New PentaCon documentary released today: North Side Flyover
Released today:
http://www.thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm
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.
- Pixelwrangler's blog
- Login to post comments
Plane Seems To Travel Between Arlington Cemetary & Citgo
Witness interviews seem to place Boeing trajectory between Arlington cemetary and the Citgo station.
The "Pentagon Building Performance Report" describes a trajectory hundreds of feet to the south.
This is an image contained within the ASCE PBPR report showing this trajectory:
This image basically demonstrates the difference in trajectories between the accounts of the numerous CIT witnesses and the the version of events offered by ASCE. CIT witnesses place the Boeing jet along the path of the red line. The ASCE alleges a flight path along the yellow line.
The toppled light posts are all located along the trajectory offered by the ASCE PBPR (the yellow line):
Aidan
I find it very hard to believe that a 757 hitting just one light pole would'nt make the plane cartwheel,spin,
or at the very least throw the trajectory off.
The Light Post Trajectory Seems Arguably In Doubt
The CIT interviews seem to place the plane far north of the light posts.
Adain
Someone posted more detailed pictures of the light poles ,and the cement bases.
I've worked constrution for many years, and these
J bolts are a grade 5, and go down into the concrete at least two feet. I am guessing on these poles their diameter is 1 1/2" ......To me there is no way the light poles could fail at that point.
It just one of many smells like BS official stories.
Don't forget the 20 or so light pole witnesses.
Don't forget the 20 or so light pole witnesses. A while back, these investigators made an ad-hominem filled straw-man attack on these accounts. I debunked it on an Above Topic Secret thread. Admittedly I made one or two real mistakes, and I still have to correct them. It doesn't change the fact that there are over 100 accounts of an impact and ZERO of a flyover.
Let me remind you, the plane flew by in seconds. It easy to remember something like a plane hitting a building. This is what I call a SPECIFIC memory. It's not something that you can "confuse" or be wrong about easily. A flight path is something that happened in just a few seconds. To the memory of anyone, this is less significant compared to what actually happened to the plane--did it crash? Did it fly over? Several of the witnesses that CIT calls "smoking gun" give FACTUALLY INCORRECT information. This includes false information about their location, the location of the taxi cab, and the light poles. In fact, their claim that the plane hit the building contradicts their accounts that it flew North of the CITGO gas station. In fact, their flight paths don't even agree with each other. One of the witnesses described the plane flying SOUTH of the Annex. Two others said it flew NORTH of the annex. So they don't even agree with each other! On this basis alone, this proves the commonly known observation that eyewitness testimony is not reliable years later, which is why the complete testimony must be studied.
Eyewitness testimony isn't reliable 7 years after the event. Some of the information will be correct. Some of it will be wrong. It can only be evaluated on a TOTAL basis. A scientific account looks at the total body of statements and evaluates all of the accounts as a whole. That means looking at ALL of the testimony, not cherry picking it to support your pet theory.
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth
The Mass Hallucination Theory: aka the "Flyover" theory
The Mass Hallucination Theory: aka the "Flyover" theory
"But, if you are attacked for even discussing it..."
Apparently you haven't been paying much attention. Do I need to dig up some quotes for you in which these investigators slander everyone who reviews their work? There are pages and pages of slander by these people. Jim Hoffman, Dylan Avery, Russell Pickering. There isn't anyone they haven't attacked who has discussed their evidence. But I just assume you didn't notice that.
Here's an image I got in an email from these people:
http://bp2.blogger.com/_A1K7WiQJbaI/R-F0hKT_q8I/AAAAAAAAAIo/R-YLpcNLAuQ/...
This email referred to another Pentagon researcher as a "Piece of Shit".
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/03/citizen-investigation-team-arab...
I've collected a partial list of their slander here:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-an...
Here's some of my favorite claims by them:
Example #1: The witnesses who claimed the plane flew over the Pentagon all "hallucinated" by a "sleight of hand illusion" (their words), when they said the plane hit the Pentagon.
Example #2: The Pentagon deliberately edited the CITGO gas station video to contradict one of their star witnesses. (The video shows him running on the South Side of the station--proving his testimony is wrong).
"…the video has been proven to be manipulated/altered before and after its released… all the witnesses at the Citgo did not see ANYTHING fly on the south side of the station. The plane and the plane only was on the north side of the Citgo. This was clearly a hasty, desperate response and poor attempt by the perps to discredit Robert Turcios AND the north side flight path.”
Yes, that's right. The video was altered to prove the WITNESS wrong. That's the most plausible explanation!
Example #3: The fact that a police officer got the location of the light poles wrong, some how makes his testimony "more credible".
"“Why should he remember where the light poles were knocked down when he told us that he DID NOT SEE THE LIGHT POLES? Of course he would believe that the light poles/physical damage that he DID NOT SEE (or read reports on after the fact) would line up with the flight path of the plane that he DID SEE! That only serves to prove how certain he is of where he saw the plane.”
Yes, the witness saw the light poles. If he didn't see them, he couldn't have said they were knocked down in the WRONG location. This is an obviously deceptive statement.
Example #4: The flyover theory revealed: It's real name should be called the MASS HALLUCINATION theory!
“Everyone knows that eyewitness accounts are fallible but as they become corroborated the claim becomes exponentially validated. With enough corroboration, ALL claims can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. When we are talking about a simple right or left claim of this magnitude this is particularly the case. To get the side of the station wrong for people who were literally on the station's property would be a ridiculously drastic and virtually impossible mistake to make that would require hallucinations. For all of them to hallucinate the same exact thing is simply not a viable consideration.”
Arabesque: "Corroboration of witness accounts is clearly important for determining their validity, but Ranke completely contradicts his own argument for corroborating statements when he claims that the plane approaching the Pentagon was “used as an instrument of deception during a perfectly timed military sleight of hand illusion.” So much for not believing in mass hallucination!"
CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-an...
This article alone establishes their "credibility" as researchers.
I recommend visiting Caustic Logic, who has a fun time exposing their latest falsehoods, misinformation, and their credibility as researchers.
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth
Arabesque:
I am not familiar with ALL of the correspondence and bad air between you, your friends, and CIT... but if the general gist of your detraction is that CIT makes for a fool's errand, or worse... let me know, I'll have them picked up for questioning. 'Clearly', the contradiction they present in countenance AGAINST the official version of events when you see these boys on the screen and all their video witnesses... we must be looking at a conspiracy AT LEAST as solid and far easier to prove than 9/11 itself.
Let me know.
(otherwise.... STFU)
CIT has a reputation for personal attacks...
...with those they disagree with.
Not all members, but more than a couple. Who does this remind you of? "Debunkers"? Shillclown & co? A certain site that needs not be named?
So this is the thing--I've had loads to think of since our Ronnie Wieck kicking fest. I've come to a conclusion that may be shocking to some: it doesn't matter what you believe if you have a habit of arguing dishonestly AND a habit of leading with unfounded personal attacks. This is true on both sides of the plane "debate"--(sorry I'm obviously prejudiced to believe aircraft were used) If you observe patterns there are people on both sides of the planes "debate" who act exactly like disruptors because they spend the majority of their time attacking people . That's the MO-- not the belief--the behavior.
Which leads me to my next brain wave : good fences make good neighbors.
Sane people who sincerely believe X do not go out of their way to start bollox with people who believe Y, unless they were provoked(presuming they have a forum managed so they can do X productively). The fact that there is a ridiculous quantity of people who whinge and moan about NOT being able to join forum X and be disruptive --including debunkers, noplaners, "zionists only did 911" wankers--says more about their motives than anything else.
All the sincere people who honestly disagree about these things work on forums where they can be productive by whatever measure that is. They don't go looking for bollox.
So watch CIT. Are they sincere people who will respect the differing goals of forums they visit? Or is there main goal to provoke people into mixing it up with them?
Guess we'll find out, like.
______________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/
http://truthaction.org/forum/
http://www.911blacklist.org/
The value of CIT, be they legit OR con.
In the preponderance of material (all of it) gathered to date, there is NOT a proud-center bell curve, with statistical outliers that can simply be canceled (such as a few crazy-odd witnesses here and there). Rather, what CIT and their video witnesses present (as well within the historical record) is more a plot-graph duple.
In a case of atomic research, or particle physics such as cytometry (the counting of MANY little things), AT LEAST two discernible populations makes for good science... as in, you're onto something. It tells the researcher that they have at least acquired the skill necessary to distinguish an apple from an orange. Good stuff.
In a case of a criminal act here on earth where we still assume that we DO NOT live simultaneously mixed among multiple realties, where a single linear chain of events occur (THE attack plane approaches from some altitude, descends, evidenced short of target, then strikes and damages target), a duple (damage mutually exclusive to flight path) is NOT good stuff. At least not for the REAL perpetrators.
Witness testimony IS painfully frustrating. People are vague, or poorly spoken, or clumsy observers, easily confused, true-compass point deficient, readily mix left and right, effortlessly time shift, warp and wrap, unfamiliar with terminology, unfamiliar with gauging distance (especially estimations of distance AND altitude by angle for airborne objects they've never been up next to or actually worked on to KNOW size and detail).
And who could miss how witnesses LOVE to weave each their own unique individual brand of 'help' when given the attention of an interviewer. Notice the number of witnesses saying "... then it struck the light poles..." or "...then it hit the building..."... yet seconds later confirm that neither was actually visible from their vantage point, or admit to having turned their head just before or just after. Separating what they actually witnessed at the scene, away from what they actually picked up on the Evening Mockingbird News or from their friends who also watch the Evening Mockingbird News, is no easy task.
This is not a fault of witnesses, it's just a fact. Yet witnesses, for all the frustration, are important and commendable none-the-less for INFORMING any damn thing at all.
Being short tempered, curt or vulgar with people who so easily (and repeatedly) skip over acknowledging the prima fascia case compiled by CIT... is understandable to me. Funny thing, all this bitching about CIT with such a clear choice laid bare by CIT themselves.
My point? Is that Craig and Aldo have either done something truly heroic, or tragically stupid if they are NOT who they claim to be. Before I bore you or waist my precious time... let me know if you follow up to this point.
Simple question
Has any "detractor" who has attempted "character assassination" and/or spin on an internet blog regarding the work of CIT actually gone to Arlington themselves, using their own resources and filmed/questioned the same witnesses on location?
If not, there isnt much from the "detractors" but smoke. And they deserve zero respect.
Rob Balsamo
http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum
Dear Arabesque
Reading your blog, I see only words, words, words, words at infinitum.
Craig and Aldo deliver authentic eyewitness statements clearly showing up a flight path which is not in accordance with the official story. You can't spin this evidence away even if you multiply the word count of your article by ten.
Craig and Aldo have attacked Hoffman and Pickering. That's true. Hmmm... is it possible that they were just responding to attacks by these gentlemen?
Hallucinatory in-fighting
I think at this point we should be studying the event and the information provided and not playing to the "he said-team said" games of personal attacks. I think most of us are aware of what the personal attacks are about and can move past that, as it is a standard problem when confronting the criminals at hand, hence the companies I mentioned in my original post that were birthed from the same Fed programs. I'm don't care to take sides in personal attacks, whether yours or CIT's. I'm just going to look into what has been pushed as the honey pot for years, the ultimate forbidden fruit, the one and only Pentagon. They, the Pentagon, have no fall-back story for what happened. The CD of the towers do.
Apart from keeping a very comprehensive log of in-fighting of which the NSA would be proud, have you looked at the new video testimonies, for whatever their worth? Haven't seen a comment on the actual merit of the new footage and testimony presented here, unless I've overlooked that valuable critique. That would be a great use of your time in this debate on what happened at the Pentagon, as your team seems to be a group of well qualified researchers with a wealth of knowledge and databases, rather than spending your time in personal fights which comes across as being diversionary. I agree with Balsamo's assessment and points made by Aidan. I live in the DC metro and have interviewed people here and walked the hilly terrain and berms surrounding the Pentagon, but not to the extent that Craig and Aldo have done while traveling across country to do so. Not sure where your team resides, but you could put yourselves in front of a camera out here and interview the multitude of eyewitness of whom you speak to present your side of the research.
For the amount of around the clock blogging you do and where you show up across the net 24/7 with encyclopedic accounts of linked research, specializing in keeping tabs on researcher comments, you seem to have ample free time to be able to put out your counter argument on camera with these witnesses of yours of whom you speak so highly. It would keep the movement working out the facts rather than calling each other names. But then again, that is part of the "game."
Thanks Craig and Aldo for
Thanks Craig and Aldo for staying with it. The Pentagon needs exposure. I deeply appreciate your good works.
Maybe the round the clock bloggers could hit the streets too. Wouldn't that be helpful.
911 Truth Ends 911 Wars
Interviews Seem To Speak For Themselves
The CIT witnesses all seem to consistently place the Boeing aircraft north of the Citgo station and south of Arlington cemetary.
This trajectory would make hitting the downed light poles impossible.
Beyond this, there is not enough information for me to offer an intelligent comment.
Light pole sheared-yes, pulled from base-no
No freaking way would those light poles be "pulled" off there mounting unless:
1. They were break-away mounting designed to seperate from impact
2. The bolts were loosened
A very strong aluminum framed wing moving at 500+mph would not "pull" the pole off the mounting base, it would clean-cut shear the poles. If the fuselage hit the pole flush on it would bend. Looking at the elbow shaped pole, it is obvious that the bolts mounting that pole provided very little resistance. If that pole was not mounted using a break-away fixture, then the bolts were simple loossened to the point were the horizontal force was suffcient to pull the bolts out from the base.
In fact I find it hard to beleive that the poles when hit didnt wrap around and embed in the wing frame. Once removed from the base, the pole would offer no resistance. The initial force on impact would bend the pole around the wing, the pole would not have fallen off.
These poles look like they were set up to fall down.
Another possibility
is that the exhaust of the engines, supposedly at full-throttle, was sufficient to blow over (at least some of) the light poles, without them touching a wing. Could this make them break at the base?
If anyone doubts the force of jet engine exhaust, see the the 1st version of Loose Change. There is an old clip of a jet taking off that blows over a full-sized car on the runway.
All That Should Matter Is The Interviews
What contrbutes to the accuracy of the witness accounts is the fact that 2 groups were located opposite one another and collectively place the plane between them and away from the light post trajectory.
Regardless of my opinion of validity of the recovered 9/11 FDRs, the NTSB animation derived from the FDR of AA 77 also reveals a flight path very similar to that described by the CIT witnesses.
This is a final frame from that animation. The yellow line traces a trajectory described by the "PBPR". The Navy Annex building is circled in yellow.
With all of the conflicting information regarding the Pentagon, it doesn't seem one can say for certain precisely what happened. There is convincing evidence for at least 2 scenarios.
Far better said, Aidan. Thanks.
"There is convincing evidence for at least 2 scenarios."
On a graph representing people and opinion, this makes a duple. An inappropriate statistical problem highly suggestive of, as CIT says it, "a military deception." Or at minimum, this points out a split in the general population's understanding of reality (where there should be only one general agreement for reality, forming a centering bell curve).
In this case, such a split 'reality' is profoundly dangerous for any group of people with an interdependence needed for working together. They will encounter endless internal conflict when external conflicts need resolution. Such as bringing the 9/11 perpetrators to justice so that it doesn't happen again. If you were the perps, you'd enjoy such a situation because the people will endlessly scramble amongst themselves while You The Perp, can run the loot out the back door with nobody paying attention.
This duple, largely provided by the combined efforts of Monaghan, P4T and CIT... is some seriously high voltage evidence, useful against anyone continuing to say there is no mystery about 9/11.
Thanks dear people.
add: Now the situation should only be more clear to those paying attention.
Who has the ability to resolve this conflict with ample resource to act accordingly, yet does not? Who enjoys the benefit of a loss in tranquility, yet claims to be the tranquility protector? Who is positioned to reap windfalls of money and control, so long as tranquility remains out of reach?
Prime Suspect: The group withholding their own exculpatory evidence, and the buttons to blow us all to kingdom come.
I charge the Pentagon as actually, The Department of Offense.
CAN YOU HEAR ME YOU RAVING MOTHER FUCKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!