What is the Pentagon flyover theory and what is the CIT team? I have never heard of this theory. I thought FL77 hit the Pentagon.

You just post blogs but have no comment on them?

Do you even know what is in those blogs, Rep?

All innuendo, disinfo, incorrect and incomplete information.

List one accurate piece of information that debunks or refutes anything CIT has done, Rep.

This is sad, you choose newcomers who have vehemently attacked us while trying to blend in with the movement.

Did you all know John Farmer tried courting us? Did you now about this?

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=113

We watched John Farmer burst onto the scene not long after we received the very damaging testimony.
He tried to blend in with us by complimenting our work. Then he slowly started posting strange theories, like there was a plane on each flight path. Then he tried attacking Robert. Lagasse, brooks and so on. We 100% believe John Farmer is an op. A vague character who claims he ran for congress, was a police detective, worked for Dupont... he is a regular Karl Schwarz. He is a ghost as far as we are concerned.

Arabesque is an anonymous poster from the UAE I have heard. He has been a vigilent attack campaign against us and like Farmer he misleads readers by posting incorrect, incomplete information. Arabesque still to this day has not removed all the people he claims were witnesses who actually weren't. Arabesque is another individual we consider to be a part of the operation against CIT.

Adam Larson (Caustic Logic) is admittedly "ego-obsessed" over us. He continually has been corrected and at least admits so many of his errors, but continually still spins and misleads readers by actually suggesting our witnesses are part of a disinfo campaign.

They have all done this. Either we are disinfo or they imply two of our witnesses "work for the gov't" so they must be in on it.

They try so many angles to cover all bases when trying to cast doubt on us.

You can read more here:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showforum=9

Rep, why do you promote info youare clearly not even reading or studying?

Do you know how disinfo works?

This is incredibly sad...you are fighting against and slowing the progress of the good guys, Rep.

You let me know when you are ready to become informed Rep. I am here on this blog to inform anyone who needs it. Anyone who has any questions or comments about the above disinfo links Rep has provided.

Just as an FYI, I see in todays readers letters at http://whatreallyhappened.com/letters someone has been emailing Mike Rivero at WRH asking him about the Pilots for 911 Truth analysis of Flt 77's black box data showing it was too high to hit the Pentagon. Rivero, as might be expected, is firmly sticking by his opinion that Flt 77 hit the Pentagon.

READER: In all the controversy over what did or did not hit the Pentagon, I was wondering if you had given any consideration to the work of the Pilots for 9/11 Truth and their analysis of AA Flight 77s flight data recorder information, released to them after a FOIA request to the NTSB. They say that the flight data as shown by the black box indicates that Flight 77 could not have hit the pentagon (basically trajectory was way too high) and both the NTSB and FBI have declined comment on why the FDR data does not correspond to the US Governement's "Official Conspiracy Theory" as to what went down that day.

This video presentation (55 min) analyzes the flight trajectory as presented by the NTSB from the black box data and shows how it confllcts with the official story: http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=2833924626286859522&hl

more information and analysis of the FDR data is also available at http://pilotsfor911truth.org

WRH: At the risk of panicking travelers, altimeters are not that accurate. Aneroid altimeters are offset by local air pressure conditions that vary from the originating airport and radar altimeters are affected by local ground terrain and do not function well at low altitudes. GPS, which is designed to find position on the globe's surface, is far less accurate on the vertical than on the horizontal. It is for this reason that aircraft are separated by 1000 feet vertically by air traffic control. Errors in the altimeters can reach hundreds of feet too high or too low. In theory, if everyone is using correctly set aneroid altimeters, the errors all move the same way by the same amount. On bad-weather approaches to airports there is special ground-based radar to give a more accurate reading of the aircraft's altitude relative to the runway. The aircraft flight data recorder carries the data from the encoding altimeter which encodes its errors onto the tape. So, there is no surprise or diabolical explanation needed for the fact that the altitude on the Flight 77 numbers read a bit high. All it takes is a slightly lower local air pressure at the Pentagon than at the airport where Flight 77 orignally took off.

First letter above was followed up by this.

READER: You said basically that the pilotsfor911truth.org are staking their claim on possibly inaccurate and/or unverifiable readings from Flt 77/s aneroid altimeter altitude readings.

But in the video I linked in my emails and which is posted on the http:// pilotsfor911truth.org web site, it was claimed they also cross checked the barometric pressure derived altitude readings with the aircraft's radio altimeter readings (which are very accurate and use principles of radar instead of atmospheric pressure) and which were also contained in the FDR data released from the NTSB. Mike, the people who make up the Pilots For 911 Truth web site are professional (civilian and military or retired military) pilots. (see some of their members here: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html ) I find it very hard to believe that they would make a rooky mistake, even for a student pilot, like not knowing that a barometric pressure altimeter can be off if the correct local barometric pressure is not set into the altimeter and thus attempt to make a case which could be so easily dismissed. And, as a matter of fact (according to the presentation) the radio altimeter data was used to verify the data provided by the standard aneroid altimeter.

Here's the link to the Google Video presentation again: http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=2833924626286859522&hl

WRH: The problem is that radar altimeters are designed to be used on approach to an airport, over flat terrain, and where the aircraft is fairly level. Most aircraft radar altimeters will not even work above 2500 feet. While some radar altimeters claim to be accurate down to 0 feet, manufacturers admit that accuracy falls off sharply and can be useless below 40 feet. The thinking is that if you still cannot see the runway at 40 feet altutude, you should not be trying to land a passenger jet anyway.

Radar altimeters measure altitude above the ground (and buildings) right under the craft. Radar altimeter data therefore fluctuates as the terrain below the aircraft rises and falls, or the aircraft flies over buildings and brodges and high tension wires. Inevitably, you are going to get a different reading on the radar altimeter that will vary with the terrain underneath.

The antennas on radar altimeters are directional, pointed downward. They are fairly narrow in focus to minimize errors from hills and tall buildings just off the flight path, which is common in airports in metropolitan areas. Are we 200 feet above ground, or 200 feet above the Tishman Building? The way you avoid those mistakes is by sending the radar pulse straight down below the aircraft, and listening for the return echo the same way. But becauser of that tight radar beam, radar altimeters are subject to slope errors. Their indicated altitude increases in steep banks, which Flight 77 did as it circled the Pentagon. For both these reasons, the raw data from the radar altimeter should not actually match that from the aneroid. The degree of error should vary as the aircraft flew over tall buildings and as it banked sharply in that final turn.

Yea, since the folks that fell for the phony "missile at the pentagon" are realizing they saw edited clips, and all the witnesses saw a plane, are waking up to that fact. We have this 3 letter agency to put in your lap another phony scenio that no one saw, a preposterous flyover. Only in this scenio you have to accuse the ordinary citizins of being "in on it", and keep the movement from pointing out how Hani Hanjour could not have done what he is supposed to. What's next in the name of "911 truth" a documentary of how the firefighters planted bombs in the WTC?

What happened at the Pentagon is at best a moot point given the available evidence. For the movement this is in my opinion a potentially dangerous topic that takes up time and serves as a distraction. If there was a hieracrchy of evidence from strongest to weakest, the CIT evidence at this point is high controversial and should not be discussed with those outside of researchers. Why isn't the CIT team focusing on interviewing any potential NORAD employee, any Andrew Air Force Base employee, etc. is it because there opinion is that Cheney did not issue a stand-down order? Granted they can do what they want. The issue is not what happened there, but why. It's a high probability that a standdown order to allow a plane enter the most restrictive air space in the world could the Pentagon have been hit as Cheney has done everything in his power to say he wasn't at the PEOC yet to do so.

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.

You intentionally mislead people just with the name of your poll.

Why don't you have a poll and ask people who have looked at CIT's work if they think LaGasse, Brooks, Paik, Stephens, Boger, Turcios, Ross, etc are all lying about where they saw the plane. If every eyewitness CIT finds miraculously all either hallucinated an airplane on 9/11 or are all having a false memory which corroborates every other eyewitness CIT has spoken to.

Why doesn't LaGasse change his memory to support the official flight path?

Got any idea "Reprehensor"?

This is what Sgt LaGasse says :

"Again, they can hypothosize all they want...I know what I saw, I know what happened, period."

Know the difference between CIT and their eyewitnesses and gatekeers like you?

You're the one who is anonymous and yet you ultimately get to paint a picture because of your status here to lead or in this case mislead real honest people searching for information and research.

You should resign from this site and this movement. You support government disinformation provocateurs. I'm sure the saddest day for you so far had to have been when CIT's exposure of that fake truther Russell Pickering and his disinfo website caused them to go away. He would fit right in with Farmer and Larson and this other clown.