This is the opposite of what CIT's evidence shows. All of their eyewitnesses saw a big, low flying plane head towards the Pentagon -- except for Pentagon Police Officer Roosevelt Roberts who saw it after the explosion, banking over the parking lot.

I do not consider Arabesque a credible source. I have parsed his essays on CIT and find them woefully lacking. HIs insistence on supporting the OCT in this regard is hurting the movement.

For those in the DC area, this Saturday CIT is giving a free presentation from 10-2:30 at the NRECA center in Arlington. Sponsored by The Wisdom Fund. Rob Balsamo of Pilots for 911 Truth and Shelton Lankford, Lt. Col. USMC (retired), a fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions, 10,000 hours of flight time, and a recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross, will also be speaking. More info here.

but the anonymous spook "Arabesque" has NOT debunked the admirable work of two men who have taken an enormous amount of risk by putting their real names and faces to their investigation and activism.

His anti-CIT blog has more red herrings than the Popular Mechanics book.

And in the last blog entry here a few months ago devoted to this topic, when these red herrings and non sequiturs were pointed out, the CIT attackers would just close their ears and go "la la la la la I'm tellin' ya this has all been debunked in Arabesque's blog" and slap the link down one more time.

I think CIT deserves a Pulitzer Prize for their investigative journalism.

Sheila I look forward to coming to DC and attending the Pilots/CIT conference as well as AE911truth next week. :-)

EDIT: For the double standard employed by CIT detractors, check out the final post in the last thread devoted to this topic:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20035#comment-208139

>>but the anonymous spook "Arabesque"

Like I said on another thread, if Arabesque is a spook, then it looks like the agents have finally joined our cause! This is wonderful news, to know that some in the bureau or the agency are working to expose the strong evidence of inside job and debunk the nonsense right alongside us. It's hard to imagine this could have happened, probably a first time in history, but it gives me new hope that we can win this thing.

If only! But dream on . . . Arabesque is only being attacked now in this crass way because he does a great job debunking this crap. As you know, calling someone an agent only exposes the person who is making the baseless claim . . . just like CIT.

Thanks for the laugh, and some good points too. I hope that the moderators on this site will take these attacks seriously as they are a transparent attempt to create a hostile environment on 911blogger and turn the discussion into a flame war. This is a common tactic by people who refuse to actually debate the issues and it is very transparent coming from people who have never addressed my articles in ANY significant way.

CIT's Deceptive Flight Path Argument: "North" or "South"? What about "Hit the Pentagon"?

"The CIT flyover (what I correctly rename to the "mass hallucination theory") largely depends on dismissing hundreds of witness accounts, and deceptively insinuating that the widespread and unanimous reports of the plane hitting the Pentagon do not count as evidence of the "flight path"."

This should be blatantly obvious, but apparently it is not to CIT and their supporters: When witnesses describe the plane striking the Pentagon, that is in fact part of the "flight path". There is a name for this logical fallacy and it is called "Special Pleading".
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2009/07/cits-deceptive-flight-path-argu...

A Response to Misleading Claims About the CIT Flyover Debate

Not only did Lagasse get the light poles wrong, he was adamant that the light poles knocked down on 9/11 were not knocked down! He also misplaced the location of the Taxi cab which can be seen in the illustration above. This hasn't stopped CIT repeating the claim that this witness is part of the "smoking gun" evidence that the plane flew North of the CITGO. CIT has refused to acknowledge in any clear way that Lagasse is not a credible witness based on the mistaken testimony he has given and clearly this is deceptive.
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2009/07/response-to-misleading-claims-a...
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

So, it's OK to call other users agents on this site now?

Seems like a bad policy.

EDIT: I've been informed that snitchjacketing is still against the rules here.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Watch the video Vicky. It's all spelled out for you right there. Cabbie's story is physically impossible.

If you still have questions, come back. But I don't think you will.

>>Watch the video Vicky. It's all spelled out for you right there. Cabbie's story is physically impossible.

Unfortunately, I've watched it. All it means is that CIT thinks they have ESP to read someone's mind, and that an elderly man is confused and will respond differently when he has a camera pointed at him. Can't imagine why anyone in DC, at the Pentagon, might be concerned about what's captured on video about themselves. It must mean he's a criminal.

What's more fascinating than the cabbie soap opera though, is how CIT pretends that no humans existed on the other side of the building, hundreds of humans with functional eyes -- afterall, many were on a highway and driving -- who would have seen the plane flying away.

I read somewhere that CIT claims that there's no point in asking the people on the other side of the building what happened because they probably would have confused the two planes -- AA77 and the C-130. Wow, I guess hundreds of people were fooled on BOTH sides of the buidling, even when a commercial jet would have been roaring just above them, they'd have thought it was the Cargo plane that came afterward, flying much higher.

But as it turns out, unfortunately for CIT, some of the people who saw the explosion and the approach were the air traffic controllers at Reagan National Airport. Would air traffic controllers -- not one, but several -- who reported seeing the plane approach, seeing the fireball and explosion, not be capable of noticing a commercial jet fly away from the scene? Oh that's right, they were "in on it"!!

There are so many ridiculous claims that are wrapped up in the sappy melodrama of "the cabbie is in on it!!!" and other emotional diversions to avoid the gaping holes in basic logic, that it's beyond embarrassing at this point, seriously.

Today's event was very good. I appreciate the hard work and courage of the Citizens Investigation Team. They are on the ground and they are not anonymous. Same with Pilots. We Are Change Virginia was there too, as well as some pilots in the audience. It was a good day.

CIT has a new website.

http://citizeninvestigationteam.com/index.html

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

And, somewhat to my surprise...

...NOT ONE SINGLE detractor of CIT/PfT showed up in person to challenge their findings.

It was a full room of people. Given the resistance CIT receives here, and even at such places as Prisonplanet, I expected at least one detractor to speak up. During the Q/A session, I took the microphone and asked the audience: "Let's do something Richard Gage does at the end of his talks. Let's have a show of hands: Are there any truthers in this room who believe a large airliner hit the Pentagon?"

Not one single person raised their hand.

Second question: "Does anyone here believe CIT's work has been refuted?"

Not one single person raised their hand.

By the way, they are now up to FOURTEEN (not thirteen anymore) north side witnesses and THREE flyover witnesses.

Now I understand why you took the mike and asked those questions. I looked around and no one spoke up. I was the one who asked what was under that tarp being carried out of the Pentagon. It was a tent to be set up on the lawn. One of the carriers of that thing is one of the witnesses of the North path. He works at the Navy Annex and the plane went overhead of him. I've seen most of the CIT material but I learned a lot today by having this discussion.

I brought a woman to this who had finally gotten turned on by Richard Gage being on Coast to Coast. She still has a lot to learn but she went home with a dvd and is willing to share with others. She knew someone who had seen the plane but she never realized the flight path by the government is a LIE. A big fat lie.

It is nice to now know who you are too. Thanks for being there. nancy

p.s. And now we have the architect convention with Richard Gage on thursday as well as public events at a big coffee house in DC (Busboys and Poets). Hopefully more to report later.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

...mostly helping out at Gage's booth at the convention. Catch me again this week, it would be great to chat.