Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) have cited Shinki and Ed Paik’s witness accounts to support their claims that the plane said to have hit the Pentagon on 9/11 (American Airlines Flight 77), actually flew on a different flight path (‘north of Citgo’) and flew over the Pentagon. Ed Paik’s account appears in their films ‘The Pentacon’, and most recently ‘National Security Alert’ (NSA). In addition, Ed’s account has been cited repeatedly in their articles and online discussions. However, my January 2010 interviews of Ed and Shinki, as well as a 2006 interview of Ed recorded by Dylan Avery, Ed Paik’s drawings and gestures for CIT, and other related material, show that certain facts have been omitted or distorted by CIT in their attempt to make their case for the ‘north of Citgo path’.
I. Summary of Erik Larson 2010 Shinki and Ed Paik Video
*Revised and corrected 1/24/10
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. I interviewed Dawn and her husband, Dan Ferrigno, January 5, 2010 at that same apartment and found them credible; they talked openly with me, their accounts have not changed since they were first offered, and I saw for myself that Dawn and Tim could have easily seen what they claimed to have seen.
Dr. Peter Dale Scott, researcher, author and UC Berkeley Professor Emeritus, recently praised the latest video from CIT, ‘National Security Alert’. However, due to receiving many emails critical of CIT’s work, he issued a qualifying statement, which I asked for and received permission to post publicly. CIT’s film presents witnesses whose statements indicate, or seem to indicate, that American Airlines Flight 77 did not fly the path that we have been told knocked down light poles and caused the damage at the Pentagon, as well as the testimony of an apparent eyewitness to a plane that flew over the building. The film also contends that it is “conclusive” that AA 77 did not hit the Pentagon, that instead it flew over the building. However, in his qualifying statement, Dr. Scott says, “I do not personally believe it.” He explains, “All I endorsed was their assemblage of witnesses…. I do not draw the conclusions from their testimony that CIT does.”
This is Dr. Scott’s statement at CIT’s website:
Given the recent promotions of the latest version of the flyover theory, 911Review has added another ERROR page to it's collection of Pentagon errors:
In contrast to the the "no-plane" or small plane theories that deny the crash of a jetliner into the Pentagon on 9/11, a theory circulated since 2003 maintains that a jetliner with American Airlines livery did indeed approach the Pentagon, as reported by scores of eyewitnesses but fooled the same witnesses into thinking that it crashed there in a spectacular "magic show" in which the plane flew through the explosion and over the vast office building, slipping away unnoticed.
Whether you are for it or against it, it is worth further study. Discussion does not simply imply endorsement. But, if you are attacked for even discussing it, then I have to harken back to this small great article by GeorgeWashington: Fearmongering As a Form of Warfare, with this specific point in mind, "and we already know that the Pentagon employs bloggers to spread its propaganda (indeed, even private companies appear to do it)
[ http://www.advantageconsultants.org/ & http://www.winningcampaigns.org/aboutus.html ].
When anyone tells me not to look behind the curtain, that there's "nothing to see here folks," especially at a crime scene, then that is the first place to do so, for me at least. When they get aggravated that you or I persist in doing so, they are showing their true colors.
On Wednesday night, I posted this poll:
Because I knew that the 911blogger user base was sharply divided on the Fly-over theory, I was not seeking a wide-range of opinion. I wanted to see how many were for, or against, the specific theory. Yes, there could have been one more, or many more questions added to the poll, but I was interested in identifying the split.
On Thursday, I posted this blog entry from Craig of CIT:
Responding to criticism from user "jimd3100", I posted links to three blogs critical of the CIT work on Friday:
Shortly afterward, I was accused by Aldo of CIT:
"You are now guilty of promoting disinformation."
This was followed by Craig's comment:
"Let's be frank.....it's no secret that 9/11 blogger has coddled the 757 impact conspiracy theory and has marginalized information that counters this notion."
This, despite the fact that I was (let me stress, WAS) an early supporter of the Pentacon film, and posted it on the front page of blogger, as soon as I finished watching it, in February of 2007;
Domenic of CIT added after that:
"Your support of government agent John Farmer and toilet scrubber Adam Larson and some obsessed clown named Arabesque exposes you for the gatekeeper you are Reprehensor. Let me guess you're just another anonymous clown in the gatekeeping world. Perhaps one of Randi;s kids from the JREF Forum posing as a truther."
All of this for posting one blog entry, with 3 links to criticism of CIT's work.
People seeking future releases from CIT, the "Citizen Investigation Team", should go directly to the Pentacon website.
They won't be promoted here.
My apologies to the user base here, but if the editor of the website can't provide a few links (links!) to some criticism, without being accused of "promoting disinformation", (with the history of my support for the early version of the Pentacon completely ignored), and then the ultimate insult, a JREF'er... a JREF'er indeed, what does the 45% user base in opposition have to look forward to? This kind of behavior is just not wanted here. It's disruptive.
Another jam-packed show with activists AND researchers, celebrating the 11th of the month!
During the first hour, Canadian activists Richard Brinkman and Wayne Prante will join me for a civil debate on the relative merits of "civil information activism" versus truth squad confrontations of famous figures. Richard and Wayne have been critical of recent We Are Change truth squad actions, while I have been cheering them on (while also cheering for the kind of information activism Richard and Wayne champion). Last week I had four major-league truth-squadders on 9/11 and Empire Radio, so this week I'm offering Richard and Wayne a chance to air their side of this debate. A minor controversy on this issue recently erupted here at 911blogger:
So, you want to "be change", huh?
Getting The Truth Out: What works?
An Apology to We Are Change