Arabesque,

Excellent quote from Ranke! Let's use it in context of the WTC deception and see if you agree.

“We have never claimed that the WTC collapse witnesses didn’t believe the official explanation for an unassisted collapse. The claim we make is quite clear. Their corroborated accounts of a physically impossible near free fall speed collapse combined with reports of explosions and molten steel proves they were deceived… The plane was used as a psychological tool during a military deception in order to FOOL people into believing it is what caused the buildings to collapse.”

Would you agree with the above statement, Arabesque? If so, would you claim that it's fair to suggest that this means the witnesses in NY and the general public who watched the WTC collapse on video participated in mass hallucination? Or would military deception be a more accurate term? Do you understand the difference between the two, and do you understand the point of this analogy?

>>If so, would you claim that it's fair to suggest that this means the witnesses in NY and the general public who watched the WTC collapse on video participated in mass hallucination?

There was no "fakery" to fool everyone at the WTC -- they blew up the towers and then wrote up hand-waving reports afterwards.

No fake downing of lamp posts, fake debris, fake damage to the generator, faked DNA, fake black boxes, on and on . . .

Oh yeah, and don't bother with Bush/Cheney -- you need to look at that elderly cabbie!! He's the real devil in all this!

No fake downing of lamp posts, fake debris, fake damage to the generator, faked DNA, fake black boxes, on and on . . .

Only the faking of "natural collapse" of 3 massive high rises in a downtown metropolis! No biggie there, huh? ;-) As if that remotely compares to a few light poles in the backyard of the perpetrators!

Before I looked intensively at CIT's work, and was only hazily aware of their research and conclusions, I too would have thought that "staged light poles" etc. sounds wacky and outlandish. But now, I realize that their conclusions are very solidly based on multiple corroborated testimonies from eyewitnesses. Even one of CIT's most outspoken critics had to concede that the 13 eyewitnesses to the north side couldn't be all wrong by coincidence. He then insinuated that a likely explanation involves all the 13 witnesses plus Craig and Aldo are all part of a huge massive disinfo op. Listen to the first three minutes to hear the discussion / debate for yourself:

That's the ironic double standard here. CIT's detractors claim that CIT does the movement harm by making claims that make the movement look stupid, such as suggesting that a nice elderly cab driver is an accomplice. But then at least one of those same detractors claimed that ALL THIRTEEN of those north side witnesses might be disinfo accomplices. Which is at least twelve times more absurd than suggesting that just ONE "witness" might be part of a fake witness op.

Oh yeah, and don't bother with Bush/Cheney -- you need to look at that elderly cabbie!! He's the real devil in all this!

This, ladies and gents, is what is what critical thinkers refer to as a straw man argument. A logical fallacy. NOWHERE has CIT suggested the cab driver was a perpetrator NOR have they ever called him "the devil". You are misrepresenting their claims. They state that the cab driver was "involved" merely in the sense of being a low level "asset" but NEVER have they suggested he is a high level perpetrator or planner on the level of Bush/Cheney.

I noticed I never received a reply to this one. Just a down vote.

they blew up the towers and then wrote up hand-waving reports afterwards.

On the morning of 911: "...and the I watched both towers collapse, one first, and then the other, mostly due to structural failure because the fire was too intense."

This was before any "scientific" explanations from NIST or FEMA, or even Bazant or Eagar, were published. And unlike some in the movement, I don't think the Harley Guy was a plant. He was fooled by a military deception, as were hundreds of millions of people around the world, myself included. What CIT's detractors have done in their blogs is analagous to attempting to rebut Gage, Jones, etc. by citing hundreds of witnesses who swear on their life that they saw those buildings "collapse" from "structural failure."

Incidentally, at the AIA convention in DC, we spoke with a few architects who are still fooled by this. One AIA member still belives that the steel "melted" from the jet fuel fires and that the buildings "pancaked." Even the govt's own agencies no longer claim these things.

This goes to show how "the big lie" can fool intelligent, educated people for YEARS because the deception is so profound.

PS I'm in DC right now. I saw a helicopter fly right over a government building today, not too much higher than the roof. I thought to myself: "If a ton of explosives in the upper floors of that building went off creating a huge fireball just as the copter was flying over, I would most certainly be fooled into thinking the copter crashed into the building!"

That elderly cabbie says he pulled a light pole out of his windshield. They are over 200 pounds. Not a scratch on his hood. I'd like the strength of that elderly cabbie.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Specifically, that he fell on his back, but continued to hold the pole in the air.

The hood to the cab after this? Still gleaming like a mirror. Are we to believe that his arms are longer than the distance from the surface of the cab's hood to the asphalt?

Pole is 247 lbs and approx 40 feet long.

Why would he even think this pole had to be removed. It was an accident. He wasn't going to just drive away. It was because it was never there to begin with.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

This is from the thread at: http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=30910#30910

I think the first point is to get down what we agree with, so which of the following can we agree on, once established people who disagree with CITs reading of this evidence can present their alternatives:

1) There was a plane which appeared to be a large commercial jet liner involved in the incident.

2) CIT have 13 witnesses who attest to a flight path which, if correct, would make the physical damage impossible to have been caused by the plane.

3) All of these witnesses agree as to which side of Citgo, or the Navy Annex the plane was on. All of them have the official flight path suggested to them as a possibility and all reject it emphatically.

4) Arabesque has listed 6 small snippets of text relating to witnesses who say the plane flew over I-395. This does not match the official story or the north of Citgo flight path but, depending where they were on the road, could be closer to the south than north path. There are no complete interviews with these people instead they are quotes, mostly from media reports and one of them is a third person claim about what the person saw. Two of the quotes are from unidentifed people. This is the complete body of evidence for the south of Citgo flight path.

4) There are not "hundreds" of people who confirm a south of citgo flight path, despite the fact that 3 of the above mentioned 6 people could be south path witnesses if verefied, there are no verefied south side witnesses.

5) As verified by CIT in 2008, Roosevelt Roberts Jr. stated in 2001 that he saw a large commercial airliner at less than 100 feet above the ground flying away from the Pentagon seconds after the alleged impact.

6) In 2001 Erik Dihle stated that there was disagreement immediately after the event as to what happened with many witnesses around him believing that the Pentagon was hit by a bomb attack and the plane kept on going

7) British researcher Calum Douglas received an animated allegedly created from the flight data via FOIA request that contradicted the official flight path, after giving it to Pilots for 9/11Truth they received by FOIA request a spreadsheet of the full flight data which again contradicted the official flight path and also contained contradictions with the animation. Both sets of data end when the plane is way short of the Pentagon. The RADES data showed the C-130 flying a flight path no witness ascribed to it, and is a contradiction with the pilot's own testimony about where he flew.

Cool If the plane was on the official flight path, all sets of flight/radar data would correleate.

9) If the plane was on the official flight path, it would be possible to find a witness in the local area who would agree with it.

They don't have a video to show me what happened at the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11?

Incidentally, I don't follow CIT, so I had no idea they were in Arlington.

I never said anything about COINTELPRO.

What is my agenda? Haven't I proven over the years that my agenda is to bring justice to those who lost someone on 9/11? Haven't I proven over the years that my agenda is to bring help to the sick and dying 9/11 First Responders? Haven't I proven over the years that my agenda is to end the 9/11 wars? Haven't I proven over the years that my agenda is to reverse everything bad that has happened in the name of 9/11?

What is my agenda?

Edit: Is this CIT's website? I don't see any support for www.nyccan.org or for H.R. 847. The two biggest efforts, in my opinion, currently taking place.

What is their agenda?

"those who cannot acknowledge that must have another agenda"

Ouch. Are you serious?

Anyone who says you must believe or do this, that, or the other thing, otherwise, you are this, that, or the other thing, should be avoided.

So you are saying that anyone who doesn't cover your important issue is not valid? Every issue is important and it is important that people focus. You do a great job. CIT does too. At the Saturday event NYCan was brought up and people encouraged to help. Also, First Responders were brought up as an ongoing aftermath of this crime. But the event and the new DVD are about the Pentagon. Not Shanksville, not WTC, not bush, It is what it is and I am thankful someone is gathering this information. Being a Virginian and having lived a mile from there I take special interest. It doesn't detract from the important work for the first responders or the NY initiative.

Don't let anything divide us.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Am I saying to promote? I'm saying that promoting something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon has never helped this movement. That's a fact. In the almost 7 years I've been doing this, 99.99% of every hit piece has focused on that "theory," and made us look like fools with it. For some reason, no one seems to remember that. If you want to promote the idea that something other than 77 hit the Pentagon, feel free. It's an argument I can't win because I've made these points too many times to count, and people are still promoting it. So, do what you want.