC airplane looks very much like a military windowless plane.
So it may be some, probably remotely controlled, smaller military airplane, or/and a missile, that impacted. ...Just a speculation.
I'm thinking sometimes somebody should do really a reenactment of an airliner impacting a sturdy building, just to see, how that might look like.
And yes, my biggest question goes to a picture of an opened book, wooden stool, a PC computer - all unburned, uncharred, untouched - on a floor directly above the impact and a fireball and a fire. ... Just WHAT to think about this?
Airplane crashing into a wall
John A MITCHELL
Herblay FRANCE
bonjour ,
follow the link for an airplane crashing into a wall video
http://mouv4x8.perso.neuf.fr/11Sept01/911Pho01.html#BM0084
Yours John
Thanks for a great resource page!
As you may imagine, nothing changes on the fact that we do not have a hard evidence as to what happened. There is a lot of contradictions.
Not a good comparrison
That wall is steel reinforced concrete 10 feet thick, designed to stop a plane from penetrating.
The pentagon was made to absorb a bomb blast or impact.
The Video Evidence Says It All And Affirms CIT
Chris,
Actually the size of the Phantom matches the size of the aircraft hidden behind the car ticket dispenser in the five Pentagon CCTV stills. The second Pentagon video release of the object heading towards the Pentagon ALSO shows a small object heading towards the Pentagon. Unlike the five CCTV stills, however, the latter video shows the nose of the object, which is long and pointy! All one has to do to determine if the second Pentagon video release shows a 757 heading for the Pentagon is to look at a picture of a 757's nosecone. Guess what? The nosecone of a 757 is short and stubby!
I shake my head every time someone says a 757 entered the Pentagon, because the video EVIDENCE says otherwise!
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
That makes no sense at all
CIT says the plane flew over the pentagon. So how does a video of what you think is a Phantom flying into the Pentagon affirm CIT?
Black Box Data
I don't endorse a flyover based on eyewitness reports, however I do see what appear to be contradictions in the Black Box data vs. the official story.
Either the FDR data released by the NTSB (a government agency) supports or contradicts the official story. Either the animation released by NTSB based on the FDR for Flight 77 supports or contradicts the official story. Which is it?
I was just watching the three video clips on this page and looking at the information. If this information is incorrect then someone please explain to me WHY.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
If we feel that the pilots and aviation professionals of our movement have no credibilty, then let's access this data for ourselves, ok? Any of us can go to http://www.ntsb.gov and request this via FOIA.
Does the Black Box data contradict the official story? YES or NO.
Pilots For 911 Truth.
I think Pilots are a great, reliable, scientific voice in the movement, and they are saying - "things did not happen as the official story says", because they could not have.
They may not have a hard evidence as obvious or persuasive and definitive as Architects with a nanothermite explosive evidence, but nonetheless they have professional, technical conclusions.
Questions for a pilot - can an airliner be landed at the spot where the Pentagon wall meets the ground? Can an unexperienced pilot ever do it?
I think they are saying that official flightpath description is just false.
WTC Dust & Black Box Data
I applaud primary researchers into the evidence at hand. Ask yourself these two questions:
1) Are you in favor of investigating the WTC dust?
2) Are you in favor of investigating the Black Box data?
If so, have our professionals found anything in the dust that contradicts the official story?
Have our professionals found anything in the data that contradicts the offical story?
Questions, and yes, we need new investigation.
1. I am in favor of OFFICIAL investigation of WTC dust, since 9/11 Truth researchers have already done this, and they found nanothermite, an irrefutable evidence of controlled demolition inside operation.
2. Yes, but I am much less familiar with research of http://PilotsFor911Truth.org, off hand.
Are they saying that Pentagon airplane
1. could not have struck poles as official story says
2. lately, that released data show that cockpit door was at NO time opened.
3. that flightpath parameters from released data does not correspond to reality?
http://911UnitedWeInvestigate.blogspot.com
Ground Effect and Planted Eyewitnesses
RL,
what eyewitness accounts are you talking about? The six Gannett/USA Today reporters who said they saw Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon, even though there was a tree line blocking their view? Maybe it was the one-time Republican candidate for president who just happened to be there? Or the various Pentagon officers?
What about the eyewitness who said the aircraft he saw was a commuter aircraft? Or the eyewitness who saw a Lear sized jet fly by his high rise apartment?
What about the civilian eyewitnesses (excluding the two Pentagon police officers) who say Flight 77 flew to the north of the Citgo gas station? Now those eyewitnesses confirm the two Pentagon video releases showing a small aircraft coming in low and to the south of the Citgo gas station.
You see, an aircraft the size of a 757 would have problems flying into the Pentagon at the speed necessary to take out the accountants office there (who were looking for the $2.3 trillion dollars Rumsfeld told Congress was missing on September 10, 2001). That's why a smaller aircraft was used; ground effect would not be a consideration with a smaller aircraft. And if the smaller aircraft were also military, then the Pentagon's missile system would not activate because military aircraft approaching the Pentagon transmit a friendly transponder signal.
You need to rethink the Pentagon attack!
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Pentagon's missile system would not activate
"You see, an aircraft the size of a 757 would have problems flying into the Pentagon at the speed necessary to take out the accountants office there (who were looking for the $2.3 trillion dollars Rumsfeld told Congress was missing on September 10, 2001). That's why a smaller aircraft was used; ground effect would not be a consideration with a smaller aircraft. And if the smaller aircraft were also military, then the Pentagon's missile system would not activate because military aircraft approaching the Pentagon transmit a friendly transponder signal."
excellent analysis, Dean.
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.
Thank you Richard Gage
for this clarification of your CIT endorsement- imho, it's a big boost to your credibility- 1) that you're not endorsing the flyover theory, and 2) that you're willing to acknowledge you "didn't perform an exhaustive review of CIT's material and methods", and your statement was "quick".
I agree, CIT's collection of eyewitness statements is intriguing, and at first blush it does appear "quite compelling". We're human, we make mistakes- the important thing is acknowledging them and learning from them. I admit to having distributed a bunch of copies of In Plane Site, before I looked into it in more depth and considered other facts.
I do think truth activists should be aware of CIT's work- and should consider the critiques of it, and the additional evidence available regarding the Pentagon crash- many useful hyperlinks are in this article:
Peter Dale Scott Does Not Endorse the Pentagon Flyover Theory (and Neither Do I) – Erik Larson
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/peter-dale-scott-does-not-end...
and btw, about Sofia "9/11 was an inside blow job" Shafquat and '9/11 Mysteries'- these articles are very illuminating:
911 Mysteries AND FACTS
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/911mysteries/index.html
"On Disinformation and Damaging Associations"
http://911blogger.com/node/17206
Thanks for your efforts for truth and justice, Richard.
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
Not an endorsement
He said that it was a "review" twice, and that it was a "quick statement".
A review; not an 'endorsement'
Thanks, Chris- I stand corrected. It is not an endorsement, though it was a favorable and uncritical review. It has been repeatedly represented as an endorsement, but i will never refer to it as such, again.
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
Hi Loose Nuke
I admit to having distributed a bunch of copies of In Plane Site, before I looked into it in more depth and considered other facts.
I admit to becoming 100% convinced that 9/11 was a false flag operation the day I saw In Plane Site for the first time in early 2005. And I distributed many copies myself. Would I today? Of course not. So many much more amazing docos have come out since (the current one included imho). But in 2005 it was the best we had. It's nothing to be ashamed of. Those were the days when the primary spokesman for controlled demolition was over-the-top Jew baiter Eric Hufschmid. Also, see my comment below where I address Loose Change 2nd Edition. Believe it or not I think more good was done than harm, in both cases. Look at the Youtube stats of National Security Alert. It has 128,428 views, 1,553 ratings, and an average rating of 5 stars out of 5.
I do think truth activists should be aware of CIT's work- and should consider the critiques of it,
I wouldn't have promoted their work so passionately without having looked at the critiques of their work first, and then CIT's counter response also. I too have learned my lessons from the In Plane Site days. ;-) I have indeed looked at Arabesque's and others' blogs and found their critiques severely deficient in many respects (especially the false idea of "100+ impact witnesses"). Many of my responses to the general points of these critiques can be found in numerous comments in the many blog entries this subject has received this year. Yet my prose critical of the critiques simply get buried in down votes and almost always without explanation. If I were to compile many of my most substantive comments into a short book it would have the title "Debunking CIT Debunking: An Answer to the South Side Defenders." ;-) (Remember, Arabesque and company try to debunk the flyover theory by trying to debunk the veracity of the north path, because they realize that the damage path is only consistent with the southern approach.)
Back early in the movement, the early Pentagon theories were truly speculative. Intelligent people all over were wondering why there was so little wreckage and such a neat lawn, but there was never one single eyewitness support for a missile. There were many people on record who saw a large plane approaching. CIT's hard work can at the very least be seen as an answer to all those people who said to the movement "But what about all those people who reported seeing a commercial aircraft?"
Those are my free flowing thoughts for right now before I get some z's.
Adam
Debunking CIT Debunking
Hi Adam,
Since you mentioned "Debunking CIT Debunking" i thought I should link it here:
Debunking CIT Debunking
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2866
If I were a "conspiracy theorist..."
I might think that the Government created a "9/11 Truth Movement" to counter the legitimate "9/11 Truth Movement." An A Team, and a B Team. The A Team consists of everyone doing their best, people who learn from their mistakes, and people that promote the best information at all times (people the media ignores), and the B Team consists of those people promoting bunk, people who don't learn from their mistakes and repeatedly make them, and don't give a sh*t about our credibility (the people the media has most focused on).
If I were a "conspiracy theorist."
I'm glad Hoffman is doing that write up on Shafqat.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
You're right...
I think there is a "real" and "fake" truth movement.
We just disagree on the members of those two teams.
I've got my "conspiracy theories" about you Jon, but my own common decency plus the site rules prevent me from posting them here.
You have no conception...
Of just how much I have done for this cause. None whatsoever. You have no reason in the world to have a "conspiracy theory" about me other than the fact that I have an opinion about CD (people are entitled to opinions, especially if they are based on supported information, which mine is), and don't think wasting time promoting theories as fact about the Pentagon helps this cause. Promoting theories as fact doesn't help period in my opinion.
If you have a theory about me, which is most assuredly wrong, then what does that say about about your powers of deduction, and the other information you promote? To me, it says that it's bunk.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
controlled demolition
You say promoting theories as fact doesn't help the cause.
You have gone out of your way in the past to express that controlled demolition is a theory, not a proven fact.
One time within the past several months, you even said to someone "Take yourself and your ae911truth.org somewhere else."
We're supposed to be united in a common purpose but you de-friend me on facebook the day I posted the unveiling of National Security Alert.
People here talk about the CIT boys' attitude being "divisive." But you Jon are the single most divisive personality in the movement I know.
This is why people wonder about you Jon.
Could it have been...
One of those MANY times someone has posted about CD in one of my threads having nothing to do with it? I bet it was...
I don't think Controlled Demolition is a "proven fact," and guess what... A LOT of other people agree with me. Are there problems with NIST's investigation? Yes. Are there 9/11 First Responders who talked about how many boots they lost at the pit because of the heat? Yes. Was there molten metal? Yes. Did NIST refuse to look at Steven Jones' findings? Yes. Did Bob McIlvaine say that his son had wounds that came from explosions? Yes. Are there a multitude of witnesses who spoke of "explosions?" Yes. Did Jones, et al write a paper that talks of nano-thermite being found in the dust? Yes, however, I, nor you, are qualified to tell whether or not their findings are accurate. So, is Controlled Demolition a "proven fact?" I don't think it is, but there is information to support the hypothesis.
Believing in CD is not a requirement for this cause. It simply is not, and anyone who acts like it is, is someone that I will simply stay away from unless they make their accusations like you've just done.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Gentlemen
I can see what you are both saying here, and it is a little painful to watch. The fact that you have different opinions will probably never change, but that doesn't change what we are trying to do here - find the truth.
As it stands, CD of WTC looks most plausible simply by the physical evidence from that day. As you stated above, there are plenty of reasons to think this is the most likely method of destructions for the towers. That being said, I do agree that imposing a "pet" theory or preaching a theory like is is fact is destructive to the overall cause because it makes the individual look like they are self-important and a know-it-all, and it also makes the rest of us look a little nuttier to the outside world. The best approach to this, as I have seen and tried to practice, is to present the facts and pursue a new, unbiased, international investigation. This is the only way I see us finding the truth. Reacting to each other personally is quite destructive, and we should try to approach tthis more like a job. It is extremely difficult, I am quite sure, for those closely involved with people still suffering from this tragic event, but I think this is an instance where we need to seperate logic from emotion and move towards an explanation for what really happened. There is a lot of passion surrounding this topic, and it distorts reality in a number of ways because it interferes with the message trying to be communicated by the passionate individual. Let's all agree to disagree on personal matters, and get to finding the perps and bringing justice to them. Jon, you have done things for this movement that are unequalled, and I think you deserve some recognition and respect for that. What your personal views are really don't matter to me, same with Dr. Steven Jones, and Richard Gage, and Alex Jones, and anyone else. Information is information, and seperating it from the individual is essential in getting the larger picture. Thanks for all the hard work guys, we ARE making a difference in people's heads!!!
The love that you withhold is the pain that you carry