That was not a promotion. It happened that he was the only person who emailed me with that information.

I don't think Kevin is qualified to talk about what the "majority" believes. Here Frank. Here is my contribution to your paper. Also, Kevin Fenton pointed me to information that suggests people's belongings from Flight 77 were found in the rubble.

I agree with your idea that the Pentagon should never have been hit. I have made that argument countless times in this movement, and have been attacked relentlessly for doing so.

The Pentagon, which sits in the most defended airspace in the world, was hit by a kamikaze commercial airliner 34 minutes after the SECOND tower was hit, when EVERYONE in the world knew America was "under attack."

That should NOT have happened. So why did it?

Jon, while it is possible to find evidence which adds weight to the view that the 757 did hit the Pentagon, it does not help the paper. The paper was not intended to prove that a 757 hit the Pentagon. It was intended to prove that it could not be proved that it didn't.

I chose to do it that way for what I regarded, rightly or wrongly, as a good reason. The reason is that countless people have written papers attempting to prove that the 757 did hit the Pentagon, and what do we find? We find that the number of people saying it did not hit is increasing. It is increasing at a disturbing rate and a danger to the movement. I thought is was time to try something else.

It also concerns me that a group which has considerable influence, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, which has long stated that it does not make the claim that no 757 hit the Pentagon, seems to be adhering to a policy of proving that it did not hit, and thus appears to be on the verge of adopting the fly-over theory. This would be a great pity as this group has done a lot of good work in obtaining FDR files and even more remarkable work getting them deciphered. They just seem to be making wrong use of the data. I am hoping they can be persuaded to review their calculations

Is this Hani Hanjour manually flying a Boeing 757 at 550 mph. a few feet off the ground to hit the first floor of Wedge 1 without skipping off the ground?
Just asking. Do we endorse it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paWiZ2Y8fRg

Is this Hani Hanjour manually flying a Boeing 757 at 550 mph. a few feet off the ground to hit the first floor of Wedge 1 without skipping off the ground?
Just asking. Do we endorse it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paWiZ2Y8fRg

Thanks for your interest. I encourage you to read the paper. I think you will find the answer.

A letter was published in the UK "Independent" newspaper last week in which the writer said that people concentrate on the twin towers but forget about the Pentagon, something she called a "security embarrassment".

I replied and included Mr Mineta's evidence about Mr Cheney's conversation.

I also said the 9/11 truth movement isn't going away any time soon.

What evidence do you have that it DID? That is the question before us and has been all along. What you have are unconfirmed eyewitness reports from the corporate owned media, some photographs of alleged impact plane debris that is acknowledged to not have been positively identified and appeals to incredulity regarding the fly-over hypothesis. That's what you have stacked against fraudulent video, fraudulent FDR data, confirmed on-the-record eyewitnesses who place the plane on the wrong flight path and much more. Indeed, Frank is right, NOTHING should have impacted the Pentagon. AND there is no scientific evidence that anything did, least of all AA77. So, why "believe" it?

You not read the links I provided above? Pay special attention to the part that says, "a common practice in the movement is to proclaim those contradictions as "fake" or "planted." In my opinion, it is irresponsible to proclaim something "fake" or "planted" simply because it doesn't coincide with what you THINK happened. Especially if there is no information to suggest that something is "fake" or "planted."

And from Frank's paper, "Critics may of course argue that these pieces did not come from the Pentagon crash site. Doubts are, however, not proofs."

I've asked you for verifiable evidence that AA77 impacted the Pentagon. So far, like the government itself, you haven't provided any.

Doubters ask questions which may lead to truth; believers seldom do, defending their beliefs with faith. If the debris found at the Pentagon has not been positively identified there is no PROOF that it came from AA77 -- or, indeed, any aircraft airborne that day.

Agents of the US government claim "the identities of the aircraft hijacked on 9/11 were never in question" and therefore no records of positive identification were generated. That is a statement of faith, not scientific verifiable fact. I do not THINK (as you claim) the debris is "fake" or "planted" -- what I/we KNOW from the FBI/NTSB itself is that THEY have not positively identified this debris. This is on the record. Therefore the debris can not be used as evidence to support their specific contention that N644AA impacted the Pentagon.

is not whether the public can prove that AA 77 did or didn't hit; there's no proof that it didn't.

The Pentagon should not have been hit by anything, an hour and a half after the 2nd WTC tower was hit.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

In real life, I've NEVER met ONE person who believes AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. The fact that a large jet did not crash there seems to many people as obvious as the CD of WTC7.

The only people adamant on giving the benefit of the doubt of AA77's crash being true are the relatively small faction on this site and truthaction.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

With the fact that movies with blatant disinformation like "In Plane Site" were heavily distributed, and promoted at one time, or that "Meyssan's book was printed in at least 25 different languages and effectively marketed around the world," or that no video showing exactly what happened at the Pentagon has ever been released.

Or it could be that you've never talked to people like John Judge, or people that have read the book "Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11."

Funny, I've never met anyone who thinks it's a good idea to promote a theory as fact when there are a multitude of contradictions to that theory. ESPECIALLY when there is better, more convincing information to promote that ISN'T used against us at every opportunity by those who like to write and produce hit pieces.

Except a small faction of people who don't have the best interests of this cause at heart.

Are you seriously still here?????

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

^^^

Reported.

Now (2009-09-21) the truthaction forum is locked from the outside for anonymous visitors. I guess what goes on in there is secret now. Honestly nobody expects posts on forums to be secret in the first place do they? Come on Jon (or YT?), I understand you are annoyed..but..why resort to access restriction of an entire forum? This is childish. There'll always be opposing viewpoints in discussion...we will all be annoyed in perpetuity.

ETA:
Unlocked again. Must have been a fluke.

ETA 2:
Apparently, some at TA are very unhappy with blogger.

As if TA viewpoints aren't supported here! Ridiculous! In fact, I'd say 911blogger is biased towards TA. This begs the question: what is TA whining about for heaven's sake? Discussion is very important. What on earth does censorship or a boycott accomplish? 911blogger has been an absolutely excellent site for as long as I can remember (long before I was registered) ..and it improves with time, like wine. How are we going to exchange views with others about the Pentagon if we are all forced to agree? I have faith in the users here.

That's a comment by one user. I don't think John Bursill qualifies as "Truthaction". Is there really is any such thing as "TA viewpoints"? It seems to be a collection of users, like bogger . . .

Some people clearly have gotten annoyed with some of the dialog on this thread, for example. It shouldn't be that hard to see why.

This is why whenever someone calls others "asshole" or "bonehead" or other such names, it's a good idea to consider moderating their posts, otherwise people end up more and more infuriated and that will lead to more and more battles on the forum.

>>I'm worried about the hostility at TA.

But not here on this thread??

I don't think you will find many posts with "Asshole", "Bonehead" and "Liar" in them on TruthAction. It's called moderating.

The internet is a medium that encourages bad behavior because we aren't speaking in person and in many cases are entirely anonymous. If you let trashing of people go, it will rule your site.

but I'm even more worried about the recent upsurge of anti-semitism, Holocaust denial and the "muslim hijackers don't exist" meme. The former two are forbidden indirectly by the general rules, I believe. The latter ("muslim hijackers don't exist) should never be forbidden, but it does strike me as worrying that some people would deny the very existence of muslim hijackers, and thereby deny the very existence of video testaments, flight trainings and the associated anomalies. I guess I'm not one for group think, whether it be OCT or alternative theories.

The general rules also say:

(If the only comments that you bother making here are to tell others users how stupid that you think they are, your comments will be added to a moderation queue, and your user account may eventually be closed.)

So yes, I do worry. Moderation is sometimes needed. However, for strict moderation excluding all forms of ad hominem, there is always The 9/11 Forum

I'm with you, I just remarked about the apparent and repeated friction about 911blogger. I find that alarming. The administrators are up to their ears in work and mean well. And I do support a loose policy, as long as it doesn't get out of hand. The Chertoff thread got out of hand. I'm reporting it. This thread and JG's post got out of hand. But I do forgive JG for losing his temper. We're all human, and JG is targeted repeatedly by anti-semites. (Which do not include Adam, imo)

Anyways, I love this site, and I believe it needs TA on its side.

"it does strike me as worrying that some people would deny the very existence of muslim hijackers, and thereby deny the very existence of video testaments, flight trainings and the associated anomalies."

Wow. Do you really not understand the concept of "patsy" and the methods long used by intelligence agencies and corrupt officials to frame a targeted group by manufacturing "plausible" sounding paper trails and grooming of certain designated patsies from well before the crime?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: It is irresponsible to make claims about "muslim hijackers" without prefacing the terms with "alleged". What part of this do you not understand? You are using a double standard in assuming the guilt of the "muslim hijackers" when there has been no proof offered of their guilt, only plenty of obvious planted evidence and blatant inconsistencies.

I do understand the concept of patsy. Since you're new, you've probably missed me writing about it.

I am embarrassed by your repeated aggressive baseless and arrogant shorthand assumptions.

By the way: care to elaborate about the flight training? I suppose they were not interested in learning how to land as a hobby? Ever heard of Ali Mohamed? Your attitude shoves aside all prior knowledge evidence. Such things as the ISI wiring money to Mohamed Atta. The BND monitoring Atta in Hamburg. Warnings by intelligence agencies. Blocked investigations by the FBI. We are treading in the murky waters of compartmentalization and double/triple agents. Some of them probably were, some of them were muslim hijackers/muslim terrorists. Yes. Muslim terrorists exist. I am dead serious.

I should know better than to engage you again. But then again, you're making it very easy for me.

Everything is fake right? Maybe. Maybe not. Explain it all away with as much fantasy as you can muster.

SnowCrash ... what are you trying to do here? That is one posting by John Bursill. I post at Truth Action and John doesn't speak for me. I think John is entitled to his opinion, especially when people like you do things like this. Why are you trying to spin Truth Action against 911Blogger. Why are you crying at all when you and other CIT supporters basically offend people who do not agree with you on a daily basis on this site, and next to nothing happens. Nobody is "forcing you to agree" to anything. You are basically just making this shit up. I can't speak for many on here that I have never met, but all I ask is that opinions can be respected and that there is no tolerance for personal attacks. AND that posts like yours get DELETED IMMEDIATELY because they are such obvious attempts to interject false claims and exaggerations about something off-topic and into a very hot debate obviously to cause trouble.

Then, if you are not doing it to cause trouble, explain what the hell you are doing because, quite frankly, you ain't so slick and it is insulting and annoying to have to point it out to you.

So, what is going on with this post, SnowCrash?

(please be brief.)

If you call me a "CIT-supporter" you obviously don't know what you're talking about. The entire TA thread is anti-blogger. Brief enough?

BTW. My intention is not escalate, divide or divert the topic, I am merely expressing my opinion. Neither am I anti-TA. But I am pro-911blogger.