cit

New Video--CIT: Deceptive Interview of Sgt. William Lagasse

A few months ago I wrote an analysis of the CIT interview of Sgt. William Lagasse. It occurred to me that so much of what he said pointed to a standard south path of the plane, yet on video he pointed to a path north of the CITGO station. This was puzzling to me and should have been puzzling to any honest investigative reporter or researcher. The big breakthrough for me was being pointed to the older PentaCon video by CIT, which is less edited than the more polished National Security Alert (NSA) video. There were cryptic statements near the end, where after drawing the line on the photograph Lagasse commented that the angle was wrong. And when Craig Ranke pointed out the location of the light poles Lagasse violently objected, that they were actually farther to the north, along the path he had drawn. Making sense of the chaotic information was a puzzle that seemed worth solving, and as I dug in, it all became much clearer.

I have had very little traffic to my article with this analysis, but the issue in growing increasingly relevant as the new generation of CIT followers has made headway in infiltrating high profile groups. Putting this information in video format puts it before the eyes of a larger audience, and links to the article gives the opportunity for a deeper dive. So I have posted the video on Odysee https://odysee.com/@davidchandler911:c/LagasseInterview:5 and embedded it at the top of the article itself: https://911speakout.org/interview-of-sgt-william-lagasse/.

 

New Critique of the CIT Interview of Sgt William Lagasse

Previously on my website (https://911speakout.org) I posted an analysis of Craig Ranke's interview of Albert Hemphill that displays the deceptive interview techniques used to slant the interview toward a predetermined outcome of supposedly supporting the CIT North of CITGO hypothesis.

I have now added a second ananysis: the interview of Sgt. William Lagasse. Lagasse is CIT's star witness. It seems that email correspondence between Lagasse and Dick Eastman prior to CIT's interview may have been the origin of the North of CITGO hypothesis. In that email correspondence Lagasse makes the erroneous statement that he was standing on the "Starboard side of the aircraft." I say erroneous because the word "starboard" is used three times in that correspondence. It is first introduced by Eastman. Lagasse, who exhibits a fondness for using jargon, then uses the word, but the context shows he has port and starboard reversed in his mind. Therefore he is really saying he was on the left side of the plane, which is consistent with a South of CITGO flight path, which is consistent with the trail of physical evidence.

New Paper Refutes Pentagon 'Flyover' Claims

.
The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis Based on Analysis of the Flight Path

Frank Legge
(B.Sc., Ph.D., Chemistry)
and
David Chandler
(B.S. Physics, M.S.,Mathematics)

September 2011

Introduction

The legal and political implications of 9/11 have turned scientific research in this area into a high stakes competition for the minds of the public. Pertinent information has been kept secret, the corporate media has systematically kept "damaging" information (such as video images of the World Trade Center Building 7) out of public view, 9/11 research has been marginalized, and the official investigations have failed to answer, or in many cases even address, the most troubling questions. One development that appears to be a tactic in the ongoing cover-up is the high profile promotion of transparently false theories, "straw men," the only purpose of which appears to be to allow the 9/11 Truth Movement to be ridiculed.

Peter Dale Scott withdraws endorsement of CIT

Peter Dale Scott has asked me to circulate the following statement:

Like Richard Gage, I too was impressed by CIT's assemblage of witnesses asserting an approach path of Flight 77 at odds with the official version, and said so. I have never believed that the 757 flew over the Pentagon, and have never stated that I did.

In the light of what Gage has learned about CIT's methods, I wish, like him, to withdraw my original endorsement of the CIT video.

Sincerely,

Peter Dale Scott

Complete Withdrawal of Support by Richard Gage, AIA, for CIT’s "National Security Alert"

February 8, 2011
 

In early 2009, I watched the “National Security Alert” video by the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) where recollections of 10 eyewitness accounts of the attack on the Pentagon were presented (of many more that were interviewed). These accounts included the witnesses’ recollection of the path being taken by the plane prior to impact. The path that many of them recalled was to the north of the former CITGO gas station. Based on these few accounts CIT presented its case that the plane flew over the Pentagon since the damage trail was not consistent with the north path.

David Chandler Talks About His New DVD “9/11 Analysis” and Rationalizes the Pentagon Debate on Visibility 9-11

Show notes and interview by: John Bursill

This timely and important Podcast is a MUST listen!

Listen here: http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1874

David who describes himself as a “pacifist” talks in great depth about his journey on the campaign for 9/11 Truth and Justice which he is passionately dedicated. Many of you may be aware it was David who is credited with getting NIST to admit WTC Building 7 fell at a an acceleration consistent with free-fall due to gravity; which I and many others view as the single most powerful debating tool for us as 9/11 Truth advocates! David disputes he is solely responsible for this and says that Jones, Ryan and others were central to this achievement but it was his question that drew the answer in the end so it seems. David also talks about the highly political timing and nature of the NIST Building 7 report.

“Debating” What Hit the Pentagon by Exaggeration, Namecalling, and Threats

Gregg Roberts

Published January 8, 2011

“The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.”

        Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 191

        German philosopher (1844 - 1900)

This article is a response to “Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working For The Other Side?”, credited to “staff writers” at the Rock Creek Free Press, November 2010 edition, available at:

http://www.rockcreekfreepress.com/CreekV4No11-Web.pdf

The “leading 9/11 Truth site” being referred to is 911Blogger.com. The authors of the article critiqued here chose to remain anonymous, and the article’s title doesn’t lend itself to an easily pronounceable acronym. Therefore I will refer to the article’s authors, along with their vocal message board sympathizers and Barrie Zwicker, as The Complainers. We will abbreviate Citizen Investigation Team as “CIT” and their video National Security Alert as “NSA” (noting the irony).

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 (http://www.911speakout.org) 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

The False Dilemma Fallacy

A well known, and often committed, logical fallacy is the false dilemma.[1] When you consider two variables (US Government, Al Qaeda), you have the following, logically possible options:

  US Government Al Qaeda
Involvement in 9/11    
  x
x  
x x

That's four possibilities, not "either the US did it, or Al Qaeda did it". As you'll note, "neither" and "both" are also options.

What happens when we add Israel, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?

CIT is useless

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

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

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

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

Dawn Vignola’s Account vs Erik Larson’s Methods by CIT

Craig Ranke has written an extensive rebuttal to the piece Erik Larson wrote a couple weeks ago. Craig's rebuttal is entitled Dawn Vignola's Account vs. Erik Larson's Methods by CIT. I'll let readers go to the link to read the whole thing. Here are my own thoughts and highlights:

Larson's essay began with the following:

"From their apartment, Dawn Vignola and her roommate Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman saw American Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, September 11, 2001. Shortly afterward, they gave witness accounts to local and national TV media. In 2007, they were interviewed by Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), who attempted to discredit their testimony."

Craig correctly points out that Larson stated this particular aspect of the OCT as proven fact (AA77 hitting the Pentagon [whether piloted by Hanjour or remote control]), with "zero skepticism or objectivity applied whatsoever (it would be impossible for any witness to definitively tell that the plane was "Flight 77" or specifically tail# N644AA)."

Summary and Analysis of "National Security Alert" by Chris Sarns

12-31-09 revised 7-12-10

Summary and Analysis of "National Security Alert" by Chris Sarns

Like many others I was impressed with the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) video "National Security Alert" (NSA) when I saw it for the first time. I thought that the unanimous testimony of the witnesses confirmed the north flight path of American Airlines flight 77, but I could not see how that in any way proved their "flyover theory". I did not give the "flyover" theory much thought because it seemed to be a minor point. As it turns out, the strong evidence for the north flight path was just the "hook", and "flyover" was actually their main point.

THE SOUTH PATH IMPACT: DOCUMENTED by Adam Larson

visit original for hyperlinks and graphics - loose nuke

http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/08/south-path-impact-documented.html
THE SOUTH PATH IMPACT: DOCUMENTED

Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
first posted August 12 2008
last update 10/11

NOTE: The full post isn’t done – I’ll be adding some details and graphics for a couple days. I've opted to simplify the process by not citing and linking to all my sources. Dig around if you have any doubts. Props to Mangoose at JREF for a couple of these leads.

“We Tried…”

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:

RSS