The fifth estate hasn't touched this story since 2003, and having done this now, will likely not revisit it again anytime soon, so I wouldn't get any hopes up about a next segment..

that CIT (and by extension P4T) is a big disinfo op by the perps to discredit the movement, then yes, I think that in this particular case you're being paranoid.

John, I enjoyed your street talk vid with the skeptic. You seem like a genuine guy. Is there any way of contacting you privately to discuss the Pentagon issue? I don't want to publicly derail the thread into blogger's umpteenth debate on that topic. I noticed you don't accept e-mails via this site.

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

I don't know whether CIT and P4T are doing it on purpose but they are doing it.

They support "no planes" directly and indirectly making statements as if fact based on very shaky evidence indeed.

As you may or may not know after my simulator test showed that a 767 Boeing would do the speeds at the WTC John Lear (P4T) contacted my work place and had me investigated, you may also realize he has worked for the CIA.

I and many others are waiting for P4T and CIT to produce papers for peer review at the journal, so their work may be looked at seriously?

Contact me at johnbursill@gmail.com and I will give you my phone number etc

By the way I did not watch all these you tubes only the first two, by the sounds of it it gets better which is great:)

So Adam I plan to win this battle for truth and I will continue to call what I see as weak evidence that is pushed as proof of an alternate story to what we have been told, as this is exactly what the perps want us to do...speculate.

Kind regards John

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

and how that proves it did not cause the damage at the Pentagon. Their work is predicated on the fact that there was a plane.

First, nano-thermite WAS mentioned. Specifically at 6:25 in the 4th video.

Secondly, Craig Ranke never mentioned "flyover" in the piece, and went on the record only to say that he feels the damage in the pentagon was due to pre-planted explosives.

thanks Adam!

So Craig does not mention the flyover but he demonstrates the witnessed flight path and then says they used explosives to create the damage. Fair enough I stand correct I'm at work today and a little distracted...

They mention Nano-thermite in the 4th that's good, I'll finish watching them tomorrow, as I said I only got the first two done.

So no flyover mentioned at all directly, that's very positive?

Regards John

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

doublepost

John,

sorry, but that small object heading for the Pentagon in the five CCTV stills is NOT a 757! Why is that so difficult to understand? You do know that a 757 is large and would be clearly seen in the CCTV stills if one were there? As it is, all we see is a small tail fin sticking up above the car ticket dispenser! Therefore CIT's conclusions are right on target.

I agree with your other comments, though.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Either way (fly over or not) the official story is a lie.

No way ! This is light years ahead of the BBC and History Channel Crap. Sure there are some weak spots and characters who represent the official theory, but without them, the show could not claim to be a balanced report. This will lead many people to start questioning the official story. Gage does not look like a "CULT figure, he makes an almost perfect presentation. Lots and lots of good stuff was covered. I think by the end the host of the show was converted even if he tried to appear objective. I think this was very positive for the movement.

Aiden,

what exactly is so implausible about plane swapping, and if NYC firefighters and police are being cowered into not talking about what they know about 9/11, where do you get this confidence in the integrity of NYC's medical examiner from?

I think you've being watching too much Quincy, M.E. on the Retro Television Network.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Dewdney has no evidence of mid-air plane swapping or of ditching aircraft into the ocean. If you think that AA 11 and UA 175 were ditched in the ocean, I await your remarkable explanation as to how then NYC medical examiner Robert Shaler and his dozens of support staff faked the remains ID process.

Plane swap scenarios are based on the poorly researched belief that the 9/11 model aircraft did not facilitate 'remote' takeovers. That has been proven false.

Aidan,

please explain why hundreds of NYC police officers and firefighters won't talk about what really happened in the towers on 9/11? If you answer that question correctly, then you'll understand why your trust in the NYC M.E.'s office is naive!

I never said planes were switched, just that it isn't implausible. It is plausible.

By the way (and I said this months ago to you, but you never replied to the following point), if the 9/11 aircraft were endowed with remote flight capability, then the aircrafts used on 9/11 were NOT commercial aircraft. Why? Because remote flight capability means the aircraft can be flown remotely by more than one party. The bastards who carried out 9/11 would not use commercial aircraft due to the possibility of another entity overriding the remote flight navigation functions, landing the planes safely!

Also, the four aircraft wouldn't have come from a commercial airport. Too many things can go wrong at a commercial airport to delay a commercial aircraft's takeoff. An operation such as 9/11 would be mounted on a precise military time scale, which negates the use of civilian airfields.

The above suggests that plane switching wasn't necessary.

Again, put yourself in the shoes of the bastards who carried out 9/11. Would you use civilian airports and commercial aircraft from those civilian airports to carry out a timed military operation? The vagaries of time and unforeseen events places the four 9/11 aircraft on military tarmacs on 9/11.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Timed swaps are totally subject to commercial airport aircraft departure times, eliminating any alleged need for alternative departure sites.

As well, the DARP features of the FANS FMS functions were not even in official use by the transcontinental commercial aviation industry circa 2001, making re-aquisition of a redirected aircraft beyond the normal capability of ATC or an airline. Under normal conditions, route activations are manual.

Aidan,

I already said in my earlier comment that plane swapping can be ruled out, so why is your comment phrased to suggest I think plane swapping occurred?

Where did I say ATC or an airline could override the remote function on a 757/767? I didn't. I said IF remote functions were in use, then.....

Now to my main point: the four 9/11 aircraft wouldn't have originated from a commercial airport. Too many things can go wrong at a commercial airport to delay a commercial aircraft's takeoff. An operation such as 9/11 would be mounted on a precise military time scale, which negates the use of civilian airfields.

So the question is: do you believe the four 9/11 aircraft took off from commercial airfields?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

... military precision. For example, wasn't the departure of flight 93 delayed considerably?

I don't think such a prolonged spectacle was precisely their idea.

Vesa,

you make my point beautifully, however the aircraft re-designated Flight 93 landed at Cleveland before 9am (see my two articles on Flight 93 at DNotice.org: "One of Our Aircraft Isn’t Missing" and "United Awarelines").

Forget the timeline. The timeline is as full of crap than the persons who provide it. Remember, official timelines come from government sources who know what really happened on 9/11, but keep their mouths shut.

What truly amazes me are persons in the 9/11 Truth Movement accepting at face value the proposition that all four 9/11 aircraft took off from commercial airfields. Folks, you do know that it isn't rare for flights at commercial airports to be CANCELLED! Now, do you still think the bastards who planned 9/11 used commercial airports?

This is interesting. At 5:11 AM EDT (12/1), Vesa has a score of three points, while I have a score of zero points, even though Vesa's comment makes my point perfectly!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addendum

Good news! I found Anatoliy Golitsyn's 1984 book "New Lies for Old" on the Internet, for FREE! Those of you not yet familiar with Golitsyn need to be, otherwise you don't know why the Al-Qaeda threat was created after the "collapse" of the Soviet Union:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/13022045/Anatoliy-Golitsyn---New-Lies-for-Ol...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addendum

Wow, as of 11:51 PM (12/2), Vesa has five points, and I still have zero points! Since Vesa confirms my point perfectly, how is that possible?

Aidan,

I'm still waiting for an answer. Why the silence?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC