Support 911Blogger


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.

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.

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

F-4 Phantom colliding onto a massive, essentially rigid reinforced concrete target (3.66 meters thick) 301102

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.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

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

Thanks, and I...

Agree.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Top Expert on Explosives in Buildings Said There Were Explosives

Dave,

Before he knew better, Van Romero, one of the top preeminent experts in the affects of explosives on buildings admitted, “My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," -- Albuquerque Journal; September 12, 2001.

Architects and engineers are not qualified to give their EXPERT opinion on whether explosives were in the towers, Van Romero is.

Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, I am a student of Van Romero's initial and honest observation, as he attributed on September 12, 2001.

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

Regardless

AE911Truth has used multiple video footage to prove that all three towers came down in controlled demolition without the need to prove what technology was used. There is no other way those towers could have come down except by controlled demolition. That has been proven. Calling controlled demolition of the three towers a hypothesis or a theory is scientifically and factually wrong. There is no room for believing or not believing and for no measure of doubt, nil, none. Controlled Demolition of the three towers has been proven. http://www.ae911truth.org

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.

Expertise and Expertise

Bruno,

I agree.

When it comes to the mechanics of how the towers collapsed, Van Romero wouldn't be the EXPERT in that area. That area of expertise would be found at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

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

OPINIONS ARE ONE THING

One can have an opinion about a novel one reads or if the weather is pleasant, and even on such topics as various points of view about historical figures for which there are no absolute unrefuteable records.

One cannot not have an opinion (without making an utter fool out of oneself) about scientifically verifiable facts such as the boiling point of water at certain altitudes or the speed of acceleration of objects dropped to the earth or time and location on the horizon of the sunrise and set.

In between these two categories there is some gray area, which should be subject to tests such as repeatability and direct observation.
The scientific method itself shows that finding and identifying high energy military grade nano thermite articles in massive amounts in the dust from the WTC dust which was collected well before there was any clean up of the steel in numerous samples that had a reliable chain of custody from ground zero proves that the existence of this material is not an opinion.
It is a FACT, Jon. No matter how much you have done for the families it doesn't change the facts.

It is also a FACT that steel and cement do not behave the way they did on 911 according to countless eye witness reports and video footage unless it was EXPLODED

These are FACTS as is the existence of enormous pools of tons of molten metal in the footprints of these structures for many weeks after the demolition of these buildings.

Stop making yourself into a fool . Why do you keep pushing this utter nonsense about it being an opinion. Are you that behind in the research

Some

just want to prove that theyre right. Some want to prove the need for a new investigation. That's the biggest difference I see.

Its not like the recent CBC program on 9/11 truth didn't show this glaringly obvious point, right? Craig really represented us well! And Dewdney? Spectacular.

________________________
In Their Own Words
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." A. Einstein

If I were a conspiracy theorist

I would wonder why people are assuming that KSM was a bad guy, when there is really no credible evidence for it. I would really wonder why I was presented links to government documents, which are generally known to be political in nature and very poor sources of information, when I made it known that I assumed KSM was innocent. I was also presented with a link that had all kinds of material in it, including the kitchen sink, but no concise answer, Jon, about why you think KSM is a bad guy. So if I wanted to get very suspicious about a government plant, a "B" team, or whatever, I would look to that evidence. KSM is said to have died way back when. The guy in custody may not be KSM at all. A lot of these folks are reported to have died two or three times, and resurrected when the government sees fit. So if I were a conspiracy theorist, that's where my suspicions would lie, and not against the CIT people, who are merely trying to put two and two together and come up with the best hypothesis they can. The idea that there are people who are afraid to be connnected with KSM's trial because it will somehow discredit the movement, is a bit ridiculous to me.

Why am I harping about this? Because once one accepts that 9-11 is an inside job, one immediately calls into question the "war on terror" and all its trappings. The idea that some stoolie is the mastermind of 9-11 becomes a total absurdity, let alone anything else they accuse him of. There's a deep disconnect here. People in glass houses should not throw stones.

Hey...

Did you see this report today? I am not a "homegrown terrorist," nor am I a "terrorist sympathizer." I would hate to be painted as one because people in this movement do things like call for individuals to fight the U.S. like the Palestinians, Iraqis, Pakistanis, etc... or cite KSM's innocence. That is why I have taken this approach (which incidentally, I have gotten a lot of praise for in emails).

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, according to all known information about him, is a "terrorist." A "terrorist" is someone who murders innocents to cause "terror." That is a "bad guy." Is he fit to stand trial? In my opinion, not after the abuse he's taken. Is he dead? I've posted about it several times, but I don't know if he is, and neither do you.

I'm not afraid to be connected to KSM's trial. I welcome the trial. It will give us an opportunity to be heard.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Thanks for the prompt answer

Dialog is good. More on this later.

Where you stand

Jon, here is the text of the article you linked to:

NEW YORK, Dec. 3 (UPI) -- Al-Qaida sympathizers within U.S. borders are a threat domestically and abroad, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said.

Napolitano, addressing the American Israel Friendship League in New York Wednesday, said a rash of recent domestic arrests should "remove any remaining comfort from the notion that if we fight the terrorists abroad, we won't have to fight them here," The Washington Post reported Thursday.

Her comments came one day after President Barack Obama announced an additional 30,000 U.S. troops would be deployed to Afghanistan and warned that extremists have been dispatched from the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region -- considered a safe haven for terrorists -- to the United States " to commit more acts of terror."

"Home-based terrorism is here," Napolitano said. "And like violent extremism abroad, it will be part of the threat picture that we must now confront. ... Individuals sympathetic to al-Qaida and its affiliates, as well as those inspired by the group's ideology, are present in the U.S., and would like to attack the homeland or plot overseas attacks."

***
IMHO, the war on terror is total bs, designed with the goal of implementing a police state, stifling dissent, and forcing the population to support international acts of terror (shock and awe) by the United States government. WMD's were not found in Iraq, and Afghanistan was invaded after the government there asked the US to provide proof that Osama Bin Laden was guilty, even offering to send Bin Laden to another country for trial. But no sense arguing here about it. What's a million dead compared to the 3,000 on 9-11? The people leading our nation are reckless war criminals. Let me assure you, it will not end well in Afghanistan for this country, and this escalation of troops could lead to World War III.

Here is the title of the article...

"Napolitano warns of homegrown terrorists"


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Jon-per your definition.

A "terrorist" is someone who murders innocents to cause "terror." How about Donny Rumsfeld and the shock and awe tactics in Iraq? Is he a terrorist? Are some of the Israelis who murder innocent Palestinians also terrorists? Just wondering.

Of course.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Controlled Demolition

Richard, I agree with your original review that the evidence they have uncovered and compiled deserves serious attention, but I understand your caution in associating AE911Truth with aspects of the truth movement other than controlled demolition of the three towers. There is no need for anybody on your team to dilute your message with distracting side arguments, including any opinion whatsoever about what happened or did not happen at the Pentagon and in Shanksville. AE911Truth is too important to the 911 Truth movement to take chances on jeopardizing the integrity and legitimacy of the evidence you have compiled and the people that represent the organization.

Congratulations on all the headway you made down under! Can't wait to hear what happens in Japan! Enjoy your trip.

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.

Thanks, Bruno!

There you are, Bruno!

I just want to thank you for mentioning Amazon.com as a possible place to publish. You mentioned it to someone last October who was writing a novel. Well, I just published my espionage novel (Best Laid Plans) on Amazon!

Thanks, again!

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

Rock on!

We are all here to help each other (or we should be :). I am all about sharing information and helping others move forward. I come from humble beginnings and I know how much it means to get practical information and advice.

I have a long reading list that I have yet to tackle, but I am looking forward to reading your novel one day, hopefully soon. I put your novel on my wish list on Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/Best-Laid-Plans-Michael-Jackson/dp/1449562604/ref=...

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.

Agree !

Absolutely.

Thank you Richard!

Lets move on to justice together!

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au

Hello Richard

I think you are smart, as founder of ae911truth, to not support conclusions w/r to another aspect of 9/11 which is not in your area of architectural expertise. And indeed, ae911truth should not have an official position on the Pentagon, other than that serious questions need to be answered and that a new investigation is warranted. And you knocked it out of the park on the CBC show re the WTC when you refused to speculate.

Of course, you never stated in your original statement in July that you supported any one particular conclusion --- just that you felt that the research done by CIT was in depth and compelling, and warranted attention. In fact this was true of all the endorsements. Many of us in the movement have heartily promoted various films (the most famous being the 2nd edition of Loose Change, still the most ever popular of all 911 docos) even if we didn't agree with each and every claim in the film, i.e. missile at Pentagon, flight 93 landing in Cleveland, gold bars in the WTC basement, etc. I think in the end LC2E did far more good than any possible harm. Over time the same will prove to be the case with NSA, despite the contention here at blogger on the subject.

Me personally: I DO support the flyover conclusion, until such time that new evidence would come out and make me revise my opinion. I don't mind taking heat for it either, so you don't have to. ;-)

Cheers,

Adam

Paranoia

Adam

I agree.

I know some are worried that it could all be a clever hoax, however so could all those WTC dust samples sent to Dr. Jones.

Paranoia will get us nowhere.

I say follow the evidence, and let the chips (no pun) lay where they fall.

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

Well stated

I agree that there are a number of docs that have a mix of accurate and inaccurate info in them, and I think it's too bad that we can't just get the facts already. If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to look more closely at the flyover theories and see what that is all about, could you shoot me some links? DaveNehring@hotmail.com when you get a chance. Thanks, Adam!!

The love that you withhold is the pain that you carry

I request this not be front page material; it's not "news"

In July when National Security Alert, their most compelling presentation yet, was unveiled with the original endorsement statements, it did not make the front page, unacceptably. Apparently that was not considered "news" even though the material presents extremely serious challenges to the OCT. But this 'clarification' from Richard Gage is apparently "news" worthy. It's no secret that the front page gets far more readers than the blogs page.This is a bulls eye example as to why some people 'wonder' about blogger.

Adam...

The reason (I imagine) it did not make the front page is that the authors had a bad reputation!

Unfortunately the good work of CIT gathering their interviews was destroyed by their take no prisoners the "flyover is fact" approach.

I seriously don't know anyone I trust in this movement that has a good word to say for CIT regarding their attitude to the 9/11 Truth Movement, not saying their aren't any....just I have not talked or emailed with one.

If everyone was just like Ryan, Jones and Legge et al aggressive arguments over the Pentagon would never happen; rather discussions would and over time understandings could be formed and possibly concussions as well.

If you want to know what the scholars that have been proven assets to us think....just read Legge's paper. I know you don't like it but seriously this is the best position at present as a movement to hold.

As I and many have said the "flyover is a possibility" but unfortunately their is no proof and it is not courtable, period!

Kind regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au

John...

Unfortunately the good work of CIT gathering their interviews was destroyed by their take no prisoners the "flyover is fact" approach.

Not true. Whatever you think of their "take no prisoners" approach, this does nothing whatsoever to change the veracity of the eyewitness statements in the on-camera interviews. Those statements, which severely contradict the official story, still stand. Don't like the conclusion? Take the eyewitness accounts and try to piece together the puzzle on your own.

I get the impression that people want to simply dissuade others away from watching National Security Alert at all, as if to say, "Nothing to see here, move on." Nothing could be more disingenuous and far from the truth.

Evidence

I have no idea what transpired between which egos online in what forums.

We all need to look in the mirror each day and check that we are not becoming what we speak out against. Truth is not a popularity contest. We all make mistakes, but as long as in our heart we are looking for the truth, then we will stay on track.

The 9-11 Truth Movement is made up of all kinds, and ALL those who seem to be on the attack need to be checked, but not at the expense of evidence. We have no room for bullies. The world is being run by bullies.

I hear a lot of talk about the personalities of the filmmakers, but I challenge anybody who falls in line with calling Craig a 'witch' to focus more on how you, yourself interact with others in the pursuit for truth.

I look at North Side Flyover and NSA documentaries, and I see a lot of strong evidence, regardless of who's feelings got hurt.

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.

removed as I'm over it.....

error

Best comment here so far - why is it hided?

Couldn't have said it better, Adam. This site here is biased.

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com

Frank Legge's Precautionary Principle

I think there is merit in adopting Frank Legge's precautionary principle until it's clearer what happened at the Pentagon. I also think people should be wary of any researchers that respond to polite and reasoned criticism with a stream of invective.

I second the motion!

Clear and simple!

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au

I third the motion

Flyover is ludicrous disinfo designed to make us look like fools. There are NO witnesses to "flyover".

- a former DC resident who understands geography.

funhouse1970

Curious: Have you seen National+Security+Alert?

What jet engined, "commercial aircraft" did Roosevelt Roberts see flying away from the Pentagon immediately after the explosion?

Thanks for answering.

I also take a strong stand against disinfo, and I look at all angles of an argument before I promote it, and the flyover conclusion is NOT deliberate disinfo like holograms and space beams.

You can disagree with someone's conclusions all you want, but calling someone's work deliberate disinfo is a very serious charge indeed. To prove a deliberate deception you have to prove intent.

Deliberate Deception?

Craig says Roosevelt is a flyover witness. He is not. Many people think there were flyover witnesses after viewing NSA but that is not true.

Roosevelt Roberts saw a plane fly away to the south-west. Craig insists he said it flew away to the north. It does not matter. A plane approaching from the west could not make either turn. The plane Roosevelt said he saw could not be the plane approaching from the west. Roosevelt is NOT a witness for flyover.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread382628/pg1

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

The purple path is what Mr. Roberts surmised from what he saw - the plane flying away to the south-west.
The red path combines what the north flight path witnesses saw combined with what Roosevelt said he saw.
The turning radius is about 350 feet. An airliner requires a 5,000 foot turning radius or more.
ETA:
P4T proved that a plane on the north flight path could hit the Pentagon at the impact point.
At 14:37 in this video, P4T establishes the north path is aerodynamically possible.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15854
This also establishes that if the plane flew over the Pentagon it could only turn enough to fly away to the south-east.

Chris:

I was talking to funhouse. You've given your take on Roosevelt Roberts ad nauseum. Kindly don't interrupt, as you yourself would tell me at the AE911truth AIA booth at the DC convention center.

No official sources nor eyewitnesses report two commercial aircraft being on the scene at the time of the explosion.

Irrelevant

The plane Roosevelt describes flying away to the south-west was NOT the plane approaching from the west.

You are ignoring the fact that Roosevelt is NOT a witness for flyover.

If Physics Is Good for WTC, Then It's Good For The Pentagon

funhouse,

we have two witnesses to what did fly into the Pentagon. Those witnesses happen to be the two video releases from the Pentagon itself, which show a small aircraft heading towards the Pentagon.

You can have a thousand eyewitnesses say they saw a 757 fly into the Pentagon, just feet off the ground at 540 mph, but that only confirms one thing: those eyewitnesses are LYING because GROUND EFFECT won't allow it! And GROUND EFFECT doesn't care if you live in DC or not!

How come the physics of the WTC is the rage here, but no one cares about the physics of the Pentagon attack?

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

So....... don't speculate on what hit the Pentagon?

Agreed. Done.

And don't acknowledge contradictions between the black box data being released to the public and the official story?

Disagree.

Don't draw conclusions from the contradictions? (flyover)

Agreed. Done.

(But the NTSB should damn well have to account for the data they put out.)

*regarding the P.P. If the Pentagon does have some footage of AA77 approaching and impacting it will have to gibe with the Parking Lot Security video frames already released. Plus there will still be the contradictions with the FDR data. So they're screwed if they try to play that card.

They are actually never screwed . . .

>>it will have to gibe with the Parking Lot Security video frames already released. . . So they're screwed if they try to play that card.

Remember how WMDs did not exist in Iraq, but the world was made to believe they did via MSM mouthpieces for the Bush Admin?

Remember how AQ was not Iraq, and how Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but all the soldiers who went to Iraq were to somehow avenge the deaths of 9/11 in Iraq?

Remember how elections have been stolen right and left via the black boxes and no one can even talk about it much less do anything about it because MSM ignores them or convinces everyone that no one could or would ever 'hack' the black boxes?

The MSM makes reality.

If they choose to pretend the 5 frames never existed, then 5 frames never existed. Those in charge of NBCABCCBSCNNFOX are never "screwed" when they decide to dump another load of "terror" BS on the world. They only need to fool X number of people and their job for the day is over.

Nothing Richard can say can undermine the truth he has revealed

Even if Richard were to retract everything he has said and endorse NIST - it is TOO LATE - and his proofs are TOO AIRTIGHT - to undo his work.

Wow. I am really amazed that four people (so far) seem ...

to believe that public relations trumps reality.

Even if Richard were to endorse NIST ---- would that undo Newton's Laws?
Would that undo David Chandler's work?
Would that undo the knowledge and conviction of the 1000 (almost) architects and engineers who have endorsed his work?

If it would undo your understanding of the "collapses" you better pick up a high school physics text and read the chapter on the
acceleration of gravity.

Richard could not undo his work if he married Shyam Sunder's sister and invited John Gross to be the best man.

The truth cannot be undone by public relations.

I think they voted on the idea...

....that Richard was being forced to deny a truth?

That was not the case at all. This clarification is actually the way he feels about this issue!

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au

I find it hard to believe

1- Hani flew a jumbo jet anywhere and especially into the Pentagon
2-the fab five frames if genuine show a jumbo jet hitting the Pentagon

Flyover, Flyaway, the only flies I believe in are the ones landing on the crap of the official story.

The Simple Fact that Pentagon No Planers Don't Get

There is not enough evidence to know for sure ANYTHING about the Pentagon other than it was defenseless on 9/11.

So sit back, and have a nice warm cup of STFU.

"Pentagon No Planers"

You say that there is not enough evidence to know for sure ANYTHING about the Pentagon (not true, actually; independently corroborated eyewitnesses DO tell us something), yet you sling the label of "Pentagon No Planers" at people who disbelieve a large plane crash, thereby implying that you believe with certainty that a plane did crash there.

My irony meter is exploding.

The witnesses tell us

the plane hit the Pentagon but you don't believe them.

deleted

deleted

Official response from CIT as posted at 911oz.com 5Dec09

Official response from CIT

Richard Gage met me personally in June of 2009 when we had a detailed discussion regarding the Pentagon attack and he agreed to view National Security Alert which was our brand new video presentation at the time. A couple of weeks later (after viewing the presentation in full) he contacted me to say he was impressed enough to give us a blurb of support, and did, but soon after contacted me again to say that certain members of his board of directors were upset with this and that he would need to alter the endorsement.

Our press release went out at the end of July announcing a significant amount of endorsements for National Security Alert including the version from Richard Gage that had been fully vetted by his board of directors. Shortly after the press release went out I received a call from Gage that he attributed to escalating pressure from upset individuals trying to convince him to fully retract his statement of support for our work.

To his credit he had the courtesy to personally call me to talk about these concerns before acting on them. After over an hour of discussion on the phone about the evidence and our "methods" he told me that his concerns had been lifted so he would not retract and that he was looking forward to seeing me in New York for the 9/11 anniversary since we were both presenting at the "We Demand Transparency" conference where we could talk further.

We did in fact have the opportunity to talk in great detail in September and he assured me that he was still supportive of our efforts even though he was still receiving a significant amount of pressure from a select group of individuals. Namely, Justin Keogh who controls 9/11 Blogger and Michael Wolsey who has been on a public rampage since the release of National Security Alert in an attempt to personally discredit us with baseless accusations of "disinfo".

During this 2nd personal meeting on the weekend of the 8th anniversary in New York Richard Gage not only pledged continued support but also agreed to contact me with any concerns that might arise in the future.

Now, almost 3 months after the anniversary and almost 5 months after he first provided his statement of support Gage has issued a "clarification" without being specific as to what prompted this and without having contacted me to discuss his concerns as promised.

Quote:
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.

Richard has not retracted his statement in support of our efforts. He has merely demonstrated that he has been effectively spun away from understanding the simple non-controversial scientific fact that a plane approaching on the north side of the former Citgo gas station can not hit the light poles or the building and that he has potentially been influenced by misrepresentations of our alleged "methods".

While we're sorry that he has given in to the admitted pressure to issue this "clarification" it does not change the implications of the information or the fact that Richard Gage has stood by his statement that the evidence presented in National Security Alert is "long overdue, but worth waiting for" and that it "deserves serious attention". It also does not diminish the unprecedented amount of public support we have received from other respected and accomplished researchers, pilots, journalists, activists, and concerned citizens, including countless who are not even listed on that page.

We continue to support the work of Richard Gage and his dedication to exposing the 9/11 deception. We respect his decision to stay focused on the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers while deferring research of the Pentagon attack to others. We appreciate his continued support of our efforts as well.

Sincerely,
Craig Ranke
CIT

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au

I've posted a "blog entry" about this reply, should be up soon!

Let's break from here and address this in my new blog entry which should be up soon...

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au

The blog entry is ...

Vetting The Truth As One Sees It, Indeed!

"Vetted by his board of directors" indeed!

Did Jesus vet his statements?

Did Ghandi?

Did Muhammad?

Did Patrick Henry?

Good God, this is ludicrous!

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

You're right and you're not

Mr, Gold.
You are correct in stating "belief" in CD is not a prerequisite for supporting this effort. However CD has been established and is non-controversial. A portion of WTC7's descent, proven to be at a rate equal to that of an object in free fall under the influence of gravity, and so acknowledged by NIST, is not evidence of CD, it is proof of CD. This distinction is significant, as if that needs to be stated. A natural collapse, caused by the random forces of fire over an extended time of hours, such as is reluctantly claimed in the OCT, cannot produce such a result. Again, Mr. Gold, this is not evidence, it is more, it is proof. So, not only is there much and varied evidence, there is also proof. And there is even a tacit admission from the PTB. What more is required? Sometimes a cigar is a cigar.
MechanicalEngineerPE

Gage just came down a couple notches in my esteem

Let's see some backbone, Richard. The north of Citgo flight path is 100% incompatible with the damage to the Pentagon, which requires an arrow straight path south of Citgo, through 5 lightpoles, and through the building, to the punch out in the C ring. You don't need any special qualificiations to understand that, just ordinary human common sense.

Why is Richard backpedaling, issuing a clarification about flyover when his initial statement never mentioned flyover? All this new statement tells me is that Gage is not the fighter for truth that I had believed him to be.

Also disappointing to see how many truthers cannot think for themselves, and simply hop on the "bash CIT" bandwagon. Of course the perps want the most incriminating evidence -- bombs at the Pentagon -- to be deep sixed. But how about the rest of you?

Sounds like most of you don't understand CIT's evidence or haven't taken the time to watch NSA. Here's an easy way to get up to speed: the most-ever visited page on my blog is my article from April about CIT. Lots of maps and photos help you understand why I am so sure that no plane hit the Pentagon.

You can't have it both ways

"through the building, to the punch out in the C ring"

What caused that damage to the Pentagon?

In the south path fly into theory?
The airplane

In the north path fly into theory?
Explosives

In the flyover theory?
Explosives

What the heck

What the heck is "the north path fly into theory"?

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.

Explosives, check

I'm not trying to have it both ways. The plane did not cause any damage, since it did not hit the building. All of the damage was caused by a pre-meditated plan at the very top of government to fake an attack on our military headquarters. It doesn't get any more incriminating than that -- which is why there are so many trying to shush up this evidence.

Bombs in the WTC can be spun and most likely will be spun, once there are 10,000 architects and engineers claiming it was controlled demolition. Bombs in the Pentagon? Unspinnable. Undeniable. They screwed up big time on that one and that's where we can nail em. No wriggling out of this one, perps. The american people may be stupid enough to believe that 9/11 was a good reason to take out Saddam Hussein, but they aren't that stupid. Even they won't buy that Osama bin Laden snuck bombs into the Pentagon. Game over, you lost.

Of course the truth movement has been infiltrated. Consider, as you hear people trying to dismiss this incriminating evidence, what their motivations might be. If you're a real truther, look for the real truth, and nothing less.

If you're not a real truther, and you're posting on this site, look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself what you're living for.

No way did that lightpole go through LLoyd England's windshield

in the manner claimed by the OCT.

But -- still claiming that Richard Gage needs more backbone is something you really need to rethink. He risks his life on a daily basis.

I've already done my thinking

and equivocation -- or fence sitting, as someone else puts it -- does not win an attaboy from me.