CIT conference in Arlington VA, latest video endorsed by Richard Gage, Peter Dale Scott, Ed Asner, David Ray Griffin & more.

Dear 9/11 Truth Community,

Please take the time to view the live presentation by Citizen Investigation Team from their conference earlier this month in Arlington, VA only a couple of miles from the Pentagon.

I was present at the conference and the audience reaction to the information was phenomenal.

Although discussion of the Pentagon attack often ends up in vigorous debate on this website, CIT's latest release National Security Alert has generated significant interest and is getting a very positive response from several prominent and respected experts, scholars, researchers, activists, and personalities.

The following endorsements reveal an amazing level of unity and support for what is sometimes unjustly labeled "divisive" information. In my opinion CIT has stepped up to the plate with definitive evidence that is too strong to be ignored or marginalized. This endorsement list demonstrates how my conclusions are in line with the over-all consensus of informed intellectuals who have looked closely at the evidence provided by CIT and aren't afraid to put their names and reputations to their convictions:

"The exhaustive effort by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of Citizen Investigation Team to contact, record, document, and analyze numerous first-hand eyewitness accounts of the actual flight path of the airliner at the Pentagon on 9/11 has been long overdue, but worth waiting for. The evidence they have uncovered and compiled in their DVD "National Security Alert" deserves serious attention - particularly in light of what we now know about the explosive destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises that day."

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect, Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

“Citizen Investigation Team has produced an important documentary video that, using numerous independent witness accounts, successfully rebuts the official account of Flight 77’s flight path on 9/11 as it approached the Pentagon. It constitutes a further compelling reason for this country to investigate properly, for the first time, the full story of what happened on that day."

Peter Dale Scott,
Former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley; Author, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America

“Citizen Investigation Team have presented a reasoned, and methodical look at witness testimony the day the Pentagon was attacked on Sept. 11th. As stated in their presentation, National Security Alert, it behooves every citizen of conscience to question the offical story after viewing CIT's labors towards seeking the truth of what happened that day in 2001".

Edward Asner, Emmy Award Winning Actor, Former President of the Screen Actors Guild

“This new film by CIT is far more professionally produced than their previous efforts. It is also more convincing, given the addition of more witnesses, so that they now have a total of 13 witnesses reporting that the actual flight path of the plane that approached the Pentagon was drastically different from the official flight path (which would have been needed if the plane was to knock over the felled light poles and to strike the Pentagon at the designated spot and angle). This part of the film's thesis is now established beyond a reasonable doubt. The film does not establish its related claim---that the airliner pulled up and flew over the Pentagon---as clearly, but it does make a good case for it. One of the film's most valuable parts is a scene in which cab driver Lloyde England, who otherwise gamely tried to maintain the truth of his testimony supporting the official story, admitted that the Pentagon operation had been planned by powerful people with lots of money. I am pleased to be able to recommend this important film with enthusiasm."

David Ray Griffin, Author of The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé

"I was initially skeptical of CIT's findings. But after closer review of the numerous interviews contained in their documentaries, a strong case has been made for an approach trajectory for the plane said to be American Airlines Flight 77 that is hundreds of feet from the official trajectory. The on-scene physical evidence attributed to the official trajectory is incompatible with the trajectory repeatedly described by the witnesses presented and is arguably suspect. Aircraft speeds described in the interviews are also much lower than those alleged by official sources. CIT's documentaries provide the viewer with the transparency and real-time detail regarding events at the Pentagon on 9/11, not provided by accounts offered by the federal government or major media."

Aidan Monaghan, Researcher

List of all current endorsements available here:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/praise.html

A very sincere thanks to the mods for posting this.

I'm very, very happy that this got posted.

I can't help but observe though, how endorsements on this level of ANYTHING else would unequivocally make the news section (i.e. NYCCAN). It is an unfortunate thing that investigation into the Pentagon has proven to be such a lightning rod.

But, this is still a great step forward for the sphere of serious Pentagon research and investigation.

Thank you.

Edit, 1 hr. later: You anti CIT folks can vote this and other comments down all you want; the cat is out of the bag now.

The CIT findings should make

The CIT findings should make people sit up straight and pay attention and then they can make a decision. It would be nice if they would decide to hit the streets and help unravel this (instead of posting links to Democracy Now).

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

To clarify, Breezy,

When you say "they" you don't mean CIT, you mean their detractors (the ones who posted a link to Democracy Now and anti-truther Chip Berlet); i.e. echoing what TomT said in his below post. Just in case people were confused. ;-)

CIT themselves have a plan called "Operation Accountability."

From their site:

CIT has worked hard to provide the evidence. Now we need you to help us force accountability.

There is no sense in pushing for the federal government to investigate if their own official 9/11 explanation is false when we already have proof that this is the case, and especially when they have already refused to do this anyway. We feel the best strategy is for informed and concerned citizens to join together to put pressure on local, state, and even some federal authorities to seek indictments of those who are already directly implicated, and who are a direct link to the planners higher up the chain of command. This will undoubtedly be a challenging battle given the current political climate, so we must also simultaneously put pressure on the media to cover this information, thereby raising public awareness and helping us reach the "critical mass" of public pressure needed to compel the necessary action on the part of the authorities.

We must never forget that the evidence proves this was a successful psychological operation, and it has had an iron grip on the mainstream consciousness of America and the rest of the world since 9/11. Nevertheless, more and more people are questioning the event every day, and there are bound to be intellectually honest individuals who are both able to understand the clear implications of this evidence and also able to use their position in the media or government to do something about it. However, they aren’t going to know it exists unless we make sure it gets in their hands.

This is where you come in. Anyone can follow the steps below from the comfort of their own home. Although it is much better to use your real name and we strongly encourage this, it is not completely necessary if you are not comfortable doing so . The number one thing to remember is to document as much as possible. Take dated notes with time logs and try to record any conversations while saving all written or email correspondences.

Here is an outline of a suggested strategy. Sample letters will be live soon, and will be in Rich Text Format (RTF). Copies of National Security Alert can be obtained here.

Preparation: Compile a list of media figures, authority figures, and elected representatives (politicians), both local and national. Obviously the list could be endless, so prioritize and maintain a manageable workload. Perhaps set a goal to send out letters to a certain number of individuals every week. Also, make sure to always address specific individuals by name. This is critical if we expect to ever force accountability.

Stage 1: Send each individual on your list a copy of the National Security Alert DVD, along with a personalized letter requesting that they view the evidence and respond appropriately depending on their position. Request that media people report on it. Request that elected representatives and other appropriate authorities seek indictments. If you can afford to send all or some of them registered mail that would be ideal for documentation purposes.

Stage 2: Send them a personally addressed follow up letter two weeks later asking if they received the first letter and have viewed the evidence.

Stage 3: If you have still not received a response by the time two more weeks elapse, send a third letter suggesting that their failure to respond and act on the evidence is being documented and will be published if they continue to fail to take action. Request a response by a certain deadline as to what they plan to do about the information. Be firm, but polite.

Stage 4: If you still haven’t received a response by your declared deadline, send them a final letter telling them that you are deeply disappointed that they have failed to respond appropriately and informing them that their failure to respond has been documented and will be published. The same can apply even if you have received a response and they simply refuse to act on the information. Such a failure to act on the part of politicians and authority figures is particularly problematic for them since their inaction to the information is tantamount to the crimes of obstruction of justice, misprision of treason, and misprision of a felony. Since this is the final letter, remind them of this with one final request for a response.

Stage 5: Report back to this website with your results after you feel you have exhausted all efforts with any particular individual. We will maintain a published list of individuals who have failed to respond or take action, and we will build a case for the aforementioned crimes when appropriate. The more evidence of your correspondence you can make available the stronger case we will have.

However much pressure you decide to put on any specific individual is up to you, but the more aggressive you get within legal boundaries the better. For instance, you may want to show up and confront some of the most critical individuals on your list in person if they insist on being complicit in the on-going cover-up. Get them to tell you to your face (or your video camera) exactly why they refuse to do anything about the evidence, if that is the case. This type of action is not the least bit out of line or uncalled for given that the implications of the information you are providing them with are literally a matter of life and death.

This is strictly a non-violent campaign, and again, it is an organized effort with the main goal of seeking out honest people who are able to understand the implications of this evidence and who are in a position to do something about it in the public and/or legal arenas, while putting legal pressure on those who insist on keeping this important information suppressed.

Yes, I sure mean they, them

Yes, I sure mean they, them that want to point away from possibly the only evidence we have of the Pentagon event. I find it tough to see distractions like 911 myths and chip berlet used to discredit the investigations of CIT. It shouldn't work here. If it does, shame on whoever.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Bad Idea!

The very last thing we want to do is approach representatives and prominent media figures with our weakest, most speculative material. Why on earth would anyone suggest doing this when we have so much strong evidence on our side? I can't help but feel this is an effort to divert from the powerful actions in Washington, DC that we've seen recently from WACLA and ae911truth. Adam, I know you assisted in the latter and I would like to thank you for your work and implore you to stick with the strong stuff. Please take a step back and look at what you're advocating here - I know you find CIT's material compelling but there's a huge difference between interesting research and ready-for-prime-time campaigning material that we want to approach politicians with.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

It's not speculative, YT.

These people would not have put their names to their endorsements if it were.

I agree with another supporter on th is thread; prove CIT wrong by canvassing the area and finding your own south side witnesses who will go on camera.

Print eyewitnesses as reported in USA Today would not be admissible evidence in court.

There is not one explicit south side witness on camera.

Thirteen on the north.

And counting.

Imagine a traffic court case where 13 witnesses saw the accident on the north side of the intersection and not one said it happened on the south side.

Mathematically, the more independent witnesses who corroborate each other's testimony, the more exponentially likely that they are correct and not suffering from faulty memory.

And Roosevelt Roberts saw a "commercial airliner" flying away from the Pentagon "ten seconds tops" after the explosion, "no higher than 100 feet" above the ground, just above light poles.

The comments on this thread indicate that the detractors have not watched National Security Alert.

Victronix' "NEW" essay doesn't even focus on National Security Alert; it merely tries to pick holes in the original flyover argument from the 2007 "Pentacon."

It sure the hell is

I'm not talking about the witness statements - I'm talking about the conclusions that CIT has grafted onto them and the way that they are packaged. CIT wants to pretend that they've figured it all out and they want you to lobby Congress with their materials and make a complete ass of yourself and the rest of us by association. If that's what you want to do, knock yourself out. As far as the "endorsements" - I've never been a sucker for appeal to authority and I'm not going to start now.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

"I've never been a sucker for appeal to authority"

Exactly what anti CD people (both the "debunkers" and the Mike Rupperts) say about ae911truth.

Craig and Aldo absolutely do prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the official flight path is a lie.

That's right, a lie.

Perhaps you could care to explain to me what YOU think caused the exit hole in the C ring?

The nose of the plane, as Rumsfeld originally suggested?

The landing gear, as Popular Mechanics suggested after the absurdity of the "nose" argument was pointed out?

The damage is irreconcilable with the north side approach.

Forget their conclusions for a minute. Just give me an explicit south side witness.

Absolutely not

Forget about their conclusions for a minute.

Wouldn't that be nice? Hey, I'd love to forget about their conclusions altogether except for the small fact that they've made several movies beating people over the head with their conclusions and now they're appealing to the whole movement to take their conclusions to Congress. Again (and for the last time) I don't have a problem with the research per se or the witness statements - I have a problem with the conclusions that CIT has indelibly wedded to that material. But if you think it's solid enough to take to Congress, I'm hardly in a position to stop you.

I'll go and interview some of the "south side" witnesses just as soon as you can provide even one single eyewitness to the plane zooming over the top of the other side of the building...

I'm sure debating Pentagon minutiae with you would be a blast (no pun intended) but I don't have the time or interest. The "official story" of the Pentagon attack is already a huge smoking gun all by itself. Nothing at all should have hit one of the world's most secure buildings - from any angle - much less almost an hour after NYC has been attacked (and maybe nothing did - I don't claim to know). So I want ALL of the videotapes released. I want FULL accountability for the missing air defense. I want to know why Cheney couldn't get his story straight about that morning. Or Rumsfeld. Or Myers. I want to know how a complete novice like Hani Hanjour could possibly accomplish what he was alleged to have done. I want to know where the missing trillions of dollars went. I want to know what orders still stood. To me, every minute spent doddering on about what made what hole what size is a minute taken away from pursuing answers to these questions... a diversion. But that's just me and you're more than welcome to your opinion.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

The plane did not hit the Pentagon

Recently, I have been so caught up in my research into law, as well as our intense 9-11 truth outreach activities that I missed the news regarding this presentation. My regards and congrats to CIT. Great work.

Cosmos, the circumstantial evidence is proof. We don't need witnesses that say they saw the plane fly over the Pentagon. Many witnesses saw a plane flying toward the Pentagon, the plane did not hit the Pentagon; therefore, the plane flew over the Pentagon. It's quite simple.

This is from the latest plane crash, in Lybia. My heart goes out to the familieis of all those who died in this tragic event.

At almost every crash site of a large plane you will find a large chunk of the tail section. The tail section is at the back end of the vehicle, so no matter what the angle or speed the plane crashes, the tail section is the last to hit, and thus experiences the least damage. The size and shape of the tail section also helps its 'survivability'.

There was no tail section at the Pentagon 'crash site.' Not to mention, no wings, no engines, no fuselage, no seats, no luggage, no bodies, etc. Flight 77 did not crash at the Pentagon, and neither did a comparably sized plane.

Anyone who tries to piece meal the evidence to the contrary is strictly in the realm of speculation. Witnesses saw a plane, the plane did not hit the Pentagon, so where did it go Cosmos? Is it speculation to deduce that the plane flew over the Pentagon? Of course not.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA
wacla.org

Selective belief

You believe that all the witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon were deceived or lying but you believe they saw the plane fly straight at the Pentagon. And yet no one on the other side saw it fly away or their statements have been suppressed. That's a lot of supposition and it will not fly in the real world. Don't you realize that this is a disinfo campaign to make the TM look ridiculous? Do you really think anyone will believe that crap? CITers live in an echo chamber. "We all say it's true so it must be true."

You will make an ass of yourself and the TM if you promote flyover on the air.

The Pentagon is a government planned quagmire and a diversion from the hard evidence of CD. Why do you cling to and promote something that is far less convincing than WTC 7?

CIT has successfully divided the TM into camps with their combative style. What they have done is what a disinfo team aspires to do.

Time is not on our side and if we don't hang together we will surely hang separately.

Let's rally behind the strongest evidence, the free fall of WTC 7, and put the highly speculative stuff aside. It does not serve the TM.

This is....

the biggest bunch of tripe in the movement and I am very disappointed in everyone involved. You know who you are.

Recommended Reading

See new page on 911Review.com

ERROR: 'The Jetliner that Appeared to Crash into the Pentagon Actually Flew Over It'

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.

The 'flyover theory' has a certain appeal to people who accept the vigorously-promoted assertion that a Boeing couldn't have crashed into the Pentagon, because, unlike the 'no-Boeing' theories, it does not require the wholesale dismissal of the large number of witnesses who saw the jetliner. However, the absurdity of the flyover theory becomes obvious when one considers the number of witnesses who would have clearly seen it, given the geography of the Pentagon's immediate surroundings.

Continued:
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/flyover.html

You know what, Victronix?

The people who have endorsed this are very thorough people.

David Ray Griffin looks at all sides, as he did when meticulously studied Popular Mechanics.

The fact that he and other prominent scholars have endorsed this indicates, to me, that they have looked at yours and Arabesque's "rebuttals," with very heavy emphasis on the scare quotes, and found them seriously wanting.

No one is perfect . . .

CHIP BERLET: . . . One of the people that Griffin relies on is this—is a researcher named Holmgren, who goes into great lengths say that he can’t find this witness, Dave Winslow. He went on to say that Dave Winslow probably doesn’t exist and if he does, he should come forward. Dave Winslow is an A.P. Radio reporter. If you pick up the “Washingtonian magazine” for September, 2002, there’s a picture of Dave Winslow and an interview of what he saw. That’s the substandard research being relied on here.
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/5/26/the_new_pearl_harbor_a_debate

Winslow

What does that have to do with anything? Looks like Griffin was smart enough to NOT state that he doesn't exist. Regardless, that was not a claim from CIT, and CIT has told me that they have always vigorously debated AGAINST Holmgren and his poorly researched claims.

Clearly there are a lot more scholars and researchers than Griffin who publicly support CIT. Apparently you think you possess superior critical thinking skills to all of them.

I haven't read your new "essay" yet but I have my serious reservations because even the excerpt you just linked to starts with a claim that is proven false by this very thread.

You stated: "Unfortunately, despite the broad rejection of CIT by much of the 9/11 activist community..."

Obviously you can no longer make this spurious claim and hope it will stick.

You just made a feeble attempt to discredit David Ray Griffin in this context.

I'll be interested to see how you next try to discredit Gage, Monaghan, and Col. Shelton Lankford.

May I make a suggestion?

To Victronix, Arabesque, and everyone else who supports them: Your position on the Pentagon strike is well known. You’ve gone to great lengths to state it over and over and over again, ad nauseam. Please spare us the same tired old arguments and links here. If you have important new information, by all means share it. Better yet, make a video rebuttal of CIT’s work with the same honesty, integrity and courage as Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis have shown, and post it here. Otherwise, please leave these comments for others to read without your barrage of negative votes.

I attended this conference, and I’ll echo Adam’s appreciation to the moderators for allowing CIT’s work to be given the recognition it deserves.

Very disapointing and discouraging.

I've got some new blogs if you prefer, not that any of the above people quoted above appear to have read my previous articles:

"When it is pointed out to CIT that Lagasse got the location of the taxicab and light poles wrong, they deceptively and repeatedly imply that Lagasse “did not see the light poles” or "could not see them", when in fact, Lagasse stated that they were in the wrong location and that he did not see the "plane" strike them."
William Lagasse: "These poles were not knocked down" CIT: "He didn't see the light poles"
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2009/07/william-lagasse-these-poles-wer...

“anyone who's watched [CIT’s] behavior on our [Loose Change] forum knows exactly where [they] stand. ‘The generator damage? It was faked! The light poles? They were faked! These eyewitnesses? They're lying or agents! Bla bla bla...’ Aldo's tirade in the TNR pretty much seals the deal. You think Lloyd England is a government operative, ‘THE DEVIL’ as Aldo put it.” Ranke attempted to justify calling Lloyd the taxi cab driver the "devil" by saying, “if ‘demon’ isn’t a fitting description for someone willingly involved what is?”

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...

In these blogs I point out a significant number of blatant distortions and outright falsehoods promoted by CIT. Unfortunately these kinds of distortions are not a rare example, which you could see for yourself by reading my articles.

Now I'm not surprised that David Ray Griffin is endorsing PentaCon because he has been doing this since at least "Debunking 9/11 Debunking". For all of DRG's great work, he has promoted bad information on occasion, and his endorsement of CIT is just a clear example of this. Simply pointing out someone has made mistakes or errors is not an "attack", it is the 9/11 truth movement doing it's job. Simply because DRG promotes something does not mean it is true.

This is all very disappointing and discouraging. I have a simple question for the people who have made these endorsements of CIT's work: Have they taken the time to carefully examine what the witnesses said that CIT interviewed, and have they taken the time to examine the critical response to these interviews?

For example, are they aware that many of the witnesses CIT interviewed got basic information wrong, like their location, the location of the light poles, the location of the taxi cab, and other basic information? Are they aware that CIT has engaged in distortions and serious ad hominem attacks against researchers who have responded to their claims? Are they even aware that CIT call witnesses "perpetrators" in the 9/11 attacks with nothing but slanderous insinuations and no hard proof? Are they aware that they claim the fact a witness got the location of the light poles wrong actually makes his testimony "more" credible"? Are they aware that they claim the U.S. government edited a witness out of a CITGO gas station video to "discredit" his testimony?

Watch The Trouble With Turcios in Educational  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

You mean the 100 accounts of the plane hitting the Pentagon do not count as evidence of the flight path of the plane? Or the light pole, generator and structural damage which clearly demonstrates a physical evidence "finger print" of the "flight path" of the plane? Or is none of this relevant?

I have to admit I am extremely disappointed by the endorsements of CIT's work by prominent members of the 9/11 truth movement because their work is not careful, it is not scientific, and it is deceptive. All of this I have exposed in several articles but it is hard for people to understand this if they don't take the time to research and don't take the time to examine claims carefully.

There are plenty of witnesses who contradict the "north" flight path. In fact, CIT pretends that the very description of the plane hitting the Pentagon is "not" a description of the flight path. "It hit the Pentagon" and "stopped flying" is pretty definitive in terms of the flight path. No accounts of the plane flying over the Pentagon counts as "evidence" of the flight path. Virtually all of the witness that CIT themselves interviewed in position to witness the event claimed the plane hit the Pentagon. Again, that is a description of the flight path of the plane.

Very disappointing. What point is there to making these critiques of CIT's work if no one is going to read them or carefully examine what CIT are advocating and promoting?

The "flyover" theory is incorrectly named. It is a "mass hallucination" theory in which CIT alleges that every witness who claims the plane hit the Pentagon was witnessing an "illusion" or was a "perpetrator" in the attacks when they have no direct evidence that a flyover happened.

And don't get me started on their "flyover" witness who is actually a "U-turn" witness who is actually describing the flight path of the C-130. It's too bad CIT isn't honest enough to call their theory the "U-turn" theory based on his account, but even they aren't that absurd.


_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

"magic show," "mass hallucination"

What's really amazing here is the inherently contradictory logic you are forced to use to argue against this definitive evidence.

You suggest that CIT claims it was a "magic show" even though they have never said such a thing (deliberate deception - yes; magic show - no). But the reality is that you are forced to argue that CIT has magical powers of their own. As if they magically forced 13 witnesses to place the plane on the same path that fatally contradicts the official story. As if they magically forced Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts to hallucinate a "commercial aircraft" (notice the quotes - those are his own words) at less than 100 feet altitude flying away immediately after the explosion ("ten seconds tops"). As if they magically forced 13 (and counting) respected scholars/experts/researchers/activists to support their work despite the relentless campaign against them since day one.

THAT is your thesis to explain all this away. It's all the result of a big "CON" perpetuated by the diabolical genius powers of deception and influence of Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis. Seriously Victronix and Arabesque, are they reckless fringe nutcases or genius con men?

It can't be both but your "camp" seems perfectly comfortable arguing from both angles in a desperate flurry to discredit them and anyone who supports them.

"Desperate flurry" - Motive?

You know what Adam, you aren't as good at this as Craig. He's amazing. If he ever showed any interest in 9/11 truth beyond what happened at the Pentagon he might be an solid asset to the movement. Instead he's entirely dedicated to promoting interesting speculation as though it were established fact.

He's not really welcome on many of the forums I frequent anymore. Do you know why that is Adam? Would you like to suggest that the moderators of those forums are desperate to debunk CIT? Maybe you would like to question their integrity or commitment to the movement? Or maybe you could actually take some responsibility and acknowledge that it was his behavior that got him banned.

So, Victronix, Sparks, Arabesque, and me are committed to the founding principles of this movement. For that reason, and because we find CIT's conclusions to be fallacious, we are going to continue to point that out at every opportunity. The promotion of fallacy in a movement dedicated to truth will not stand with us.

Now you might notice that I haven't questioned your motivations. I haven't said that you are unpatriotic or stupid or paid. I think you are incorrect. That's all. Just wrong. And I think that CIT is incorrect. And I think that these movement leaders that have endorsed CIT are wrong as well.

In contrast you are suggesting that we are "desperate" to "discredit" CIT. Well, not only do I think they are wrong. But, in fact, they have been very aggressive in promoting their point of view to the extent that some in the movement, many more than just the four I mention above, have a negative impression of those involved.

So fallacy and bad attitude. Not a good combination.

In your case, I see both as well. You aren't all that good at argumentation. Not as good as Craig. Good enough to convince some and not others. But you are also willing to say obnoxious things like questioning the commitment of people who have been involved a lot more than you in the movement. And that does not make you appear to be relying upon logic. In fact it makes you look like the desperate one.

Are you desperate Adam. I'm not feeling desperate. I am disappointed that people I respect seem to have been less critical than I when looking at CIT's presentation. But then CIT presents a relatively convincing argument. It's not devoid of content. In fact I find it interesting. But the conclusions they come to simply aren't supported by the evidence.

It is desperate for me to say that? What do you imagine my motive is for saying that? The most fair thing you could say, as I have said to you, is simply that you think I'm wrong. That's very different than questioning my commitment to 9/11 truth.

I think you really need to step back an examine the manner in which you argue your side. I do that at times. I'm certainly not perfect. I lose my temper as well. And on occasion I say things I regret. But I always get back to the facts.

The facts don't work in your favor. That's my opinion. An opinion I will continue to promote as often as you promote these facts. And I think you are simply going to have to accept that we have an honest difference of opinion. This movement doesn't rise or fall on any one fact. If CIT disappeared, the movement would be just fine.

Your desperation is noted in your self righteous tone.

Nuff said.

Your side's only asset right now is the flawed comment voting system at 9/11 blogger.

It is also noted by the fact that Victronix resorts to an interview with a hard core anti-truther (Chip Berlet) in a desperate attempt to discredit DRG.

LOL

"I've got some new blogs if you prefer, not that any of the above people quoted above appear to have read my previous articles"

I just went through this with Vic at the top of the thread.

I, for one, have checked out your stuff and am not impressed. Griffin looks at all sides as he did when he meticulously deconstructed the fallacies of Popular Mechanics' article and book. Your attempt at trying to discredit Griffin in this case is hollow and transparent, as are your attempts to discredit the eyewitnesses. Are you going to try to nitpick at Aidan's or Gage's credibility next?

Naturally you're disappointed and discouraged. You've been spending all this time and bandwidth to discredit CIT's work and clearly it hasn't worked. As jimd3100 would say: "How embarrassing." You've been hoping all this time that a blog entry such as this one would never come to fruition.

Some more endorsements not posted in the OP:

"Citizen Investigation Team did an outstanding job of finding witnesses and putting the facts together. It's the best reporting I've seen in a long, long time. This video is a must see for every citizen in our country."

Commander James R. Compton, III
United States Navy (Ret.)

"The Pentagon on 9/11 is still a big mystery. We've had a lot of theories, and we've had the enervating withholding of video evidence by the Pentagon. But until now, no one has tried to assemble real forensic evidence, and a collection of eyewitnesses, in order to build a credible explanation for what might have happened. Based on actual on-the-ground reporting, Citizen Investigation Team has produced a startling body of new evidence. They present interviews with Pentagon police officers at the former Citgo gas station, groundskeepers at Arlington National Cemetery, and several others. These eyewitnesses consistently point to a flight path for the plane that day that is directly at odds with the official story. If these independently corroborated witness accounts are accurate, then the plane did not hit the light-poles, and everything we thought we knew about the Pentagon is wrong. Their pioneering work deserves more serious attention from the government and media, both of whom would prefer we forget our need for justice."

Sander Hicks
Author, The Big Wedding: 9/11, the Whistle-Blowers, and the Cover-Up

"Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke are often quick to point out that they are ordinary citizens who are not investigative journalists by trade. Be that as it may, what these citizen investigators have done is true investigative journalism, and what they have accomplished is anything but ordinary. Their video National Security Alert does not present conjecture. It presents carefully documented eyewitness evidence which establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that American Flt. 77 did not fly into the Pentagon on 9/11. Citizen Investigation Team’s landmark research joins the scholarly work of Harrit, Jones, et al. in destroying the widely-held myth that 9/11 was masterminded by foreign terrorists. Government and media figures who dare ignore evidence this conclusive do so at their own peril, and the peril of us all. 9/11 is a stain upon our honor as a nation and it is imperative that justice is done."

Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford
Pilot, United States Marine Corp. (Ret.)
10,000+ Hours Total Flight Time, 303 Combat Missions

I have some good quotes too... by Ranke:

You are wrong about one thing Adam, I don't have to work "hard" to "discredit" CIT when they do such a good job of discrediting themselves with their own words:

We have never claimed that the citgo witnesses didn’t believe the plane hit the building. The claim we make is quite clear. Their independently corroborated placement of the plane proves they were deceived… The plane was used as a psychological tool during a military sleight of hand illusion in order to FOOL people into believing it hit the building.

“Everyone knows that eyewitness accounts are fallible but as they become corroborated the claim becomes exponentially validated. [Arabesque: but apparently not when they claim the plane hit the Pentagon...] 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: but apparently not when they claim the plane hit the Pentagon...]”
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-an...

Wait a second, didn't Ranke say that he is advocating that the Pentagon attack was an "illusion". Does he believe in mass hallucination or doesn't he?

"Why should [Lagasse] 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."

Lagasse: “there was a light pole here that was knocked down [pointing to an incorrect location]… none of these light poles over here were knocked down
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2009/07/william-lagasse-these-poles-wer...

Aldo: "WE HAVE TOLD YOU A MILLION TIMES. You can't see the poles from there... You are a joke and we're coming for you..."
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2009/07/william-lagasse-these-poles-wer...

CIT: Did you see it hit any lightpoles?
Lagasse: Did not see them hit any light poles, but obviously when I got to the scene the lightpoles were down.

Ranke: "Obviously whether or not [Lagasse] was at the back or front pump has what he described as 'no bearing' as to his placement of the plane on the north side which is obviously true. [Lagasse] would not be able to see the plane through the building at all."
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2009/07/william-lagasse-these-poles-wer...

Generally you don't have to be "superman" to see a plane fly above a gas station or even "through it" when the gas station does not completely obstruct your view.

“…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.

In other words, the government edited the video to "discredit" the witness. Yea, right. This is the kind of stuff that CIT promotes. Actually the witness is probably in the video but on the SOUTH side as I pointed out in my other comment above. So he probably wasn't "edited" out after all.

This was an actual title of an article Ranke made in response to my article:

"Response to Arabesque's latest personal attack hit-piece"

The title is slightly misleading as the only "personal attacks" in the article are by Ranke attacking other 9/11 researchers, which you can read for yourself here:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-an...

So your statement that I work "hard" to discredit CIT is actually totally off base. It's as easy as just quoting their own words.
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Here's another quote:

"All the unaswered questions really don't matter anymore."

- Craig Ranke, at 3:50 in the video posted in this blog

I find this statement disturbing for many reasons, not the least of which is that I feel this is the effect that CIT's material attempts to create in the movement. "We've proven a flyover and that alone proves the government's lying - so just forget about everything else and get sucked into this narrow, murky and highly speculative area of research - call your congressperson and tell her that the cabdriver lied!" [For the intentionally obtuse among us: no, that's not an actual quote] Now, I certainly hope I'm wrong about that but I do know that I'm right about one thing and I'd like to say it loud and clear:

Yes, Craig, all the unanswered questions really do still matter!

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

That is taken out of

That is taken out of context. He was talking about other questions like what happened to the people. They are focusing on the discrepancies in the OCT and the FACTS. I was there and I would never sit through a presentation that thought nothing else mattered. But for their purposes the path of the plane is their focus. I think you are trying to find a reason to not consider their hard work. To you, their questions don't matter. I do think their questions matter and I'd like to see more answers.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Maybe spend less time reading my mind

and more time thinking critically. You don't know me and you don't know whether or not or for how long I've considered CIT's material - but you act as if you do and now you're telling me what I think. This isn't about me, so please stay on topic. I don't think I've misrepresented Craig's quote at all, but the video's right up there for everyone else to make up their own mind.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Out of context. Look for

Out of context. Look for any reason.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

ARABESQUE: "I've got some new blogs if you prefer...

...not that any of the above people quoted above appear to have read my previous articles:"

New blogs that repeat the same arguments, semantic nitpicking, and "evidence" of inconclusive quotes from reported witnesses? How is that important new information?

And how do you know the people quoted above did read your previous articles but, like me, didn't find them persuasive?

No one should appoint himself (or herself) a policeman for the 9/11 Truth movement. That's the beauty and power of it. Now don't get me wrong... I've read your articles, and you've done great work in the past, but your obsession with beating up anyone who doubts the "AA77 hit the Pentagon" story, especially CIT, troubles me. What are you afraid of? That CIT will singlehandedly destroy the movement? Please.

New information, new eyewitness interviews, new evidence. Thanks.
Respect.

Try this

Convince someone that 9/11 needs a new investigation without resorting to anything having to do with the Pentagon or controlled demolition. It could only sharpen your skills and add to your perceived credibility.

Arabesque has not set himself up as the policeman of the 9/11 truth movement. Would you believe that Arabesque would like to see the truth movement succeed as much as you would?

I think what he's concerned about is the possible damage that could be done to the movement if CITs work turns out to be full of inconsistencies, cherry picked evidence, and unsubstantiated speculation, which he clearly believes it is. Everyday, we demand full accounting and transparency from our elected leaders. Is this too much to ask of ourselves?

________________________
“The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government.” -Martin Luther King, Jr.
http://www.ubuntu.com

"cherry picked evidence"

CIT's detractors have in their blogs accused CIT of misrepresenting eyewitnesses.

Now whether or not those eyewitnesses agree with CIT's conclusions, or whether or not they believe the plane hit the building, is another kettle of fish.

But CIT has NEVER misrepresented or cherry picked. Indeed, some of their earlier videos after Pentacon but before NSA are almost boring, because they include unedited, entire interviews, including extraneous small talk.

Not one single eyewitness interviewed by them has gone on the record to say that Craig and Aldo misrepresented their testimony.

At the time these witnesses were interviewed, they were not aware of the implications of their testimony. They have been made aware since and no longer are talking.

But, to repeat, not one has actually gone on the record to retract their testimony or say it was misrepresented, cherry picked, or taken out of context.

Wow, with so many down votes…

…the CIT supporters must have it all wrong!

Zombie, it's not hard to convince people that 9/11 needs a new investigation--without using the Pentagon strike or CD. What bothers me here is that we're a pretty sophisticated bunch on these matters, yet it seems we're being forced to attack each other and take sides. Why?

I don’t impugn the motives of anyone who embraces 9/11 truth. I’m also not so naïve as to think everyone who does so is acting honestly. We should all be wary of disinfo--whether it lands in front of us with a thud or creeps in slowly from behind into our words and thoughts. My own included. That's why we should always be on guard.

What hurts the movement is not so much CIT’s work, or even an honest debate about it. What hurts the movement is people within the movement attacking each other, claiming they have a monopoly on the truth, trying to prevent any questioning, and accusing others of discrediting the movement. That leads to division and cliques and a gang mentality. When that happens, we all lose.

And, as a good old conspiracy theorist, I have to wonder if it’s deliberate. I’m sorry, but the speed and force--and venom--with which CIT is attacked on this site, over and over, by the same few people, using thought-stopping arguments like “CIT hurts the movement” makes me very suspicious. If Arabesque and Company are so confident the official Pentagon story is true, then the statements of a dozen misguided witnesses and the wild speculation of two overzealous amateurs and some complex technical analysis by pilotsfor911truth shouldn’t rattle them, let alone threaten the movement. In fact, CIT’s own work would have discredited itself by now, as Arabesque keeps reminding us.

But now that other luminaries in the movement are beginning to take notice and support CIT, shouldn’t A&C’s response be, “Hm...maybe it’s time to reexamine our conclusions about this AA77 crash," instead of immediately suggesting the luminaries are wrong and downvoting everyone who disagrees? Isn’t that how we break through our own walls of denial, as we did when we woke up to 9/11 truth?

Again, I’ll give everyone the benefit of the doubt and assume they’re being honest. But when they start taking it personally and overreacting childishly, as they do here, then it becomes about protecting their own egos--or, dare I say, about covering up something they don’t want revealed--and not about helping all of us to attain the truth.

I don't need to remind you that this is a Truth Movement, and my only concern is getting to the truth--at least on this site. If I want to drum up support for a new investigation (and I absolutely do), there are plenty of other forums where I can be more effective, and I would certainly not bring up the Pentagon or controlled demolition as my first argument.

People who comment here should know better.

Without controlled demolition and Pentagon LOL

This is silly.

Just like zombie bill hicks to say that we don't need controlled demolition or the Pentagon in the 9-11 Truth movement. WACLA members were standing in the heart of the USC campus just yesterday, bullhorning about controlled demolition and the Pentagon to some of the most hardheaded people on the planet... USC students. Right to their face we challenged them as USC students to look up Building 7, and to find a photo of the plane that hit the Pentagon. Those two challenges make otherwise stubborn apathetic hardheaded folks stop and think.

And anyone who did not stop, walked by and away with two obvious simple concepts in their head, and they will most likely act on their own curiosity and intuition and pursue a small personal investigation into these challenges. "In Los Angeles the bus drivers are awake, the cab drivers are awake, the LAPD is awake, the firefighters are awake, so why are USC students so far behind the curve on this one?" LOL That got their goat :)

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA
wacla.org

Another No plane theory

Anyone who believes this CIT con job has no business dismissing "no plane" theories. The logic(or lack of) behind both arguements are the same....

typical no planer: A plane didn't hit the WTC
Man on the street: Sure it did, Lots of people saw it, heck they even found an engine at the scene of the crime.
Typical no planer: No, they just think, they saw it, actually they were all fooled and the engine was planted
Man on the street: 9/11 truthers are nuts.

compare with.....

CIT: A plane didn't hit the pentagon
Man on the street: Sure it did. Lots of people saw it, heck they even found an engine at the scene of the crime.
CIT: No, they just think, they saw it, actually they were all fooled and the engine was planted
Man on the street: 9/11 truthers are nuts.

Both theories are garbage, and based on ridiculous logic.

STOP IT. We are NOT talking

STOP IT. We are NOT talking about no planes at WTC.. Stop your right wing tactics.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Why does this get voted

Why does this get voted down. What is the matter with you people? We are talking about the Pentagon and jimd conflates it with WTC no planes. That is crap. And if you can't see that, communication is lost.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

For some people, the CIT findings are controversial, but...

Some people find the CIT findings and research controversial. My point is: If you don't like it, go do the research yourself...knock on doors, video witnesses, obtain data and information... ...then put together a complete, professional presentation of your findings.
Example: Some people might not agree with the discoveries presented by the Harrit/Jones/Ryan "Thermitic" paper. It could be chatted about all day if you don't like the research, but the resolution is to run your own rigorous, first-hand lab tests and publish the results in a professional, digestible format.

"put together a presentation of your findings"

The Pentagon Eyewitness Testimony
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/03/pentagon-eyewitness-testimony.html

9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Eyewitnesses Described
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html

Tom, if I were a salesman, and I went to your door and told you I've done the "research" and my "research" actually cherry picks the total sum of the evidence, that wouldn't be a very fair or honest, would it?

When FOX news distorts, omits information, and relies on ad hominem attacks to smear people who disagree with their "arguments" and "point of view", we don't tolerate that. And neither should we when it happens inside of the truth movement.

I've done the research and I've posted my own research and so the people saying things like "do your own research" seem to be missing the point that I have done my own research. I've also researched the claims of CIT and pointed out specifically where they distort the facts and cherry pick the evidence. I've posted some of that here for the people who don't care to take the time to read my articles.

The 9/11 truth movement is not doing its job when it doesn't demand all of the facts, not the selective presentation of information and cherry picking what is "convenient". As a movement based on the search for "truth" I think this is completely relevant.

Finally, I think we can understand the difference between "strong evidence" and speculation. Can we agree that there are differences between these kinds of evidence? Now, no one anywhere can tell me that there is not significant eyewitness testimony that the plane hit the Pentagon. Therefore, it should be understood that claiming that this evidence was completely fabricated is an example of tenuous "speculation".

When we are trying to convince people that 9/11 is an unsolved crime, perhaps it is not the best strategy to start out by telling them that hundreds of witnesses are liars and agents, that plane parts were planted, that light poles were planted, that radar data was faked, and that no one has come forward to tell us what "really happened".

Evidence and speculation. What should the 9/11 truth movement promote at the forefront? It should be obvious.
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Both pro- & against- CIT are controversial. My point is...

My point is: If you don't like the CIT research, then go do some field work, hit the streets, get videos of witnesses, and collect more first-hand, on-the-scene data.

My viewpoint is that the government story about the Pentagon is a BIG lie.
This is important.
The government story about the Pentagon and about other aspects of 9/11 is a huge crock.

The Pentagon is not my bailiwick. My bailiwick is the WTC buidlings and some aspects about 9/11 mentioned by Jon Gold. "bailiwick"--> http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/bailiwick
All these pro- and against- CIT arguments are not just a big issue for me personally. I have read both sides. It is not a big hoot for me either way.

I think that CIT did some great legwork.
It reconfirms my perspective that the government is a big, lying dog.

For me, the primary area of importance is that the govenment is lying about the Pentagon.

Currently, I have attention on making NYCCAN happen.

Controversial or just wrong?

The flyover theory isn't even original. They just replaced a fighter jet knocking down the lightpoles with cagey old undercover mass murdering operatives Lloyd the cab driver and sneaky reporter M Walter, and their cohorts planting lightpoles. They just replaced the old theory with a dumber one....

Have a look at the original flyover theory...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&add...

Listen to the first 3 minutes of the latest garbage movie put out by CIT and notice they say the same thing as Mr Original flyover Eastman....

"As the above picture and many other photos that were taken at this time show, pillar # 16 is still there, albeit blasted so that it inclines to the right; and pillar #17 is also present and accounted for. Moreover, we also see there is interior wall perpendicular to the fallen outer wall that is still standing inside the building exactly where a starboard engine, had the killer jet been a two-engine Boeing 757, would have had to have penetrated. Clearly there was no starboard engine. An explosion occurring to the left of pillar #15 caused damage to the pillars to the right of it and brought down some outer wall on the first floor wall, but a large turbofan engine of a Boeing 757 never penetrated here. Thus we know that the killer jet was a single-engine aircraft."
http://www.bedoper.com/eastman

This is old, boring, and has already been debunked......

Freeze frame their movie at the 3:07 mark...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o
Study the picture closely. You will notice, that those are not columns at all but slabs hanging down from above. The wing where the engine part was did go thru. This is part of a long whole...the first floor has been completely taken out. To call these columns still standing proving the plane didn't go thru is not true, this is a gaping hole.

Jim Hoffman has already covered this (as usual), as can be seen here....
http://911review.com/attack/pentagon/imgs/hole11.jpg

"Standing columns remained where heavy 757 parts should have obliterated them."
Hoffman response: based on the confusion of hanging sections of the second floor for columns.
"The hole was too small to accommodate wing ends and tail."
Hoffman: true, but consistent with the crash of a 757 whose wing ENDS and tail are too light to puncture the Pentagon's walls."
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

I think some of you actually like being conned.

Garbage is a Good Word for this "research"

I second your post Jim and yes, Jim Hoffman has pointed out a long time ago that there was significant damage where the wings hit from approximately engine to engine. I am in building construction and it's really a no brainer that the columns were taken out for almost the entire section that collapsed. THAT IS WHY IT COLLAPSED - because the supporting structure that originally held up the floors above had been taken out. Yea, it stood for 20 minutes, because of the way everything tied together in the construction of the building. However, BECAUSE THE SUPPORTING STRUCTURE HAD BEEN REMOVED, the stress from the weight above became too much for what was left, and the section collapsed. There is a reason why the 90 some odd foot section collapsed, and it wasn't because the plane flew over.

Like the Oklahoma City Bombing...

Google General Partin. He was the first doubter of OKC. Why? Because he realized that the columns at that building were blown from the inside out, not from the outside in.

Same with the Pentagon. Look at the columns. The columns are clearly blown out. With explosives in the building.

The plane was a diversion just like the WTC. Or the Ryder Truck at OKC.

Yes let's look at these "columns"

"Same with the Pentagon. Look at the columns. The columns are clearly blown out. With explosives in the building."

Anyone reading this can go to the movie....here is the link...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o

And freeze frame the picture at the 3:07 mark and see that these are not columns "blown up and out" but slabs hanging down from above. It's right there. You're only fooling yourself.

And thinking there were no South side witnesses. Like this guy.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5085491450059007792&hl=en

Did it sound like he was "fooled"?

CIT "forgot" to ask his exact location because it's obvious it wouldn't "fit in" with their pre concieved theory that they were out to "prove". That's not a search for truth.

So lets slander him....."We know for a fact that funerals continued at ANC throughout the morning and afternoon so the notion that he simply abandoned his responsibility to some veteran's family to fraternize with the first responders and loiter around the attack scene etc is unconscionable. - Ranke
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread436840/pg1

He was aiding the dead and wounded as you would expect a priest would do. But like I said...some people like being conned.

Why do you ignore, ignore, ignore?

You posted both of those vids in the last blog entry on this topic.

Those columns are CLEARLY blown out.

This would be consistent with those pentagon employees who believed there were bombs in the building.

The "South Side Witness" you cite admits in the video he never saw the plane, just heard it. Didn't see it fly over his head nor hit the building.

You only cite him because he says he "heard" the plane fly right over him. This is flimsy reaching in comparison to the thirteen very explicit north side witnesses.

Reality - Give it a try

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5085491450059007792&hl=en
It's right there. He didn't just hear it. He watched it hit the building.

This is another person that doesn't exist.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3383333411025014760&hl=en

Freeze the pic at the 14:11 mark and it's clear to see why he doesn't exist in your world. Listen to his statement. Sound like he was "fooled"?

We can all see the gapeing hole, And we can see and hear these people talk, no matter how you try to deny it.
On 9/11 planes flew into buildings. The rest of the world already knows it. 'bout time some of you caught up.

You are not being truthful, Jim.

I'm really beginning to conclude that CIT's detractors bank on the hope that fence sitters will take them at their word without clicking on the links.

I watched the first of those two videos, the one with Father McGraw. His testimony is extremely suspect.

Here is his testimony starting at 5:18 on that video. Tell me if this matches the photographic evidence:

"I will say that I have a memory, um, which was you might say was revived after the fact, of the plane bouncing on the lawn before it went into the building. That basically, uh, came to me, um, after hearing of other witness testimony, from other witnesses that were in the area. I heard that other witnesses had supported that the plane had bounced, you know, had hit the ground before it crashed into the building. When I heard that, it kind of, sort of, provoked something, or um, I thought, 'Yes, that's the image I remember having."

There is no damage on the lawn which would indicate that the plane bounced.

In the last thread on CIT's work, a couple weeks ago, Snowcrash and I nailed Victronix on two similar misrepresentations which were easily exposed with a simple examination of the links she provided.

Reality - I have given it a try.

And I hope Justin and Orangatan are taking note.

Jim Hoffman

Michael, you have got to be kidding. Jim Hoffman depends solely on wild speculation, extremely poor 'research' and outright deception in his analysis of the Pentagon attack. The fact that he still refuses to correct his ridiculous essay on the Pentagon brings suspicion to his motives.

Bruno
WeAreChangeLA
wacla.org

You wish you had the heart

You wish you had the heart and soul of Dick Eastman. This is a growing body of research. Just look at Jon Gold's posts about no CD at WTC. The body of evidence is increasing and improving. Today we have clear information about the path of the Pentagon plane. Even the believers argue the plane went OVER the Navy Annex. I wish Eastman was still working with the new findings but I think this was destroying his health. I believe he has had to take a less public stand. I hope he takes care of himself.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Thanks for this post Adam.

Thanks for this post Adam. I'm not surprised people are speaking up. I got this link from Pilots yesterday about the Virginia conference.

http://tinyurl.com/mxeuzy

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Nice post, Adam. Very

Nice post, Adam.

Very exciting stuff . . .

The big problem

is that both CIT and their opponents focus on the flyover, instead of the contradiction between the witness statements, some of the government data released, and the official flight path.

It's way too early for anybody to claim there was a flyover. That doesn't mean you should warp the words of Roosevelt Roberts to the point where he supposedly saw a C-130..his testimony indicates no such thing. So the only thing that can be said of Roberts in defense of Arabesque, Hoffman et. al. is that he must have been wrong.

That's perfectly fine.

The biggest mistake that CIT make is that they jump to conclusions. It's a non sequitur to conclude that the plane flew over the Pentagon because there are flight path anomalies, just as it is a fallacy of begging the question to conclude that the North side witnesses were all incorrect or misinterpreted because the physical evidence suggests an American Airlines jet hit the Pentagon. (To clarify: this means you start with the conclusion that a plane hit the Pentagon based on the physical evidence that strongly supports it, then reason backwards to discard witnesses whose statements contradictory to the official flight path make most of that physical damage impossible)

You may ask, "but if the plane didn't fly on the official flight path, it couldn't have caused the damage, so where did it go?". The right answer is "I don't know, I need more data".

This is what prof. Jones often says (Need more data), and I absolutely agree with him. If CIT clings to the flyover conclusion instead of highlighting the contradictions this might prove costly later on. The contradictions alone (NTSB animation, FDR data) prove the government lies, for whatever reason, and a new investigation would uncover why. So let's steer clear from debating whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon, and try to resolve the contradictions instead. There is a data mismatch, and this needs resolution.

And btw, thanks Adam, for this post. It takes courage to stand up to peer pressure.

Snowcrash, well-stated writeup.

CIT collected lots of data. More data is needed.

Mixing

Shit with Shinola doesn't take courage, but perhaps it involves a strong degree of ignorance.

My impression of the CIT

My impression of the CIT material and their presentation is that they want to expose the discrepancies and that the OCT is a lie. I don't tell people about the fly over unless they really want to talk about the material. The reason is that most people can't deal with so many details and possibilities. Getting them to realize what they have believed all along has been WRONG is big enough. Make them want to find out more.

So the giant fears are getting in the way. It is like a child throwing a tantum and screaming so he can't hear. I'm sorry they miss the importance of the path of the plane and the damage to the pentagon and that the official path could not be possible.

I was talking to a new person about September 11. A long time believer and rah rah about the need for war. She got upset and said she KNOWS someone who saw the plane and it came over the Navy Annex. I said YES, that is the apparent truth and it does not coordinate with the official path or the damage. She went quiet. I also told her that buildings don't blow up and fall down. I was able to give her a copy of Gage's 33 minute dvd. It's a start. The definition of her world was challenged and she hopefully is interested enough to take a look.

That is our job, to make people stop telling us what happened. Make them question. Apparently we have to start with this rigid list.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Suggestion

At this point, let's let all the bitterness, anger and rancor about this topic come from CIT's detractors. Let's not stoop to their level and get into a bitter cat fight.

For those that are undecided about this issue, or believe that Arabesque has successfully cast doubt on CIT's credibility, the simple advice is:

Look at CIT's work. See what points they make. Listen to their eyewitnesses. Then look at their detractors. And see which side's arguments hold up.

CIT's supporters need not show any rancor.

By the way, this thread is a classic example of why the YouTube style "en totale" comment voting system is flawed. It really would be nice to see how many yays and how many nays each post receives.

Is this the surprise...

You were telling me about Adam? That Richard Gage, Ed Asner, Peter Dale Scott, Dr. Griffin, and Aidan Monaghan "endorse" this work?

I have news for you, while I respect people like Peter Dale Scott immensely, it doesn't mean I agree with everything he says. Just as I don't agree with everything Dr. Griffin says.

I'll stick with stuff like this thank you very much.

Edit: Just to restate why I think it's absurd to say that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

1) The media has used this argument against us countless times. The argument has NOT helped this cause.

2) A book entitled, "Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11 " was released that mentions how pieces of plane, as well as seats with charred passengers was found at the Pentagon. Loose Nuke posted about it here.

3) Hijacker IDs were located in the rubble at the Pentagon.

4) There are pictures of plane debris WITH the AA logo on them.

http://www.flight77.info/images/pentagon1.jpg
http://www.flight77.info/images/Pentagondebris8.jpg

5) You can't say something is fake simply because it doesn't coincide with what you THINK happened.

6) The media has used this argument against us countless times. The argument has NOT helped this cause.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

It sure was.

I notice that my support of their work appears to have caused you to un-friend me on facebook.

Grow up.

Sorry...

But I have no time for bullshit, and I didn't want to risk seeing bullshit on facebook. It angers me.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

I'll say it again Jon.

Grow up.

I forgot one...

BOTH the passengers AND crew were identified.

I think someone that insists on promoting bunk that doesn't help this cause needs to look in the mirror when they decide to tell someone to "grow up."


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

OCT

If passengers were herded to the rear of the plane, how were charred bodies found in seats?

Pearls are made from annoyances

Hmmm...

Maybe there were seats in the back of the plane? Surely, you don't imagine everyone was in the very very back, stacked upon each other like individuals trying to set a world record by fitting as many people as they could into a jeep?


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

SEATING ON 77

"The alleged phone calls from Barbara Olson to her husband, United States Solicitor General Ted Olson, alleged to have been made sometime between 9:15 a.m. and 9:25 a.m., were widely publicized—and widely questioned. Ted Olson said that his wife, a passenger on the plane, called him twice at his Department of Justice office using her cell phone. She informed him that Flight 77 had been hijacked, its passengers and crew threatened with knives and box cutters and confined to the rear of the airliner. She requested her husband to contact the pilot to instruct him what to do."

Why would these passengers be "buckled in"...for safety, perhaps?

Pearls are made from annoyances

Strapped in passengers

Maybe you should take it up with Sgt Williams.....

"When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him."

"It was the worst thing you can imagine," said Williams, whose squad from Fort Belvoir, Va., entered the building, less than four hours after the terrorist attack. "I wanted to cry from the minute I walked in. But I have soldiers under me and I had to put my feelings aside."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/sept01/2001-09-14-pentagon-usat.htm

Anyone who wasn't strapped in would be bouncing off the walls. Or perhaps you thought this was a smooth ride?....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Aa77_dc_flight_...

You forget some other interesting quotes (same article)

The Pentagon said Thursday that an "initial, preliminary" count found 126 military and civilian personnel were missing, in addition to the 64 aboard the hijacked jetliner, American Airlines Flight 77, which was en route from Washington to Los Angeles.

And:

Members of Congress who toured the site Thursday said rescue officials reported that much of the fuselage of the hijacked airplane remains intact in the ruins.

Pictures? April Gallop

Pictures? April Gallop walked through that damage before the building fell. She did not see a plane and it wasn't too hot for her to come out that hole.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Just a quote from the article

No pictures that I'm aware of.

About April Gallop, hasn't CIT interviewed her about her experiences inside the Pentagon? ...I'd like to see that...

Her interviews are on their

Her interviews are on their earlier works but if you do a search for her you can see you tubes and other articles. I'l always believe that if Cheney knew there was a plane coming why wasn't the Pentagon and CIA evacuated. Why did April not know we were under "attack." She would never have kept her newborn baby there. The employees of the Pentagon had no idea a plane was coming. And in her case, she had no idea about WTC. Cheney should go to jail for his knowledge that a plane was coming and that he took NO action.

My guess is they didn't want employees outside watching the event(s).

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

MSM

I'm merely pointing out a conflict in the Mainstream reports. You can't have passengers herded to the rear of the plane, then find charred bodies strapped in seat. Seats that all, apparently, squeezed through a small hole while the rest of the plane "vaporised", yet leaves paper evidence.

Pearls are made from annoyances

Jon Gold's sources are questionable

Who took those photos, Jon? Where are the rest of the photos? How come we can't put those photos into context as to their actual location? Where are the other photos from other angles? Talk about wild speculation, deception, and bad sources, just accept those photos without question and you are there. LOL

Bruno
WeAreChangeLA
wacla.org

Your arrogance is beyond overwhelming.

By your own admission, you once said words to the effect of: "If 9/11 had never happened, I'd basically be some Joe Six Pack watching football."

Yet you think you possess such superior critical thinking skills over a professor of philosophy, who is trained in the expertise of critical thinking.

You think you possess such superior critical thinking skills over a retired Air Force pilot with 303 combat missions.

And so many others.

Wow.

No...

But after 7 years, I know what works and what doesn't work, and saying that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon doesn't work.

By the way, you're attacking me, and ignoring the information that I posted. One of the reasons I don't endorse theories like this. The majority of the people pushing them can not be proven wrong. No matter how many times you do it.

As I said, I don't have time for "bs," so I'm done.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

You are essentially appeasing the corporate media

with this mentality.

Way back, early in the '00's decade, there was a Bush press conference in which a reporter asked:

"Howard Dean recently seemed to imply that you had advanced knowledge of 9/11... Do you believe this borders on political hate speech?"

Daily Kos, a progressive site, will ban anyone who even suggests LIHOP. The "incompetence theory" is as far as you're allowed to go. Oh, that's right, because the official 9/11 Commission admitted incompetence.

But several months before the 9/11 Commission Report came out, Michael Moore was lambasted by (much of) the corporate media for daring to suggest incompetence. What an American-hating liberal!, many people said.

I suggest you go on a quest for THE TRUTH, not worrying about how you might APPEAR to the eyes of an UN-INFORMED onlooker.

I SORELY WISH WE COULD AT LEAST AGREE ON THIS.

And by...

Promoting bunk, you are appeasing those who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11. What have they got to worry about when bunk is being promoted.

If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

QFT

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."

________________________
“The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government.” -Martin Luther King, Jr.
http://www.ubuntu.com

There you go again

All these serious researchers who are respectable in the movement find CIT's work credible, yet you're so damn positive that it's all "bunk."

Why

do you care what Jon thinks about CITs work? Its clear that Jon wont endorse their work if that's what you're looking for .. (:

________________________
“The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government.” -Martin Luther King, Jr.
http://www.ubuntu.com

"Why do you care what Jon thinks"

Good question. Jon Gold is great for the 9-11 Truth movement here on 911blogger because he is like our inhouse debunker. Gives us someone to contrast the facts and truth against.

So you're trying...

To drag this conversation out for as long as it will go, eh? It's a waste of my time. You will never convince me that saying Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon is an intelligent argument to make. Just because Dr. Griffin, et al. decide to jump off a bridge, doesn't mean I will follow them.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

I really don't think anyone

I really don't think anyone is trying to convince you of anything. We try to discuss and a wall of criticism goes up in trying to convince others that there is no way the government isn't right.. Who is trying to convince. You won't stop the questioning.

I realize how late you come to things too. I remember a while ago how you argued that there was no CD at WTC. All we want is a chance to examine. You already have all the answers.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

A lie...

Why do people who promote nonsense also lie? Why do they always continue coming back with their nonsense even after they have been shown to be wrong over and over again?

I have never said there was "no CD at WTC." When Steven Jones came out, I was one of the biggest promoters of his work.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

I wish I had time to waste

I wish I had time to waste on this. I remember others being amazed that you spoke against CD too. I have not been shown over and over again as you just said. I couldn't understand why you didn't see those buildings explode and then come down fast. You say you never were against CD. I remember it.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Wrong again Jon.

Jon you are completely wrong when you say "I know what works and what doesn't work, and saying that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon doesn't work." You say you, "know" but you are completely wrong. It doesn't work for you because you fall in line with the government lies, and you insist that hijackers flew a plane into the Pentagon.

The lack of a plane at the Pentagon is what woke me up, it woke up the man who first mentioned it to me, and I have seen it wake up hundreds of people first hand. In fact, one of the fastest most reliable ways to get people to start researching 9-11 Truth is to challenge them to find a photo of the plane that hit the Pentagon. They can't do it, because the plane did not hit the Pentagon. None of your snide remarks and wild claims can change that Mr. Gold.

Bruno
WeAreChangeLA
wacla.org

P.S. Jon, do you still insist that Building 7 collapsed because of fire? LOL

My apologies

My apologies for addressing Mr. Gold. In my delirium from having just come from such an intense and rewarding 9-11 Truth outreach action at USC, I did not take the time to look at the dates of the comments on this thread. This thread is from practically a year ago.

Peace,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA

DRG wrong?

Does this mean DRG was wrong when he was spouting how it had to be a missile or military plane that hit the pentagon? That's impossible. He can't be wrong............can he?

I will always respect...

Dr. Griffin. I think "Omissions & Distortions," and "9/11 Contradictions" are two amazing pieces of work. However, over the years, I have learned that sometimes I don't agree with everything he says.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

I was conned by CIT also....I am awake now!

CIT have a case yes, but it is simply impossible that we do not have any credible witnesses seeing a 757 at 150ft flying through a city at full roar after an attention grabbing explosion?

Sorry I forgot the fricken highway on the far side of the building....???

Thanks but no thanks!

I believe that CIT are trying to do good but....all that will come of it is trouble!

http://911review.com/articles/ashley/pentacon_con.html

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au

Show "I was conned too..." by Adam Syed

John, it would be great if a

John, it would be great if a Pilots for 9/11 Truth & Justice were to form . . .

Well the stage is set.....but I will not be the Vanguard...sorry

I've already nearly lost my job over 9/11 activism, that is after my work was contacted by one of the P4T "no planers". My job (which pays very well) funds a large portion of the Australian Campaign plus obviously my dear family, it is a necessary requirement in my life which I don't plan to risk again.

Dark forces are everywhere and they don't like it when people fight for clarity in campaigns like ours!

I am now one of the P4T ignorer's so to say!

Kind regards John

PS - Please write to the supporters of this work as I have today and express your concern!

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au

A brief overview of the "flyover" hypothesis, now I've viewed...

A brief overview of the "flyover" hypothesis, now I've viewed all the info...

As you may know I work in aviation and I have confirmed that parts of a 757 Boeing are both inside and outside of the Pentagon building. I can also verify that the 757 autopilot and airframe are capable of hitting the Pentagon as we are told happened. I do not know what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 but I KNOW that a 757 hitting the building is possible.

I have followed the work of C.I.T for the last few years and have found their methods questionable, but like many of you I think their work is interesting and seemingly plausible on the surface. But the "flyover hypothesis" is simply impossible and the evidence they use is mutually exclusive.

The Flyover Hypothesis relies on these points;

1. The raw flight data received is of flight 77 (that did not crash).
2. The witness's testimony is correct as regards the flight path shown by the raw data.
3. That not one single person has made an unprovoked statement viewing a flyover even though the aircraft was in plain sight at 150ft over a busy highway in broad daylight.
4. That the crash site at the Pentagon is not consistent with a crash of an aircraft following the trajectory from the raw data even though it didn't supposedly crash anyway.
5. That all the 200+ witnesses that saw a large twin jet hit the Pentagon are lying and the dozen C.I.T have are right.
6. All the evidence that shows the official flight path and crash site is staged at the same time as the flyover.

Just think about it in this way on just one of these points;

The Raw Digital Flight Data Recorder Data if it is real...then why?

1. Does the data stop as if it crashed into the Pentagon, if it flew over it?
2. Was it provided with out any information from where it came from and any information about the serial number of the unit etc. We are told that it was supposedly released by by accident with no further comment, by friend or foe?

Just on these points alone we must say that this raw data evidence is both tampered with and not admissible in a court.

In my opinion it is just as likely provided to confuse and distract us as it is in any way from flight 77. I have only come to this opinion after I was called out on my sending out of C.I.T's film with qualifications to my list as a valid hypothesis, which I now regret.

Considering these points alone I would like you all to reconsider your endorsement of C.I.T's(if you have) work as your reputation is at risk and if the media/military produce a video tomorrow of a plane hitting the Pentagon we are as a movement dead in the water.

Kindest regards John Bursill

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au

You are misrepresenting.

You are mistaken on a number of these points John.

1) Everyone is fond of these "200+" witnesses. Show me one on camera. Printed quotes in USA Today etc. would not be admissible eyewitness evidence in a court of law.

2) You say that "not one person has made an unprovoked statement supporting a flyover." Though Roosevelt Roberts was in the building at the moment of the alleged impact (the explosion), he was outside in "ten seconds tops" and saw a "commercial aircraft" flying about 50-100 feet just above lightpoles, flying away. He said this in 2001 for the Center for Military History, on audio. Eric Diehle, while not a first hand witness, did report testimony from those he overheard, in which one person said "a bomb went of at the Pentagon and a jet plane kept on going." This is also testimony from 2001, also the Center for Military History. You can hear this on audio. I'm not linking to this because it's in the NSA video which has been posted. The point being, these were most definitely unprovoked statements.

3) CIT has never claimed that the light poles were staged in real time. They have suggested that with the exception of light pole 1, all of the light poles were quietly planted on the grass the night before (they actually are in inconspicuous locations on the grass, and at night, the night before, with no one suspecting anything big was about to happen, this would have been easy to achieve. Lloyde England's cab and light pole could have easily been staged after the damage path area of the road was cordoned off from traffic, and the authorities have complete control of the immediate vicinity.

4) CIT has never claimed that the flight data recorder info is legit. In fact, it seems to be well crafted disinfo. It shows the north side flight path, but has the plane at over 200 feet in the air. No eyewitness reported it as being that high. They all reported it as being about 50 or so feet high. The FDR is government controlled data. It appears, like the 5 frames, to be well crafted disinfo, mixing a real flight path with a untrue altitude, to muddy the waters of confusion.

Hi Adam :)

Yes I am aware of what you say!

They are not conclusive points...though...

Some one saying they saw an American Airways 757 flying away would be a little more believable than "one" inconclusive statement and one second hand one. Especially considering that the C130 Herc was following 77.

How is it that C.I.T could not find a few more flyover witnesses and all their witnesses that have an opinion believe the plane hit the Pentagon?

Thanks for conceding that the raw data was tampered with, have you thought that that is a real problem for C.I.T?

In the end I just simply see it as too risky to support the flyover, for many many reasons...it's just so dam risky for the perps to try on as so many people could of seen it including Air Traffic Control and Military Radar Operators.

Think of the questions that this idea raises and think of the thousands of extra conspirators it requires to be true!

How do you explain the aircraft wreckage and masses of aluminium inside the Pentagon all going in the direction of the crash trajectory?

Would you concede that this makes explaining the Pentagon attack more difficult to explain to the public?

Would you agree that if they have a video showing that 77 hit the Pentagon that would damage our campaign?

Finally is it all worth that risk?

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au

Thanks for the civil response.

Some of your points, however, could be also applied to the controlled demolition of the WTC. The "thousands of operatives" etc. Of course in the case of the WTC we have scientific chemical evidence that proves otherwise.

How is it that C.I.T could not find a few more flyover witnesses

This same logic was applied, in the pre CIT days, to the single lone testimony of north side approach witness William Lagasse. Since he was the only such person on record, people dismissed his testimony as likely mistaken. However thirteen witnesses now independently corroborate this north side approach. It is entirely possible and even probable that with the passage of time, more flyover witnesses will come forward.

and all their witnesses that have an opinion believe the plane hit the Pentagon?

You are correct with your choice of words that they 'believe' it hit. Sheila Casey has written an excellent analysis of this problem.

All of CIT’s witnesses also believe that the plane they saw hit the Pentagon, although this cannot be possible. This fact has been used to dismiss CIT’s work as irrelevant, but it’s not a compelling argument.

Less than an hour earlier, America had been treated to the sight of the south tower of the World Trade Center being hit by a plane and exploding into a huge fireball. Most people were aware that an attack was underway. If they saw a jet heading directly towards the Pentagon, and next saw a massive fireball, it is doubtful that one person in a thousand would question whether the plane had crashed and caused the fireball. To conclude that the fireball was caused by explosives pre-planted in one of the most heavily guarded buildings on the planet, in an intentional false flag attack to justify war, would require observers to have a degree of perspicacity that was extremely rare in the pre 9/11 world, and only slightly less rare now.

Moving on:

you said Thanks for conceding that the raw data was tampered with, have you thought that that is a real problem for C.I.T?

It's not me conceding, it CIT themselves. They believe that the altitude data was deliberately tampered with in order to create confusion and doubt about the very real nature of the north side approach as corroborated by the witnesses.

How do you explain the aircraft wreckage and masses of aluminium inside the Pentagon all going in the direction of the crash trajectory?

I won't say there is _no_ wreckage but there sure isn't much. Certainly not "masses." What do you think caused such a perfectly round shaped exit hole in the C ring? The nose, as Rumsfeld first indicated? The landing gear, as Popular Mechanics suggested?

I don't think that a "video showing a plane hitting the pentagon" would damage our campaign. Our campaign is so strong at this point that the disinfo / debunker attacks will have little to no impact.

Well you know I...

don't have a problem with doing the research, it's just the conclusion and our leaders supporting it inadvertantly...that has me very worried!

I have no "bent as such" on this issue, but I am extremely cautious around the P4T and C.I.T, for they have failed to act in the movements best interest in my opinion. They favour the "big tent" as far as research goes and have failed to debunk the "no planes at the WTC" over the last 5 years...which most here see as there role as experts.

Lots of Aluminium http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/pillarwreckage.jpg

Please look around a little, there is simply lots of HIGH SPEED Aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon, outside and inside....please look more closely at the photos at http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html for a start!

Kind regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au

For every "recorded" witness statement, there are many many more

"Show me one on camera. Printed quotes in USA Today etc. would not be admissible eyewitness evidence in a court of law."

To appreciate the absurdity of this statement, you have to realize that all of CIT's witnesses claimed the plane hit the Pentagon of those who were in position to witness it.

What people don't seem to comprehend about witness statements in a high density area... For every "recorded" witness account, there are many many more, who witnessed the event and did not leave documented reports. In other words, after witnessing the Pentagon attack, every single person in the area (and traffic was at a "stand still" in early morning traffic) could at any time report what "really" happened. Of course, no one has done any such thing.

Mistakes about the flight path 9 years after the fact are not surprising. Witnessing a flight path is a "general" event. Witnessing a plane hit a building is a "specific" event. The difference should be obvious. No one in their right mind is going to forget the sight of a plane hitting a building, but to ask someone to describe the "path" it was flying (at speeds of approximately 500mph) and expect them to remember this accurately years after the event is going to be hit and miss.

And for someone who seems to care about "eyewitness evidence in a court of law" you seem to not care very much about the fact that CIT witnesses gave out factually incorrect information, which I have pointed out time and time again to deaf ears. If a witness is telling you the wrong facts about what happened (i.e. location of poles, his own location), it should be OBVIOUS that his testimony about something specific about a "flight path" will NOT stand up in a court of law. Especially when these same witnesses are adamant the plane HIT the Pentagon.

Your statement that because the MSM reports eyewitness statements they are not credible is mistaken for several reasons. First of all, CIT's own witness all agree the plane hit the Pentagon. Anyone who saw anything different than a plane striking the Pentagon has had ample opportunity to report such an event. The very fact that there is no direct evidence supporting the claim that "no plane" hit the Pentagon is in fact, further evidence supporting the existing testimony.

If you are going to claim that hundreds of recorded accounts are not "credible" you can't turn around and at the same time promote a claim without any credible witness accounts of your own.

Now, since you are such a fan of my blog, I'll post some "live" interviews for you, since you don't seem to trust "printed" interviews. I've got plenty of other "live" interviews here:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/pentagon-eyewitness-testimony-m...

In fact, here's a witness by CIT whose testimony supports a SOUTH path that they completely omit from their claims:

In order for the plane to have flown "feet" in front of his car which was right beside the car struck by the light poles, the plane would had to have flown SOUTH of the CITGO. And yet you don't hear CIT acknowledging this anywhere.

Here's a witness who recorded the Pentagon on fire less than a minute after the attack (to confirm this, the smoke has not even reached the top of the frame in the first shots). I guess he didn't notice that plane flying over the Pentagon!

As you can clearly see in this video, any flyover would be easily observable by any of the people on their cars on that highway. Not to mention the highway on the other side of the building.
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Some remarks

In the first video you show, the witness says he saw the plane and ran. He did not say he saw the plane enter the building, which is what we are looking for if you want to counter CIT's claims.

In the second video we see Father McGraw interviewed by CIT. He says he did not see the light poles hit, and we find out he deduced that from the damage. ("I later saw the evidence of the pole having been knocked over") He does say he saw the plane enter the Pentagon. I recommend everybody to watch it, it's very interesting. As for his car being "right beside" that of Lloyd England, I'm not sure that's what he actually says. He literally says it was "near", not "right beside", iirc, and also say that this happened "on the far side there".

About the plane he says "A sense of something coming over the top of our cars, maybe about 20 or 25 feet". I presume he refers to height there. I don't think a "flyover" is still possible after the plane is at this height and moving at high speed. But then again, he is talking about "a sense", which is not a visual observation, but presumably refers to feeling and hearing.

He also says he missed a turn on his way to Arlington cemetery, was driving next to the Pentagon and did not realize this. CIT says he grew up in the area so this is a bit strange. Apparently, in his own words, he has been a trial attorney for the Justice department for about five and a half years. Then went into the seminary for four years to study for the priesthood, and was ordained in June 2001.

His testimony is apparently also influenced by other witness testimony, as he claims he later realized he saw the plane bounce of the lawn, and other witnesses helped him remember that. If I recall correctly, Sgt. Lagasse said that the plane hit where the facade meets the lawn, and although he also said he flinched and probably did not actually see the plane enter the building, and perhaps the slope of the terrain obstructed his view, this seems more likely considering the lack of visible plowing of the lawn. It seems there are some inaccuracies that leave me wondering how the official story actually claims the plane hit the building. Was it level or was it not? Did it strike the lawn or did it not? Etc. etc.

Later on, CIT claims the testimony of Father McGraw fatally contradicts the account of Navy photographer Mark Faram. This is again strange, and merits further investigation.

Finally about that clip at the bottom of your comment, I've seen it before, on your site I believe, and it also begs the question: "Where is the C-130 that Roberts supposedly mistook for a commercial airplane?"

I order to conduct this discussion correctly, the interpretation of evidence must be precise. It strikes me as positive that CIT has a clip on Google video that contradicts their own claims in one key area: the Pentagon impact. They should do this more often and with more emphasis, because part of the scientific method w.r.t. a hypothesis is attempting to falsify it. I don't think we do enough falsification of our own hypotheses. Of course, CIT dresses the video up with innuendo's about Opus Dei, attempting to cast doubt on the character of McGraw. It's part of confirmation bias, I guess. (And it's difficult to determine whether or not background information about a witness should be considered relevant to the testimony)

We need transcripts of these interviews, so that we no longer have this ambiguity about what they're actually literally saying. It's not helpful to say McGraw was "right beside" England, while he did not literally say that. It's not helpful to say, sorry imply, a video contains a witness statement of flight 77 entering the building, while the witness doesn't literally say this.

I hope you accept this comment as constructive criticism. This discussion needs to be more constructive in nature.

Beautiful Snowcrash, we need

Beautiful Snowcrash, we need to talk about what is wrong and what is right. During the shock and awe of this event a lot of assumptions may have been made.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

With regard to all the down votes for CIT supporters...

"The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him wrong." - - Harry Segall

Why all the crying about downvoting?

When I made my posts to this thread earlier they were immediately downvoted within a minute. But I didn't feel the need to make a post and whine about it. The CIT supporters obviously downvote posts as well but then they feel the need to go and cry about it when it happens to theirs? Seems pretty hypocritical.

By the way, the voting system on this site was installed as a way to deal with the relentless shills who were infesting this site and had way too much time on their hands. It's a way for people to express their opinions on a post without having to waste endless amounts of time arguing the same things over and over.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Ah memories...


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Three wise monkeys

14 to 1

It is unfortunate that this is dividing us.

Putting all else aside, 14 witnesses establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane did not knock down the light poles.

Can we agree on that much?

How telling

Within hours of it's posting the people who want to put the kabash on this clear evidence that the government is lying about the flight path have voted against a simple straightforward question. Note that they did not have the honesty to admit they are bad mouthing the truth, they just voted against it.

Thank you CIT for your excellent work. The fact that it is being so vigorously opposed is testament to the devastating effect it has on the OCT.

Wrong

The fact that it is being so vigorously opposed is a testament to the fact that some of us have retained our common sense and discernment in the face of an attempted browbeating using the names of movement leaders.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

No what is wrong is the

No what is wrong is the amount of people who have been banned from this site and the many who have given up here who are not allowed to participate or are not aware this is going on. Instead the people with their own websites keep posting their own websites as proof of the government factoids. Nothing like discarding the opposition. So go ahead and pretend you are in charge of the information. People are becoming aware of the government lie about the path and it is an easy place to awaken doubt of the government scenario.

I see that the one dollar dvd site is now offering the NSA dvd done by CIT. We don't have to offer people answers, just show them the government lied. Why? Get them to wonder why.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Address the point please

The 14 witnesses establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane did not knock down the poles.

Do you believe them or not?

>>The 14 witnesses establish

>>The 14 witnesses establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane did not knock down the poles.

Actually they don't.

The 14 witnesses establish that they believe the plane flew to the North.

Whether this is really true takes some time to examine. But not much time when you look at where they were, how the plane was moving, where the plane went, and how easy it would be to make that mistake of it flying over this shoulder, or over this.

Remember, it's a deafening object moving above them at hundreds of miles per hour.

That doesn't mean that they have no idea what happened. It's not at all unrealistic to presume that someone located where they were, when the plane flew over, could mistake where it was, even if they believe it not to be a mistake.

This is not a large mistake. It's the type of mistake made by people everyday who thought they parked in one place and then realize they parked somewhere else, or who get lost in a shopping mall.

That doesn't mean they don't know they are in a mall, or that they drive a car, it only means that they can easily mix up what direction something is.

But also, there's Ed Paik, who is described as pointing North by CIT, when he is not . . .

I respectfully disagree

The fact that they all drew a freehand flightpath and they all coincided is very compelling. If there were only two or three you might have a point but there are 14 who saw the plane from many different locations.
I have watched the video twice and this is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think the alternate flight path testimony is interesting

It's not that interesting to me personally because of the reasons that I cited on page one of this thread but I do think it's interesting. Unfortunately CIT has totally spoiled this research by irrevocably linking it to a very premature "flyover" conclusion in all of their videos. If they had just presented their raw research and left out the theories and accusations, it might have been a real benefit to the movement. But they didn't and it's not.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Semi-agreement

"Unfortunately CIT has totally spoiled this research by irrevocably linking it to a very premature "flyover" conclusion in all of their videos."

I agree that they shot themselves in the foot with the flyover claim, but I don't think it "spoils" the conclusive evidence. Some people just don't know when to STFU.
I noticed that in the video at the start of this thread. He's all over the place and I had to turn it off after about 10 min.

However

IMnsHO, he makes the case that the official flight path is false and the government is lying. That is a big deal. It doesn't get any better than that. Not everyone will be convinced by this evidence but then, no two people react the same to all the various kinds of evidence. This another arrow in our quiver. Each of us will give it a different priority and that's OK. Just remember, what sounds convincing to you may not sound convincing to some others, and vice versa.

Exactly, why it is all or

Exactly, why it is all or nothing. There is a lot to unravel here and it may change. But we are certain the government is lying about the path. Start or end there. It is good.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

One BIG difference is they

One BIG difference is they were there and you weren't. I even had a believer in the OCT telling me in no uncertain terms that that plane flew over the Navy Annex.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

No Sense In Debating This Any More

It's become pretty clear to me over the last few months that while CIT and those who are supportive of their research and very keen to have a calm evidential debate about this, those in opposition have no intention of getting involved.

From one side you get a comitment to discussing the facts, from the other a commitment to smear tactics - simply saying things as "weak" or "toxic" or "laughable" and then falling short of providing a cogent reason why that can stand up to scrutiny or debate.

Fine.

The evidence is there and from the growing list of endorsements of this work I think those who had been previosuly convinced by the smear campaign not to look at it will start to take the time to attend to the evidence.

It is colours to the mast time. Those of you who want to continue trying to silence this debate - go for it.

It reflects only on you.

The rest of us will get on with the not insignificant task of speading awareness of the evidence - and that does involve the eye witnesses and the flight data, whatever others may try and convince you.

Total BS

Stefan, you just acknowledged to me in private email that you haven't even read this thread. Maybe you should do so before commenting on what the different "sides" are doing because your comment doesn't match up with the reality here. Try reading the last two threads on this site that have had to do with CIT - it's nonstop personal attacks and snitchjacketing from CIT supporters. In this thread, the originator suggests calm civility and then goes on a personal attack rampage against Jon Gold - it would be totally hilarious if it wasn't so sad. CIT critics calmly put forth their arguments and are more or less told to shut up and go away. Kind of exactly the opposite of what you are saying.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Why camp based discussion sucks

"make a complete ass of yourself and the rest of us by association" -- YT

"Anyone who believes this CIT con job has no business dismissing "no plane" theories. The logic(or lack of) behind both arguements are the same....typical no planer: A plane didn't hit the WTC" -- jimd3100

"I think some of you actually like being conned." -- jimd3100

"Mixing shit with Shinola doesn't take courage, but perhaps it involves a strong degree of ignorance." -- Michael

"Sorry... but I have no time for bullshit, and I didn't want to risk seeing bullshit on facebook. It angers me." -- Jon Gold

"The CIT supporters obviously downvote posts as well but then they feel the need to go and cry about it when it happens to theirs? Seems pretty hypocritical." -- YT

"By the way, the voting system on this site was installed as a way to deal with the relentless shills who were infesting this site and had way too much time on their hands" -- YT

All this in contrast to your comment, which starts with a title of "Total BS" and claims: "CIT critics calmly put forth their arguments and are more or less told to shut up and go away."

It seems a bit pointless and insincere to wash your hands in innocence the way you just did. A proverb with the words "pot" and "kettle" comes to mind.

I'm not really upset about a few jabs here and there. Somebody once told me "enjoy your death" here on 911blogger, when I defended David Ray Griffin against allegations of him being a New World Order asset. I never complained to any moderators, although it obviously sucks being told that. I'm a fervent opponent of censorship and silencing of opinions. Even rude attacks, if at all possible. But don't claim victimhood when clearly both sides are on the attack.

>>when clearly both sides

>>when clearly both sides are on the attack.

Trying to smooth the scene over into two equally valid camps is a view that's likely not shared by anyone on this thread, or anyone just viewing it.

One side has the story wrong, has from the start, and is trying to force it on everyone else.

It's not rocket science to see how this will anger people. To then claim that those who can see through the nonsense being promoted to the public on here are "on the attack" is misguided. People are sick of it and are responding.

It's human nature to express feelings when people are part of a movement that claims to be seeking "truth", but instead, over and over, have to have unscientific offensive nonsense posted in their faces and on top of that, get told to just swallow it.

At a certain point, a hoax is just offensive to people's sensibilities.

Do you believe the witnesses

I see no reason for all the back and forth. The statements by the witnesses are clear. They all said the plane flew north of the Citco station.

Do you believe them or not?

>>Do you believe them or

>>Do you believe them or not?

Yes, I believe that they believe they are describing where they saw the plane. Does that make it true?

I tend to think it does not. Why? Because many more witnesses describe a South path. Do you believe them?

I would tend to assume you do not.

But I also tend to not believe the veracity of the statements by the North witnesses because of the dynamics of the location (note that witnesses were not broadly spread around, but are in a fairly limited wedge) -- it's a very small wedge of space between "North" and "South" so that if someone was turned one way while the roaring jet went over one shoulder, by the time they turned the other way, it's over the other shoulder. This could be confusing for *some* people, particularly if these were people who have dyslexia or tend to lose their car in a mall parking lot.

But I recommend you take a look at the South side witnesses, no matter what idea you believe. Many of them are here:

9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Witnesses Described
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html

My guess is that you have not looked at them. Have you? I've looked at the North side, and I believe that they believe.

But additionally, the South path agrees with the physical evidence -- no need to fake anything! -- and the basic premise described by all the North path witnesses: that a large commercial jet with passengers slammed into the building and real people were killed.

In any body of hundreds of eyewitnesses, some will have discrepancies because of where they were, what they were doing, who they are, etc.

That's why scientific approaches look at both the large body -- statistically, what is significantly supported? -- and the individual discrepancies. What North of the Citgo advocates are doing is trying to throw out or whittle away all who describe South of the Citgo. That's not science. That's something else.

Many more witnesses

Victoria,

I have heard people say that there are many witnesses who saw the plane on the southern "official" flight path. I have only seen one. Do you know of any others? Would you post them please?

Agreed Victoria and....

anyone who thinks this statement is an attack-

""Mixing shit with Shinola doesn't take courage, but perhaps it involves a strong degree of ignorance." -- Michael

needs to grow some thicker skin. Yes, we are sick of this trash and the personalities who push it and we are speaking out.

Too bad we're not going

Too bad we're not going away.

And when I say "we," I'm not talking about myself, Breezy, Chris Sarns, snowcrash, and those who posted on this thread.

I'm talking about Col. Shelton Lankford, David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Sander Hicks, Ed Asner, Peter Dale Scott.

I hope you realize

that most if not all of the people you list (not sure about Lankford) DO NOT actually endorse CIT's flyover fantasy. I think that's a very important distinction to make.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

The flyover is developing.

The flyover is developing. The path is fact.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Sensibilities

"Trying to smooth the scene over into two equally valid camps is a view that's likely not shared by anyone on this thread, or anyone just viewing it.

One side has the story wrong, has from the start, and is trying to force it on everyone else. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_by_consensus
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html


It's not rocket science to see how this will anger people. To then claim that those who can see through the nonsense being promoted to the public on here are "on the attack" is misguided. People are sick of it and are responding.

It's human nature to express feelings when people are part of a movement that claims to be seeking "truth", but instead, over and over, have to have unscientific offensive nonsense posted in their faces and on top of that, get told to just swallow it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard


At a certain point, a hoax is just offensive to people's sensibilities.

I'm not CIT, I don't share their flyover agenda, but neither do I share yours if it includes discarding these witness statements, misrepresenting them, or teaming up with debunkers with a long rap sheet of lies and distortions. (911myths, JREF-ers) That's offensive to my sensibilities as a 9/11 researcher, especially if I then double-check your debunker sources myself and discover on multiple occasions that they are once again (unsurprisingly) in error. (Whether or not intentionally).

You should match the volume and tone of your rhetoric with the quality of your research. I don't particularly appreciate the fact that you've attempted to spin the testimony of Roosevelt Roberts to the point where he supposedly saw a C-130 (his words do not imply that at all), the testimony of Ed Paik, or that you've represented a statement by Robert Turcios as if it came from Roosevelt Roberts. I do appreciate the tireless sanity checks of Pentagon research. I feel enriched by the hard work on both sides, but if I may speak for those without a vested interested in the outcome, we could do without the vitriol and the confirmation bias in both camps.

One last link with respect to the "bad for the movement" argument: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adconseq.html

Lastly I'd like to say that at this point in time, I don't find the flyover argument convincing. Currently it's premature and irresponsible to promote it as fact. I prefer living with the paradox until it's, hopefully one day, completely resolved. The ideal situation would be if we'd gain so much momentum for a new investigation from other avenues of research, that a new investigation with subpoena powers is able to finally unravel the web of deceit that is the Pentagon attack. I want to know what is being covered up and why, without inadvertently covering up anything myself. Without fearful thinking. Let the chips fall where they may.

Double standards and hypocrisy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_by_consensus
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html

Is that kind of like when an attempt is made to herd everyone into approval of CIT through the use of famous "endorsements" and then when people have serious problems with CIT they are met with responses like "Are you calling David Ray Griffin an idiot?" I'm sure you would speak up if you saw something like that happening though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard

You might wanna read that one again...

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Thanks

for posting my own links back to me, and childishly taunting me.

I don't need to read my own links, YT. A double standard is where you aggressively attack while simultaneously demanding civility from your opponents.

I never realized what a waste of time this discussion was. Too bad. I'm calling it quits.

Wow

Didn't like that question, huh? Truth hurts. OK... bye bye

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

>>I'm not CIT, I don't share

>>I'm not CIT, I don't share their flyover agenda, but neither do I share yours if it includes discarding these witness statements, misrepresenting them, or teaming up with debunkers with a long rap sheet of lies and distortions. (911myths, JREF-ers)

Nice try.

Posting valid research by a debunker is not teaming up with a debunker. Sometimes even the debunkers get things right. Usually not -- as we all know -- but occasionally they do, and when they do, it's important to investigate their findings and provide some airing of them. Why? So they don't fester, for one. To improve our own research and correct it if necessary, as well. Much of wtc7lies is a lie. Much of 911myths is distorted. We all know that here. So if THEY are getting things right, we'd better pay attention because it means that others who haven't taken any position are likely seeing through it too.

Truth is truth.

Misrepresenting witness statements? Try throwing out wholesale over 100 people's statements. There just *might* be some misrepresentation going on there.

Roosevelt Roberts describes the plane he saw making approximately the same motions that a C-130 made. When they ask him to describe it, he describes approximately a commercial jet, but it's a little murky, most likely because that's what he expected to see, but it's likely he didn't, since there wasn't one -- it already hit. He came out after the plane hit and saw a plane flying and provides aspects of the description fit both planes. I can explain why he probably describes a commercial jet, but can you describe why he describes the C-130 flight path? He couldn't have expected a plane to fly on that particular path, but he did describe it. So to say that misrepresents him is just untrue. He describes the C-130.

This isn't rocket science, and it isn't some kind of attempted smear on my part of Roberts. What's misrepresenting is saying that that's what I'm doing. I'm not.

It's interesting that you don't apply the same standard for CIT's descriptions -- all witnesses they never interviewed are not credible, some witnesses "in on it", some are "agents", they're sure of it. And this is why you're having to defend yourself and say "I'm not CIT", because you are implicitly applying a different standard to different evidence.

Lots of people do it. It's how we ended up with:

"If a witness saw a commercial jet, he must have been confused,"

"If a witness saw something else, he wasn't confused."

and

"If CIT interviewed a witness, he counts."

"If CIT didn't interview a witness, he doesn't count."

These are the real double standards we are talking about here. Not you or me or anyone arguing here on this thread -- sorting things out -- but this most basic double standard that was originally started long ago, and one it's time to shed.

Wow... legally... that sounds very serious

I thought you left.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

If it sucks, then don't do it

Why cut my sentence in half in order to try to make your point? And then you claim you don't like distorting people's statements? My comment was not a personal attack and that's very obvious in it's unedited form. Please don't chop up my words in an attempt to bolster your theory, it reminds me too much of CIT.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Is this better?

"CIT wants to pretend that they've figured it all out and they want you to lobby Congress with their materials and make a complete ass of yourself and the rest of us by association. If that's what you want to do, knock yourself out."

Sure

That's my sentence and I stand by it 100%

(Not sure what you're trying to do with the bolding of the text there but hey, go crazy...)

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

The dishonesty of CIT's detractors totally exposed.

I just posted this as a specific response to jimd3100 way back on page 2 of this thread; it probably won't receive the attention there that it will if I post it at the end of the thread again, and this time as a response to the entire cast of CIT detractors. Jimd3100 posted the link to the following video, and Arabesque went further and embedded it. I'll embed it again. It's a witness that South Side Defenders cite as evidence that (1) the north side approach is wrong and that (2) that plane most certainly hit he building and did not fly over.

It's right there. He didn't just hear it. He watched it hit the building. - jimd3100

In fact, here's a witness by CIT whose testimony supports a SOUTH path that they completely omit from their claims: - Arabesque

I'm really beginning to conclude that CIT's detractors bank on the hope that fence sitters will take them at their word without clicking on the links (or taking the time to watch the vids).

I watched this video. His testimony is extremely suspect, so much so as to not be believable.

Here is his testimony starting at 5:18 on that video. Tell me if this matches the photographic evidence:

"I will say that I have a memory, um, which was you might say was revived after the fact, of the plane bouncing on the lawn before it went into the building. That basically, uh, came to me, um, after hearing of other witness testimony, from other witnesses that were in the area. I heard that other witnesses had supported that the plane had bounced, you know, had hit the ground before it crashed into the building. When I heard that, it kind of, sort of, provoked something, or um, I thought, 'Yes, that's the image I remember having."

There is no damage on the lawn which would indicate that the plane bounced.

Jimd3100: "How embarrassing." For you.

In the last thread on CIT's work, a couple weeks ago, Snowcrash and I nailed Victronix on two similar misrepresentations which were easily exposed with a simple examination of the links she provided.

And I have little doubt that DRG and the rest of them DID look at all sides of this debate and found many falsehoods and misrepresentations on the side of the south side / plane crash defenders.

And I hope Justin and Orangatan are taking note.

Dishonesty

"It's right there. He didn't just hear it. He watched it hit the building. - jimd3100"

Yea, that's what I said because it's true. Here is an example of something that is not true....when YOU said...

"The "South Side Witness" you cite admits in the video he never saw the plane, just heard it. Didn't see it fly over his head nor hit the building."

"You only cite him because he says he "heard" the plane fly right over him."--that was Posted by YOU

Sorry, but he saw the plane-what he heard was it hitting a lightpole.

THEN YOU POST::..

"I will say that I have a memory, um, which was you might say was revived after the fact, of the plane bouncing on the lawn before it went into the building. That basically, uh, came to me, um, after hearing of other witness testimony, from other witnesses that were in the area. I heard that other witnesses had supported that the plane had bounced, you know, had hit the ground before it crashed into the building. When I heard that, it kind of, sort of, provoked something, or um, I thought, 'Yes, that's the image I remember having."

"There is no damage on the lawn which would indicate that the plane bounced."

"Jimd3100: "How embarrassing." For you."

LOL! Why Would I be embarrased by a witness admitting that his recollection of the plane hitting the lawn was influenced by others he had talked to? Are you aware that others thought the plane hit the lawn? Guess why they thought that? Because it was so low--to low in fact for a "flyover", and from their viewpoint they made the incorrect assumption it hit the lawn. SO I'm supposed to be embarrased by what again?

I've never accused a single witness of being a liar. THAT would be embarrasing, that's what you flyover cultists have to resort to.

So since you're so gung ho about calling regular citizens and other truthers liars here is another regular citizen you can also call a liar because he ruins your flyover fantasy. the 14:11 mark is the reason you have to call him a liar, along with his testimony of watching the plane enter the building.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3383333411025014760&hl=en

This would also be embarrasing.....

"Those columns are CLEARLY blown out."--Posted by YOU

So again, I will provide the link and everyone can see for themselves that those are not columns(old boring debunked) but slabs hanging down from the upper floor. This is a long hole....
Freeze at the 3:07 mark....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o

"Standing columns remained where heavy 757 parts should have obliterated them."
Hoffman response: based on the confusion of hanging sections of the second floor for columns.
"The hole was too small to accommodate wing ends and tail."
Hoffman: true, but consistent with the crash of a 757 whose wing ends and tail are too light to puncture the Pentagon's walls."
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

BTW here is the doubletree security video. Did you see the flyover? Could you point it out to us? Or perhaps it never happened?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MFEpYCCUgs&feature=fvw

Snowcrash,

Can you help me out here with a type up of McGraw's testimony re the light pole? I don't have time right now - I'm at a week long series of day long seminars and have limited time - could you show the 911blogger readers his exact words re deducing after the fact that it was the plane that knocked over the light pole, and didn't actually see it?

Clearly his testimony about the plane bouncing on the lawn, and his opinion being colored by other witnesses, is simply not credible.

I'll see

what I can do Adam. Transcripts are clearly useful for all sides, and to resolve ambiguity.

However, I'm not going to engage in discussion on this particular blog post anymore. I'll find another way to post transcripts or get them to you.

Let me help out a fellow "truther"

"I think that may have been the first noise perhaps.... the noise of clipping the lightpole"--4:07 mark

"I did see the plane as it came in" - 4:20 mark

"The "South Side Witness" you cite admits in the video he never saw the plane, just heard it. Didn't see it fly over his head nor hit the building."--Post by Adam

The first noise?

He did not mention the noise of the jet engines. "There was a sensation of something coming over the top of us.". Have you ever been under a jet at very low altitude? The sound is defining. He could not have heard the 'noise' of the plane hitting the light pole.

Furthermore, he did not mention the 3 light poles that were 'knocked down' right in front of him.

His face twitches when he says "I didn't even know it was the Pentagon." "I born up ... I was born up, aaa, in this area . . ."

Sorry, this witness is NOT credible.

Cherry pick much?

"He did not mention the noise of the jet engines. "There was a sensation of something coming over the top of us.". Have you ever been under a jet at very low altitude?"

"I actually didn't hear it, until it went by me." -Sgt William Lagasse
"I'm sorry, you said you did not hear it?" - C Ranke
"I did not hear it" -Sgt William Lagasse
"OK" - C Ranke
"Basically I didn't actually hear the aircraft, I saw it first, um, I heard it after it was going by me" --Sgt William Lagasse
40:28 - 40:50 mark
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5477955350625095031&hl=en

So you are saying Lagasse is not a credible witness? Or are you just going to call innocent regular citizens liars who ruin your fantasy? I think we know the answer to that. Some of us don't need to resort to calling witnesses liars and accomplices because we are aware of different interpretations of events by different people. Perry Mason--you're not.

"His face twitches when he says....."
LOL!

Good point

This indicates the jet was traveling very fast.
The sound of the pole being hit would still be obliterated by sound of the jet as they would both arrive at his ears within a split second. IMO

There is no way he could have grown up in that area, worked there for years, and not know where the Pentagon was.

And yes, the face twitching is a sign of deception.

IMO

"This indicates the jet was traveling very fast.
The sound of the pole being hit would still be obliterated by sound of the jet as they would both arrive at his ears within a split second. IMO"

And the -IMO- is key here. The pole was stationairy, the plane was not.

"There is no way he could have grown up in that area, worked there for years and not know where the Pentagon was."

another IMO would be appropiate here. Of course this means nothing other than what? He's a plant that likes to give clues?

"And yes, the face twitching is a sign of deception."

And again we have another spot where IMO is key.

You can continue to call witnesses liars, like CIT does, and when you do, keep in mind none of these people had to give these guys the time of day, but wanted to help them. CIT contacted them, remember? So when Dylan Avery or any other 9/11 reseacher wants to talk with innocent civilians, if they are aware of the treatment they get from certain "truthers" do you think that would make them more or less likely to talk with us?
Calling any of these people liars is counterproductive. Calling them accomplices is outrageous.

Tact

After viewing the interview several times, I do not believe him. I used the tactful phrase. "This witness is not credible." rather than call him names.

Someone is mistaken [to put it tactfully]. Either the one witness is 'mistaken' or the other 14 witnesses are 'mistaken'.

>>And yes, the face

>>And yes, the face twitching is a sign of deception.

Actually it's a sign of a muscle having spasms, which can be due to about 100 different things, including Tourette's, fatigue, stress, a muscle disorder, a hormone disorder, etc.

I'm concerned about how you are making blanket claims here --"if a muscle is twitching then he's lying" -- without any real basis in fact. That's not a good way to get at the truth, it's a defensive position to try to force a view that the man is lying when there is no evidence for it.

Truth is not about belief. It's about evidence.

Twitch

I did not base my doubt on the twitch. It's primarily due to his statement that he did not know where the Pentagon was. Second, he said he heard a plane hit a pole. There were 5 hit within a second of each other. He did not mention the plane hitting the poles in front of him.

I know of 3 south side witnesses now. Stephen McGraw, Keith Wheelhouse and Vin Narayanan.
Do you know of any others?

Duplicate post

deleted

Bottom line

There are 14 witnesses who independently drew the flight path in the same place, north of the Citco station, and one witness who said it flew over him south of the Citco station.

just one huh?

Father McGraw is a rather suspitious character isn't he? LOL!
Here's another one....keep him in mind when you said...

"who independently drew the flight path in the same place, north of the Citco station"

His name is K Wheelhouse. You'll notice the flight path he drew isn't quite the same as the others is, and it explains why he dosn't make the cut on the new movie. Check it out ...freeze at the 14:11 mark....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3383333411025014760&hl=en

I'll give you a hint on how you are supposed to discredit this other S Side witness...."he's in on it". When CIT was on the internet accusing him of being a mass murdering accomplice, he was still trying to help them, until They tried to badger him into "confessing", which gives you some insight into the mental stability(or lack thereof) that were dealing with here. Keith Wheelhouse last reponse to them was "Craig you need help"....it's all right here...

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/936873/1/

Should I go into M Walter and other S Side witnesses? Why? It's all a waste of time. You can't comprehend that CIT went there for the purpose of seeking out N side witnesses, and pretend there are no S Side witnesses. There are. And they all agree the plane hit the building. There is no mystery here, other than why some are so eager to be conned.

Thank you for the information

"Should I go into M Walter and other S Side witnesses?"

Yes, please.

Witnesses from Arabesque page

11. “seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike—an Arlington road leading to Pentagon.”[11]

15. “A silver, twin-engine American airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex.”[15]

19. “[It] approached from the west, coming in low over the nearby five-story Navy Annex on a hill overlooking the Pentagon.”[19]

21. “Personnel working in the Navy Annex, over which the airliner flew… saw this [plane] come flying over the Navy Annex.”[21]

57. “I saw this [plane] come flying over the Navy Annex. It flew over the van.”[100]

63. “Just prior to the impact there were three firemen on the helipad at the Pentagon… they looked up and saw the plane coming over the Navy Annex building.”[106]

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.ht...

In other words,

Even many of the witnesses Arabesque him/herself cites specify that the plane flew above the Navy Annex, which would be consistent with the north approach. And more than one specifies that it was gliding noiselessly.

Very interesting indeed.

Comments

I now see why people are having a problem with CIT. They specifically said there were NO witnesses who said the plane flew south of the Citco station but they interviewed several who did. So far; Stephen McGraw, Keith Wheelhouse and Vin Narayanan.
Interviewing someone and then calling them an accomplice in a video is very bad form.
Optimum would be to show all the witness statements and let the viewer decide.
My opinion of CIT just went in the toilet.
Keeping that in mind, let's look at the all the witness statements.

I take all witness statements at face value unless there is reason to doubt them. By the same token, I don't consider witness statements as fact without collaboration.

The C-130 is not relevant to flight path which is the critical point as far as I am concerned. The case for flyover is very weak and not a factor in the flight path.

Keith Wheelhouse:
About a mile out, about 60 seconds = 60 mph. 1 mile @ 500 mph = ~7 seconds. "We were facing the Pentagon . . . I noticed a plane coming from my right". This had to be about 7 to 15 seconds before the explosion.
His concept of time should be discounted. It's not relevant to the flight path anyway.

From his location, off to the side, he misjudged the flight path.(?) The witnesses in the equipment yard were in the best position. For a moment the plane was headed right for them. The water truck guy was almost under the plane, close enough to feel the heat. The police officers were certain of the north flight path.

All the north side witnesses and Keith agree that the engines were 'quiet' until the plane had passed the Naval Annex and then went to full throttle.

Vin said the plane hit the exit sign but did not hit any light poles. He is the only person to say that. Who confirmed his location and how? Did he say what direction he was heading?

If they said there were no

If they said there were no witnesses to the south path that woudln't be right. Maybe they meant there were no credible witnesses. They should have been clearer about that. Were these witnesses able to draw on a map and be certain of what they saw. If so, that should be included.

We have a guy on here who says he was a witness and he describes a plane but talks about a missile. He was interviewed and he doesn't like that he wasn't included as a witness. Well I'm not surprised. He doesn't sound credible enough. I think that CIT went with people who could more clearly place the plane, the speed, and the landmarks. Of course they all thought the plane hit. That is another story. But the damage doesn't compute with the path.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Credible witnesses

Failing to list witnesses because, in the author's opinion, they are not credible doesn't work for me. Show me all the witness statements and let me make up my own mind.

I found another witness that could be considered a south side witness.

Jim Sutherland -- from his car
Plane flew 50 feet over I-395 in a straight line, striking the side of the Pentagon.

I have not seen any conformation of Vin's location so he has not been confirmed as a south side witness. IMO

Mike Walker, mentioned above, is not a south side witness. He saw the plane hit the Pentagon but said nothing about the flight path.
"I was sitting in the northbound on 27 . . . It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon."

The guy who spoke of a missile may have been noting how the plane was used as a missile and should not be discounted. What does he say about the flight path?

Despite the shortcomings of their methodology, CIT established the north flight path well beyond a reasonable doubt IMO.

I asked him on here to

I asked him on here to clarify and he hasn't. He was complaining about not being included in the DVD. So I can't answer for him. But he was apparently not included. I asked about the path and about the missile because he only described a plane. He hasn't posted again.

I would really like to know where on Rt. 27 (Washington Blvd.) Mike Walker was sitting.

People that day expected a plane to hit because that was what was happening. Even the police THOUGHT the plane hit but they never SAW the plane hit. However, they and the other north side witnesses thought the plane hit. It was expected. Who actually saw it. Why didn't they get their day in court as witnesses.

Why was there no tribunal.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

UNBELIEVABLE

Father McGraw: “I DIDN’T EVEN KNOW IT WAS THE PENTAGON.”

How can he even say that with a straight face (at 2:10)??? I’ve lived in the area for 35 years. There’s absolutely no way you “don’t know” it’s the Pentagon. First, there are huge highway signs all over, well in advance, that clearly say “Pentagon” and direct you to the Pentagon South Parking, Mall Entrance, River Entrance, etc. And once you’re on Route 27 where he was ("in totally standstill traffic"), it’s the only thing in sight, other than open fields and a parking lot. How can a person of his education, training and background not recognize it? He says he was driving, too. That’s just eerie.

Notice when he’s fed that line by Aldo, he repeats it, then fumbles a bit, his face goes into silly contortions (NLP, anyone?), as he tries to explain that he’s grown up in the area but he’s “just basically never over there… besides, you can’t really tell, it’s five-sided anyway…so I never… I didn’t even know it was the Pentagon…” Catholic priest or not, I find it hard to believe he's telling the truth.

It might seem trivial to focus on this, but, as they say, the devil is in the details.

Complete Witness List from Aldo Marquis CIT

Complete Witness List from Aldo Marquis CIT

Hello all,

Here is a great resource for you all to use. It consists of a breakdown of all witnesses in relation to what they said versus what they actually saw or could have seen. I based this analysis on what was actually printed. Without direct confirmation and srutinizing of witness claims and POV (point of view) locations, they are merely static words floating around left to imply an impact.

Seeing plane + smoke/fireball DOES NOT equal actually witnessing an impact.

Seeing/descrbing a plane + reporters deduction/sensationalizing about witness account DOES NOT equal actually witnessing an impact.

Speaking with witnesses and clarifying the details of their account is the ONLY way to get answers.

Some witnesses are genuine and some are not. Some are real people with real lives who were confused and convinced by the attacks in New York while some are deep cover opertives or assets implicitly planting bogus information to make us chase our tails or delicately dancing between ambigous statements.

Some merely deduced an impact while some either arrived after the event or simply said they were there and outright lied about an impact. The fact that they "saw a plane versus a missile" is what their account was originally touted for by skeptics but when accepted that there was a plane and scrutinized against the north side flight path and the fact that the local topography does not allow a complete view of the event, most of the accounts do not hold water when analyzed.

I am open to debate on this matter and tried to remain as fair and accurate as I possibly could. If I missed anyone, please let me know. If you disagree with any of this witness designations, then please let me know. However, you should be warned that I will ask you for evidence or logic to support your argument ie pictures and other supporting factors.

First and foremost:

Flyover/away witnesses and connections:

1. Officer Roosevelt Roberts
2. Dewitt Roseborough (person of interest)
3. Co-workers of Erik Dihle at ANC who said that "a bomb hit and a jet kept going"
4. Potentially witnesses interviewed by Dave Statter on 9/11. Witness(es) said "pilot tried to avert the building" and the plane "went to the side of the building not directly in"
5. Maria De La Cerda reports to the Center for Military History on Feb 6, 2002 that she thought it crashed on "the other side" and confirmed to us in 2008 that she did not think it was a side impact but rather that it was "on top".

Only saw plane (possibly from far away location), could not see pentagon, light poles or impact, either deduced or are lying OR do not directly mention or CONFIRM seeing an impact:

Susan Carroll (on metro platform at Reagan National)
Allen Cleveland (on subway metro train at Reagan National)
Meseidy Rodriguez (metro platform at Reagan National)
Steve Snaman (Ft McNair)
Michael Tinyk (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT US Patent and Trademark office in Crystal City)
Greta van Susteren (on the roof of a parking structure at National Airport)
Clyde A. Vaughn, Army Brig. Gen. (Saw the plane loitering over Georgetown, DC, )
Don Chauncey (small commuer plane)
Henry Ticknor (Rt 50, only saw plane for a moment-mad that people misrepresent)
Michael James -POV confirmed (Columbia Pike curve, trees blocked view)
Isabel James -POV confirmed (Columbia Pike curve, trees blocked view)
Mark Eastman
D.S. Khavkin (saw small commerical craft from back on Columbia Pike in highrise)
Allan Wallace (ran when plane came in, admits DID NOT see impact)
Mark Skipper (ran when plane came in, admits DID NOT see impact)
Steve Eiden (out on 395 loop)
Capt Steve McCoy (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT at 395 and Glebe Rd)
Andrea Kaiser (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT at 395 and Glebe Rd)
Ann Krug (Hoffman-Boston Elementary)
Mary Lyman
Oscar Martinez (saw plane, claims he only heard it hit, no confirmation to seeing)
Kirk Milburn (deceased, died in Motorcycle accident-CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT, could not see impact or light poles)
Linda Plaisted
Alfred S. Regnery (watched it disappear behind bridges and concrete barriers)
Joseph Royster
Darb Ryan, Vice Admiral
Elizabeth Smiley
Steve Snaman
Dewey Snavely, Sgt.
Levi Stephens
Greta van Susteren
Phillip Sheuerman (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT, on 395, only saw plane for brief moment, did not see impact)
Phillip Thompson (does not mention seeing impact, only fireball)
Thomas J. Trapasso (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT1400 S. Barton, dubious conflicting witness and can't see Pentagon from location)
Richard Benedetto (claims he did not see impact from Rt 27)
Terry Morin, Former USMC aviator (CONTACTED by CIT, would not return phone calls, EDIT 8/08: INTERVIEWED by CIT)(up at Navy Annex)
James Ryan (And you saw it hit the Pentagon? No, at that point it went down because I was approaching a hill.)
Darb Ryan (quote only says "when out of the corner of my eye I saw the airplane" , the writer for Aviation Week adds 'a split second before it struck'.)
Mickey Bell (did not know what had happened)
Don Scott (did not and could not see pentagon or impact, confirmed by CIT)
Ralph Banton
Michael DiPaula ("sounded like missile", reporter adds detail about plane roaring into view, not in position to make determination on impact)
Lon Rains ("sounded like a missile")
John Thurman,Army Major who works in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff
Daniel McAdams (only heard)
Dennis Smith (no direct confirmation of impact, may actually support flyover)
Dawn Vignola (TALKED TO by CIT, claimed the plane was white seemed unsure of final position)
David Battle
Mike Gerson
Cheryl Hammond (saw the big American Airlines plane and started running)
Dan Creed (up on Columbia Pike, no view of Pentagon or impact)
James Keglovich (no indication or CONFIRMATION that he actually saw the impact)
Aydan Kizildrgli (no indication or CONFIRMATION,writers words, his quotes do not allude to ACTUALLY seeing the impact)
Pam Bradley

Claims they "Saw" impact of "plane"/large airliner-were allegedly in a position to possibly confirm one:

1. Deb Anlauf (CONTACTED by CIT, would not return call)
2. Donald Bouchoux (military consultant. CONTACTED by CIT, would not return call)
3. Mike Walter (had dinner with CIT)
Sean Boger (CONFIRMED the north side, impact deduced due to seeing NoC approach)
4. Lincoln Liebner (at entrance to building in south parking lot, cannot see impact zone from there-but can see flyaway zone-also claims plane hit helicopter which it did not)
5. Hugh "Tim" Timmerman (Dawn Vignola's roomate, unavailable for comment)
6. James R. Cissell
7. Daryl Donley
8. Bobby Eberle (came forward well after the event, Jeff Gannon's boss)
9. Penny Elgas (has plane banking, places it 50-80 feet above ground over highway just before the alleged impact, too high to cause damage)
10. Mary Ann Owens
11. Scott Perry
12. Frank Probst (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED)
Noel Sepulveda, Navy Master Sgt.
13. G. T. Stanley (unconfirmed name/witness)
14. Steve Storti
15. Carla Thompson (unconfirmed name/witness)
16. Terrance Kean (Unreachable)
17. Dave Marra (dubious, questionable witness-claims plane cartwheeled into 20. building)
18. Mark Petitt (VERY dubious account)
Aziz El Hallou (Debunked lying witness, proven to be at Navy Annex)
19. Robert A. Leonard(driving northbound in the HOV lanes on I-395; Pentagon is on the left. The plane vanished, absorbed by the building, and there was a slight pause. Then a huge fireball rose into the sky.")
20. Mike Dobbs (according to writer, not confirmed, not his own words)
21. Joe Harrington (seems like it made impact before Wedge-in South Parking lot)
22. Rick Renzi (corrupt congressman, listed as law student, has plane "dive bombing", very peculiar account)
23. Vin Narayanan

"Saw" a plane & impact from far away, but DID NOT mention a second plane/jet shadowing/chasing and veering away as the impact happened:

24. Steve Anderson, USA Today Editor (saw impact from USA Today building)
Don Wright (a commuter plane, two-engined )
Don Chauncey (small commuter plane)
Steve Gerard (saw small corporate jet with no markings) (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Lesley Kelly, Cmdr. U.S. Navy (Ret.) (near impossible to see the plane approach from DC)
James Robbins (a national-security analyst & NRO contributor for National Review, William F Buckley (CIA) publication saw silver flash, "diving in an unrecoverable angle")
Ken Ford (prop plane flying up river from National)
25. Christopher Munsey, Navy Times (Owned by Gannett who owns USA Today) reporter

(25 TOTAL WHO COULD HAVE SEEN OR CLAIM TO HAVE SEEN IMPACT)

Claims plane an American Airlines:

Richard Benedetto
James R. Cissell
Dennis Clem
Mike Dobbs, Marine Cmdr.
Penny Elgas
Cheryl Hammond
Joe Harrington
William Lagasse (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT)
Lincoln Leibner, Army Major
Elaine McCusker
Mitch Mitchell, Ret. Army Col. CBS news correspondent
Christopher Munsey, Navy Times reporter
Vin Narayanan (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
John O'Keefe (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Steve Riskus
Mike Walter
Joel Sucherman (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Frank Probst (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
James Ryan
Steve Storti
Tim Timmerman
Michael Tinyk (dark orange and blue) (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT)
Alan Wallace (white airplane with orange and blue trim)
Ian Wyatt
Afework Hagos (according to writer)(CONTACT ATTEMPTED by CIT)

(25 total)

Saw a "silver plane":

Allen Cleveland
Albert Hemphill
James Mosely (silver flash?)
Steve Patterson
James S. Robbins
Madelyn Zackem (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Lt. Col O'Brien(CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by PFT/CIT)

(7 total)

Saw "the/a plane", not identified as AA:

Steve Anderson
Deb Anlauf
Sean Boger (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Donald Bouchoux
Pam Bradley
Mark Bright
Omar Campo
Susan Carroll
James R. Cissell
Dan Creed
Daryl Donley
Bob Dubill
Bobby Eberle
Steve Eiden
Bruce Elliott, Colonel
Kim Flyler
Kat Gaines
Fred Gaskins
Steven Gerard
Afework Hagos
Eugenio Hernandez
Fred Hey
Michael James
Andrea Kaiser
Terrance Kean
James Keglovich
Lesley Kelly, Cmdr. U.S. Navy (Ret.)
Aydan Kizildrgli
Ann Krug
Robert A. Leonard
Mary Lyman
David Marra
Oscar Martinez
Stephen McGraw (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
William Middleton Sr.
Kirk Milburn
Mary Ann Owens
Zinovy Pak
Scott Perry
Christine Peterson
Linda Plaisted
Alfred S. Regnery
Rick Renzi
Meseidy Rodriguez
Joseph Royster
Darb Ryan, Vice Admiral
Don Scott (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Noel Sepulveda, Navy Master Sgt.
Elizabeth Smiley
Steve Snaman
Dewey Snavely, Sgt.
G. T. Stanley
Levi Stephens
Greta van Susteren
Shari Taylor
Carla Thompson
Phillip Thompson
Thomas J. Trapasso (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Rodney Washington

Only heard plane:

Ralph Banton
Michael DiPaula ("sounded like missile", reporter adds detail about wing)
Lon Rains ("sounded like a missile")
John Thurman,Army Major who works in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff
Daniel McAdams

Heard impact/explosions:

Lisa Burgess
Michael DiPaula
John Thurman, Army Major who works in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff

Saw something else that does NOT support official story:

Stuart Artman (plane over/near Wash. monument)
Joseph Candelario (plane flying towards White House, sharp turn to Pentagon)
Kim Dent(shadow of plane from Navy Annex)
Ken Ford (prop plane flying up river from National)
Kat Gaines (plane striking telephone poles from 110)
Steve Gerard (saw small corporate jet with no markings) (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Joe Hurst ( saw it go overhead, Oval Room restaurant at Lafayette Square? DC)
Lesley Kelly, Cmdr.U.S. Navy(Ret.)(saw it descend from office in downtown DC)
D.S. Khavkin (saw small commerical craft)
Elaine McCusker (saw AA over 14th street bridge)
Steve Patterson (small silver 8-12 passenger commuter plane)
Dennis Smith (tail section before impact from Pentagon Courtyard)
Clyde A. Vaughn, Army Brig. Gen. (Saw the plane loitering over Georgetown, DC,
Don Wright (a commuter plane, two-engined-strange behavior when questioned about direction )
Omar Campo (saw white with blue on the bottom plane, United plane)
Michael Kelly (plane flying over him while he is on the 14th st bridge, debris falling on the 14th st bridge/395, sounded like small plane)
Harry Gold (saw plane "off the registered course over the Potomac" and believes it made a dive over Rosslyn)
Noel Sepulveda, Navy Master Sgt. (unconfirmed account-claims landing gear was down and hit light pole)
Sgt. Chadwick Brooks CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT-saw champagne off white plane on north side of Citgo, admits he could have been fooled and he stands by where he saw the plane)
Levi Stephens (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT-saw plane on north side of Citgo, claims did not look like and was not an American Airlines aircraft)
Robert Turcios (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CITsaw plane on north side of Citgo, claims did not look like and was not an American Airlines aircraft)

Could see details of plane ie passengers:

Daryl Donley
Steve Eiden
James R. Cissell
Kim Flyler

Claims Saw it clip light pole:

Wanda Ramey (CONTACTED/INTERVIEWED by CIT, cannot remember if she thought she actually saw the plane hit a pole or simply deduced it after seeing it on the ground like everyone else we spoke with)
Noel Sepulveda, Navy Master Sgt. (unconfirmed account-claims landing gear was down and hit light pole)
Lloyd England (CONTACTED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Mike Walter (has since changed story)

Listed or mistaken as witnesses but actually nowhere near the pentagon at the time of the attack nor did they see anything

Don Fortunato
Lee Evey
Tom Hovis
Jack Singleton
Henry Ticknor

Saw plane on north side of Citgo or headed towards north side of Citgo

Sgt William Lagasse
Sgt Chadwick Brooks
Robert Turcios
Levi Stephens
Sean Boger
Ed Paik
William Middleton
Darryl Stafford
Darius Prater
Donald Carter
Amy Hart (according to Steve Ross)

More specifics here.

Seems like a lot of names

Seems like a lot of names are included here so that it looks large. But upon close examination there's only a couple dozen at most that are "CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT".

Anyone else see a problem with this?

Disinfo/Misinfo can be recognized by how it is used against us.

I thought

I'd bump this up to the top of the tracker, in light of the discussion on Bursill's thread, so those who still haven't seen this evidence can have a look for themselves...... and of course, out of curiosity, to see how many downvotes this post gets from the cred cops. :p ;-)