I swear to g0d, if you start up with that "Santa Claus isn't real" crap again....

----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent

http://www.chico911truth.org/

9/11 — GET rEVENge! (in a peaceful manner, of course)

I just watched these great clips:

http://www.ourownprivatebinladen.com/clips.html

ZB and others are confronted and asked thought provoking questions.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://TruthSeeker.us

This is the first I've heard of the earlier film of his they mention, 'Follow the Leader,' even though it won an award and was apparently screened in different places. Is anyone here familiar with it?

Watch it here:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/8738

with all due respect, Arabesque got schooled in his own thread and in another by johndoex and the makers of the Pentacon.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

correcting their misinterpretations of my review. I encourage you to look at the evidence I quoted in my review before jumping to conclusions on who got "schooled".

Now they can sit here all day complaining about my review, but to someone who doesn't believe 9/11 was an inside job, all you would have to do is point out the fact that their own witnesses claimed the plane hit the Pentagon.

Then take into account the fact that their own witness claims that the light poles were NOT knocked down where they were knocked down... I can't believe how many times I have to explain this. He says "nothing happened" where the light poles came down! Don't you think that puts his testimony--at the very least in doubt?

he actually talked to the witnesses while you didnt(you said "i dont have time to do that etc.). i dont want to argue though, if you think you won more power to you. its not a competetion anyway i guess.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

if you are going to ignore what they say? That's my problem. It's fine if you talk to the witnesses as long as you don't ignore things like.. oh... "it hit the Pentagon" for starters, or "nothing happened over here" where the light poles got knocked down.

i dont know, it just seems kind of strange to me that a guy like you who devotes much time and energy into proving Flight 77 hit the Pentagon wouldnt try to get in touch with some of those witnesses like the makers of the Pentacon did and could only come up with-"i dont have time" as an awnser for why you didnt. wouldnt you want to talk with the witnesses whos statements you are basing your research on if at all possible? call me crazy. but seriously, i dont want to start another Pentagon discussion here. i shouldnt have said anything and just let the guys comments slide.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

They talked to the witnesses and look what happened. Their testimony is self contradictory--it's impossible! Does that mean we reject everything they say? No, it means we look at all of the testimony and see what is and what is not supported. This is what I have done in my review of the PentaCon

Their testimony I believe is somewhat accurate, and I don’t doubt that they are being honest. But it is also provably inaccurate. Compare the four flight paths, they are not close. This is our standard for 9/11 "smoking guns"? I’m sorry, but we need better than that and pretending otherwise is a disservice to our real smoking guns.

If you talk to the witnesses, how do you know if they are remembering something correctly? The big details (General) are more easily remembered that specific. It gets very messy to try and sort together specific details (i.e. flight path) 5 years later, when the plane flew by in less than 10 seconds according to the statements. I have studied the testimony enough to see that the later someone comments, the more anomalies show up.

Talking to the witnesses this late after the event is "a waste of time" because it is only going to dilute the testimony further with anomalies. To some, this would appear to be “smoking gun” proof that the official story is wrong, and to others it is “smoking gun” proof of the fallibility of memory. It is a “waste of time” because there is no significantly contradictory testimony. See the WTC for all of the incrimination testimony. See WTC7. See flight 93. See the Oklahoma city bombing. But you are not going to find anything remotely “incriminating” testimony at the Pentagon except for the fact that there is no way that a hijacker flew that plane into the bottom floors of the building--it was remote control.

If you did the same thing with the WTC witnesses you would have the exact same problems. You just can't tell what you are getting is accurate or not and the only closest way to figure this out is to look at ALL of the testimony to find out what is supported and what is not. That's what I have done.

If you are going to claim that there is no contradictory evidence when there is plenty… that’s ammunition for the debunkers. Just be glad I did it instead of Popular Mechanics.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

yeah, i guess it would kind of suck to contact the eyewitnesses only to have them say something that DIDNT support Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. better to not follow up and just keep things the way they are just in case you dont get the right answers this time. gotcha. just so we are clear though, you revise your statement, you didnt talk to the witnesses because you "didnt have the time to" like you claimed before, its actually because you believed their testimony would change right?

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Take the time to read my collection of extracted 650 eyewitness statements. Read that and then ask yourself how they faked that. http://www.911blogger.com/files/What%20Witnesses%20Described.pdf

My position is that if a witnesses statement is contradicted by massive testimony (as I show in my review), then we can't pretend that these claims are credible. At worst it results in pointless debates like this.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

so you didnt contact even one eyewitness huh?

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

I already explained why there is no point. But let me give you another reason

Let's say I contacted the close to 100 witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Let's say they all maintain their story. Would that change your mind? I don't think so. So why should I waste that much energy doing that? I know there are still people who wouldn't believe me if I did that.

I respect that, and that's fine.

You see, people are going to talk to witnesses, find out they said the plane hit the Pentagon (like they did in the PentaCon interviews), and still not believe them. So why would I waste that effort when there are people who have already made up their mind that they don't trust the eyewitness statements. I have other reasons why I haven't contacted the witnesses. I guess I shouldn't have said "don't contact them". I should have said, "don't contact them and then ignore them when they tell you a plane hit the Pentagon."

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

why initially claim(in your thread) that it was time constraints that kept you from contacting the witnesses then just today change it to "the testimony wouldnt be credible now anyway"?

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

more out of frustration out of being called "insane" and the abuse in that thread than anything... I'll admit I shouldn't have implied that it's a waste of time to contact witnesses (if you are going to ignore what they tell you), but I was getting a little mad at being called a liar. I'll admit I shouldn't have said that, but I was a little pissed at the treatment I was getting. And I was just frustrated that they ignore their own witness statements.

As i said, I have other reasons why I didn't contact the witnesses.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

so it wasnt a lie, saying that you couldnt contact the witnesses because of time contraints, it was just frustration? ok.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Well you've already proven my point! The PentaCon witnesses said the plane hit the Pentagon. Do you believe them? Nope? Why would I waste my time to find more if you aren't going to believe them anyways? There are plenty of witnesses who refuse to change their view that a plane hit the Pentagon. Their interviews are on the internet. Don't believe me? Look it up yourself.

In contrast there is no one who has changed their story and said, no, no plane hit the Pentagon. And you're putting the burden on me to prove they are telling the truth? There's no contradictory eyewitness testimony anywhere. That's evidence that they are telling the truth in itself. Mike Walter still claims it was a commercial plane. Lagasse still claims it was a commercial plane. Steve Riskus still claims it was a commercial plane that hit the Pentagon.

So in that regard, yes I think it is a waste of my time when I would rather focus on other 9/11 research, and support the real work of Steven Jones and the other great researchers in this movement. Why don't you talk to witnesses yourself? Don't put the burden on me--there's no one supporting the no-plane position!

Let me give you an example... there was someone who came out with a BS story about seeing a global hawk hit the Pentagon. To the people who "know" a commercial plane didn't hit the Pentagon this constituted "evidence". The only problem is that this story was admitted fake by the "witness" who reported it. So are we going to base our "smoking guns" on any weak evidence that suits our theory, or are we going to look at all of it, and base our conclusions on all of the testimony--not some of it?

For skeptics of the official story, and who have already made up their mind on the Pentagon, the fact that the eyewitnesses massively contradict their position proves my point. You aren't going to pay attention to them. My hope is that honest skeptics will look at the evidence and then re-examine the physical evidence at the Pentagon. I've looked at the physical evidence and it supports the testimony in my opinion.

For the 9/11 debunkers, they can easily point to this eyewitness evidence, and people who don't believe that it's possible to fake a plane strike beside massive highways in typical early morning traffic jams will walk away thinking we base our conclusions of the paranoid suspicion (read: not EVIDENCE) that everything is faked.

The point is that we remain skeptical and admit, if someone said “it hit the Pentagon” we don’t turn around and say that it’s “smoking gun proof it flew over”.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

You think that Lagasse's testimony of where he places the plane which he DID see should be dismissed because he was incorrect about the placement of the taxi cab and poles which he did NOT see!

That is a logical fallacy. It is a straw man argument and you know it.

The fact that all of the witnesses were fooled into believing the plane hit the building gives them credibility.

They are not trying to push a conspiracy they are trying to defend the official story yet their accounts destroy it.

The entire nature of the operation was to DECEIVE people into believing the plane hit with a sleight of hand illusion pulled off with military precision.

But we have PROVEN that the plane flew on the north side of the citgo station making it IMPOSSIBLE to have hit the light poles.

Yes people were deceived.

Yes we know you can copy and paste compilations of mainstream media reports of people who were fooled.

But that is not an investigation. That is not research.

That is you towing the government line by repeating unconfirmed mainstream media reports.

We conducted an investigation and proved the official story false.

You have not provided a single witness account that directly contradicts the north side claim and you have NOT discredited the citgo witnesses in any way shape or form.

Here are Lagasse's exact words. For those who think I'm misquoting, watch the film:

“No Chance. There’s no chance. If… as a matter of fact [emphasizing strongly], there was a light pole here that was knocked down, and there was [another] here, that was knocked down—not any over here…none of these light poles over here were knocked down… I’ve never seen anything that was on the south side of that gas station—ever.”

Lagasse continues, “I don’t have eyes in the back of my head.”

“This is where the taxi cab was. Right here. Not over there. Nothing happened over here!”

“What official story? The only official story would have been the Arlington County Police Report done after the event. There’s no official story other than that… I’ve never seen anything that said it was on the south side of that gas station. Ever [looks upwards in bewilderment]. These were the light poles. This is where the taxi cab was [pointing to the same incorrect location]. Nothing [emphasizing] happened over here. I can’t be any clearer about it.”

"Nothing Happened over here" is where the actual light poles were knocked down. No light poles were knocked down ANYWHERE else. The PentaCon completely skips over this fact, and then concludes his testimony is a "smoking gun".

Now you claim that he didn't "see it", but how do you explain the fact that he claims that light poles WERE knocked down in a different location than where they actually were? I'll quote him again, since you have such difficulty in reading what I say (to the point of calling me a liar) "as a matter of fact [emphasizing strongly], there was a light pole here that was knocked down."

Anyone who has any common sense at all can figure out that if Lagasse saw the plane fly where the REAL light poles were knocked down (not where he mistakingly THOUGHT the light poles were knocked down), then it would support the idea that a plane did hit the Pentagon--as Lagasse claims.

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/critical-review-of-pentacon-smo...
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

It seems that Dave McGowan is the only one who has intuited the relevance of the light pole knockdowns:

"As is apparent from the height of the light poles, an airplane flying low enough to clip them with its wings would have been all but scraping its engines across the roofs of the cars on the highway. And, sure enough, there is at least one witness report of the plane actually clipping off the antenna of a Jeep Grand Cherokee.

"Incredibly enough, some researchers have actually tailored their Pentagon theories to account for this alleged evidence, but I have no idea why. Are these theorists really that naive, or do they just pretend to be? Is it not perfectly obvious that this so-called evidence is patently absurd? How much thrust do you suppose is required to get a fully-loaded, 100+ ton aircraft off the ground and then propel it through the air at 500+ miles per hour? Isn't an aircraft engine essentially just an immensely powerful fan that is capable of displacing massive quantities of air and expelling it at an extremely high velocity? Is there something I am missing here?

"Some time ago, I watched an episode of the television show "Myth Busters" in which one of the myths tested was a story about a car being literally flipped over by the engine exhaust from a jet aircraft. As I recall, the test set up by the program's hosts failed to flip the car, but it did succeed in thoroughly trashing the vehicle. Steel body panels were literally ripped from the car by the force of the engine, as were the windows, the hood, the mirrors, and various other parts. While the car remained standing, it looked very much like it had survived a bomb blast.

"The cars in the light pole photos, on the other hand, are in pristine condition, as are their drivers. Some pedestrian witnesses, amazingly enough, have actually claimed that the plane came in so low over their positions that they ducked for fear of being hit. One such witness, Frank Probst, a retired Army officer, has claimed that as he dove for the ground, one of the plane's engines passed beside him, "about six feet away." Probst also claims that he saw the plane clip the SUV antenna and literally shear the light poles in half.

"Frank Probst has been propped up as a key witness by some defenders of the official story, despite the fact that his tall tale is contradicted by the photos of the obviously still intact light poles, and, more importantly, by the fact that Mr. Probst is still alive. Simply put, if Probst (and various other witnesses) had been as close to the passing aircraft engines as they claim to have been, they would not have been witnesses to the tragedy; they would have been additional casualties."

I highly recommend everyone read his three-part series on the Pentagon, starting here:

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68.html

My personal opinion is that the Pentagon has more misleading arguments spread about it than any other aspect of the 9/11 attacks. Arguments like, this is “impossible” therefore it couldn’t have happened are the most dangerous of straw-man arguments. Misrepresenting the testimony is the 2nd most common error. Claiming that the testimony does not support the physical evidence is another (mostly made by people who haven’t even bothered to read more than a few out of context statements). These arguments are misleading and can be shown to be misleading.

The problem is that the government is covering up all of the evidence—not just at the Pentagon. They don’t do this because they want to create suspicions, they do this so that we waste time speculating (i.e. not proving what happened) instead of asking the important questions like how do hijackers fly planes into buildings when trained pilots can’t even do this? How can these plane reach their targets without being intercepted? How can the government have DNA of these supposed hijackers? Why is there thermite at ground zero? Why was there insider trading? Why did the WTC buildings fall at free fall speed? These are indisputable facts—no speculating required.

The fact that a plane hit the Pentagon at all would be suspicious. The fact that H. Hanjour could hit the Pentagon (on the first floor) defies rational belief. If you were responsible for flying a plane into the bottom floors of the Pentagon would you want to release the videos showing this improbable feat? Wouldn’t that make you question that a hijacker could do this?

Part of the consequence of disinformation (mostly honest mistakes and unintentional—I believe) force us to focus on the wrong questions and leave us ignoring the most devastating evidence of government complicity. As I believe, a commercial plane hit the Pentagon. I don't object to theorists who suggest otherwise, in fact I wish them the best. My problem is when they don't PROVE their case when they ignore relevant evidence (eyewitness statements, plane parts, Mineta Testimony, FAA testimony, etc. etc.) and instead offer only speculation for what happened. It is fine to object to the given evidence and ask questions about its legitimacy, but what I object to is the promotion of theories that are not provable. This is what Judy Wood does with her space beams. Let's not do the same at the Pentagon.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Which is why it is perfectly acceptable to analyze the evidence and come to the conclusion that 77 didn't cause the damage at the Pentagon, but perhaps problematic to recycle endless theories of what did.

There is plenty to hang them on with a crash of any type at the Pentagon with or without 77, but after spending considerable time eye-balling the area, I find much of the witnesses' "testimony" to be quite fallible. And no one has yet explained why so many USA Today reporters were on that list.

Additionally, just last week I was driving on a ramp slightly to the north but between the Pentagon and National Airport as a jet was coming in for a landing, and I noticed how low and in close proximity it was to the opposite east (opposite) side from the impact area. IF (and I do mean IF) a plane was seen on the east side, as in a fly-over scenario, I could see how it may have been mistaken for a flight coming in for a landing.

But I have no theories to promote.