Griffin’s ‘no 757 hit the Pentagon’ arguments eclipse ‘consensus approach’


Griffin offers overwhelming evidence that no 757 hit the Pentagon.

By Craig McKee

The best argument I’ve found against David Ray Griffin’s new “consensus approach” to the Pentagon comes from a very reliable source – David Ray Griffin.

In his new book, 9/11 Ten Years After: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed, the dean of 9/11 Truth makes the strongest case yet that the U.S. government faked a plane crash at the Pentagon to deceive the world. He shows us that the strongest evidence by far shows that a 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon and that claimed hard evidence of a plane impact is likely not authentic.

Even without mentioning the important evidence unearthed by Citizen Investigation Team and Pilots for 9/11 Truth (both glaring and troubling omissions), Griffin still shows conclusively that the official Pentagon story is a lie.

In his argument, Griffin goes over the very strong and persuasive evidence that the eyewitness testimony, which is used to support the plane impact, is highly suspect, contradictory, and comes mainly from people who were likely to be supportive of the official story (government employees, mainstream media, etc.). This eyewitness evidence is not anywhere near as conclusive as the “plane impact” people would have us believe.

Griffin also cites the very strong evidence from Barbara Honegger which supports the idea that bombs were set off in the Pentagon and that numerous witnesses to the destruction saw no evidence of a plane.

Here are a few items mentioned that support the “no 757 hit” position:

  • No plane parts can be linked to Flight 77 through serial numbers (FBI admits it has no conclusive evidence that Flight 77 crashed there)
  • C ring hole could not have been made by the fragile nose of the plane
  • Video evidence (the two almost identical views that were released) can be conclusively shown to have been doctored
  • Damage to the light poles doesn’t match what impact with a 757 flying at more than 500 mph would cause
  • Eyewitnesses who say they saw impact have credibility problems
  • Deaths that occurred in the A and B rings
  • People inside Pentagon reported bombs and the smell of cordite
  • No evidence of jet fuel fires inside the building
  • Lack of debris that should have come from a 100-ton plane

In all, Griffin makes a very persuasive case supporting what he has thought all along – that no 757 hit. He even restates his belief that MOST PEOPLE in the 9/11 Truth movement believe that no 757 hit.

Unfortunately, he then tosses a good chunk of the best evidence away, settling for the less conclusive evidence “we all agree on.” This he calls the “consensus approach.”

The attempt is a noble one in theory. Griffin recognizes that there have been bitter divisions within the 9/11 Truth movement in recent years, and that these differences are harming the chances of convincing the public that 9/11 was an inside job.

As a result, he has decided that the question of whether a 757 hit the Pentagon is relatively unimportant, and that the key point is that a 757 piloted by al-Qaeda did not. He suggests we focus on questions like how Hani Hanjour could have made the near-impossible spiral descent and why al-Qaeda would aim for a sparsely populated part of the building instead of crashing into the roof, which would also have been much easier.

Here’s how Griffin explains his change of perspective: “Because the evidence against the 757 claim has seemed far more convincing to most members of the 9/11 Truth Movement (my emphasis) than any arguments to the contrary, a battle about it surely would not, I assumed, greatly damage the 9/11 Movement. I have now, however, come to see that a battle about this issue could easily become destructive – that is, if it is indeed a battle between the two positions, based on the assumption that the issue is quite important, rather than a discussion, based on the fact that the issue is relatively unimportant.”

Griffin should have stuck with those earlier instincts. I believe he will never get agreement on the consensus approach because it is based on a false premise: that the two sides in the “757 did or didn’t hit” debate both make roughly equally persuasive cases for their points of view and that both sides have something approaching an equivalent stature and credibility within the Truth movement. They don’t and they don’t.

Most importantly, the proffered consensus approach presumes that the division is genuine and not contrived. But the over-the-top and relentless attacks on CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth from this group and its supporters over the past few years make it clear that this is not simply an honest difference of opinion; it is the attempted hijacking of the movement by those who depend on bullying and character assassination. Even if the four pro-757 people Griffin quotes don’t do most of the heavy bullying, they certainly condone it, by their silence if nothing else.

I will never find consensus with Legge or Chandler, who believe the hole in the Pentagon was plenty big enough to admit a 757. They don’t state how they know this, they just do. The group presents a very weak overall case based largely on supposition and conjecture, examples of which Griffin points to in his book. Hoffman, for example, suggests that there was no damage to the building from the plane’s tail section because it might have been blown up by an on-board bomb or hit with a surface-to-air missile.

I believe Griffin gives far too much weight to these specious arguments early in his Pentagon chapter but then rebounds to show how weak they are later on. This latter part is vintage Griffin, and it is this part that inspires me to continue the fight.

If you take Griffin’s “no 757” evidence and add to it the research by CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth, you’ve got a fantastic argument that the plane crash was faked. It is this accumulation of evidence that sold me in the first place. And it is with this accumulation that we have to attack the 9/11 lie and create a convincing and powerful case to reach out to people outside the Truth movement.

The case shouldn’t be weakened or watered down to please a small group tied closely to the fully compromised web site 911blogger, which has shown itself to have a murky and dubious relationship with the truth.

The consensus approach won’t get the Truth movement any new converts. As for bringing peace that would increase the movement’s credibility, the best way to do that is to stop placing so much importance on a small group that makes such poor arguments and that spends so much time attacking others in the movement.

If truth activists of good will were to come together to show how empty the official story is, it wouldn’t matter what this small and unpersuasive group said or how much they stomped their feet.

In my next post, I’ll look more closely at the evidence Griffin cites both in support of, and in opposition to, the view that a plane hit the Pentagon. Judge for yourself where the strongest case lies.

120 thoughts on “Griffin’s ‘no 757 hit the Pentagon’ arguments eclipse ‘consensus approach’

  1. Very, very well written Craig.

    I also agree with you that the main flaw with the “consensus approach” is that it assumes that both “sides” in the “debate” are well intentioned, and that the diverging viewpoints are simply the result of honest disagreements among genuine researchers. I finally got around to watching DRG’s pentagon speech at the Hearings last night. By referring to Legge, Chandler and Cole so extensively — even if only to disagree with them — grants those individuals more weight and dignity than they deserve on the Pentagon issue (regardless of what work they’ve done with the WTC). Even more troubling is that he refers to the “paper” by Chandler and Cole. This makes it sound as if the Chandler/Cole piece is a piece of academic scholarship. It isn’t. It is a hateful hit piece against CIT.

    I also agree that even without mention of CIT and Pilots, that DRG lays out a compelling case for a faked plane crash. But you’re right, he could have added those already compelling pieces of evidence to the CIT and Pilots material and made an even more rock solid case. Alas, as you say, he seems all to willing to bend over backwards to appease a small clique of people that controls 911blogger, even if only to politely disagree with them.

    Also worthy of note is that the hard core crash-huggers at places like TruthAction, people like Snowcrash and Victoria Ashley, are themselves disappointed with DRG, albeit for the opposite reason: they are lamenting the fact that Hoffman and co. have failed to convince DRG that “in fact” a plane did crash at the pentagon. So ironically, the consensus approach is receiving a lukewarm reception from both sides.

    • Yes, that is quite an irony. And that’s the one encouraging thing in this chapter: that Griffin does make such a solid case despite the other issues. I can see Snowcrash & Co. being happy with the first few pages only to be horrified with what follows. There’s hope, but this consensus thing must be nipped in the bud.

  2. Great article, Craig. Hopefully, pieces such as this one will lessen the damage that will likely be done by the Final Report of the so-called Toronto Hearings. Kudos for doing this!!!

    For anyone really new to Pentagon Truth, I like to share, if I may, this hi-res photo of the Pentagon before the upper section collapsed:

    http://www.box.net/shared/7m63gsfagh

    Clearly, the tiny hole and immaculate lawn show that nothing resembling a plane hit (you don’t have to be a scientist to see that). And, this short video of Lt. Robert Medairos saying, quote, “My first thought was I couldn’t believe what happened and they said it was a plane and I didn’t see any pieces of any plane and I couldn’t believe that a plane hit the building.”

    When you consider Exhibits A and B, above, and then recall how the FBI immediately confiscated approximately 85 security camera tapes – any one of which might have revealed what really happened that day – then you realize that if what the government said is true, all they would have to do is simply release the tapes. Why won’t they do that? Because they’re lying of course, is the obvious answer.

    Thanks again to Craig for this amazing activism. Readers, you want to visit Pilots for 9/11 Truth and the CIT websites if you haven’t already. I would add Simon Shack’s website, also. It pertains in that it establishes the media cover-up.

    • Great links. Isn’t it incredible that anyone can look at that picture and think a 100-ton plane just crashed there? It’s freakin’ absurd! It’s time that the quiet majority began marginalizing the blogger crowd by shifting our focus away from them and on to the case we have to make to the public.

      • “Isn’t it incredible that anyone can look at that picture and think a 100-ton plane just crashed there? It’s freakin’ absurd! It’s time that the quiet majority began marginalizing the blogger crowd by shifting our focus away from them and on to the case we have to make to the public.”

        Great point, Craig, and I totally. And, when it finally happens it will be far overdue, IMO.

    • More Must-See Pentagon Truth videos:

      Eye witness: CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre, reporting live from the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11: “From my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.”

      Eye witness: April Gallop, 9/11 Pentagon survivor
      [2:20] “While I was coming out of the Pentagon, I didn’t see any evidence of metal, airplane seats, luggage, nothing that would give me any indication that it was a plane that had hit the building.”

      Lecture: Muslim-American Author Enver Masud, CEO of The Wisdom Fund
      Masud cites eye witness testimonies, physical and scientific facts, and research from Pilots and CIT, all of which contradict the allegations that AA flight 77 struck the Pentagon. Approx. 15 min. total run time.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB5Oxu-WUno&feature=related

  3. Dear Mr. McKee,

    Fine job, as always.

    And for duped useful idiots, such as myself, we see a trend-line through two data points if no plane hit the Pentagon, with the second point being the Shanksville hole.

    Yes, we can’t assume that if the anomaly X was present for instance A and B, then anomaly X might also apply to instances C and D.

    But golly, the trend line does point to my bat-shit crazy belief that no commercial planes hit the WTC towers either, ala September Clues.

    And in truth, the evidence supporting all plane-believers are the pixels on the telly. When we recognize the fudgability of pixels with computers and software, the Pentagon battle becomes important to erase a data point in such a nonsense no-planes-at-all trend line, thereby revealing the man behind the curtain and how thoroughly we all were duped by those robbing various coffers.

    • Mr. Griffin was already aware of the article.

      He is currently responding in writing to a list of email questions that I sent to him prior to this post being written. I will present the results in Q & A form, hopefully this week.

  4. The Consensus Process has, in practice, served to neutralize arguably the most significant evidence that elements of the military faked a plane crash at the Pentagon. The stakes for getting this right could not be higher.

    We ask “cui bono” in other connections when evaluating actions and events around 9/11, so I believe it is proper to ask it here. Who benefits from the attacks directed at Pilots for 911Truth and CIT? In whose interests do those act who write “scholarly” papers that attempt in somewhat desperate tones to defend the idea of a plane passing north of the Citgo gas station, then doing the impossible – crashing into the Pentagon while creating directional damage consistent with a straight line path much further south. Who benefits from the controversy generated when unfair attacks on CIT are levelled from alleged truthers, who lobby truth community leaders urging them to withdraw support, but who absolutely refuse to engage in debating the issues?

    The obvious answer is that the only beneficiaries of these actions are those propagandists working to preserve the marginalization of the truth community and whose interests are advanced by division and dissention within the ranks. Cass Sunstein’s purpose is served. None in the Truth movement who are really interested in arriving at the truth would engage in the blatant attempts to discredit honest researchers that we have seen.

    The leaders who aired the consensus panel’s timid offerings, should follow it up with a disciplined, exhaustive, and fair look at the Pentagon evidence with a view toward answering the question “Did elements of the U. S. Government fake a plane crash at the Pentagon and attempt to cover it up?”
    They should invite the best research relevant to this question and do so in a transparent process.

    • I agree. I think it’s time we began presenting ALL the very best evidence together. I also think it’s time we stopped engaging the Blogger crowd. By fighting with them, we play right into their hands. Yes, because of the Griffin initiative we won’t be able to ignore them just yet, but at some point very soon, we have to do it. Their perceived clout is vastly out of proportion with anything they’ve done or said. Their contribution regarding the Pentagon is worse than nil.

    • @Shelton Lankford
      CIT have the same opportunity as anyone else to put forward what they are promoting, with articles on websites, forums, Youtube videos, blogs, selling DVDs, giving away DVDs, interviews on radio stations, public presentations, tours of anywhere they like. No one is stopping them. No one can stop them. In this day and age anyone can post anything on the internet, which is where this whole debate is being conducted. Controversy generates interest. People who see something being discussed and talked about can go to their website and see what all the fuss is about, and as they say themselves, people have only have to look at their website and will inevitably convinced by what they say. The fact that this doesn’t appear to happen seems to be the cause of their bewildered incomprehension as to why they are not being given the deference and praise that , in their own minds, they so richly deserve. There has to be reason for that. It must be mainly because the dark forces who organised the covert, skillfully executed black operation to pretend a plane crashed into the Pentagon, are trying to marginalise them, so therefore anyone who disagrees with them must be ‘one of them’. This is of course more evidence that they are right.It couldn’t be because people think what they are saying doesn’t make sense, or is highly implausible, or, as I think, a load of ill thought out nonsense. That could never happen. People disagreeing with their conclusions? The very idea of it is unimaginable to them. A psychologist would have something to say about that mindset.
      Look at what the psychologists ,in that video posted on the other page, say about people whose world view is threatened and how they react with anger and want to attack the messenger…

  5. Just reiterating Adam’s excellent comment on the very well said piece by Craig.

    Griffin should have stuck with those earlier instincts. I believe he will never get agreement on the consensus approach because it is based on a false premise: that the two sides in the “757 did or didn’t hit” debate both make roughly equally persuasive cases for their points of view and that both sides have something approaching an equivalent stature and credibility within the Truth movement. They don’t and they don’t.

    Exactly.

    On just a sample of alleged Pentagon witnesses who “happened” to be in the area at the time:

    http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=41957&postcount=17
    http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=41981&postcount=21

    Those links are well worth a read.

    “Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.”

    Albert Einstein

  6. Ok, 9/11newscentral, I retract my thank you. I see you are associating PFT and CIT with Simon shack and no planes disinfo.

    I also watched you start mudslinging with Adam Syed. I don’t know who you are but I can say you do not inspire trust.

    It’s interesting to watch you insert infighting and no plane disinformation into threads related to the pentagon attack and findings of CIT and PFT.

    There were four planes involved with all four events. The towers were struck by two of those planes. Both were caught on video.

    As an “honored guest”, I ask that you refrain from associating our work with no plane disinformation.

    • Yes, Mr. Marquis (Craig, is this really Mr. Marquis) you are IMO an honored guest. It is a great pleasure to meet you online in this forum. Thank you for doing all the CIT research. We all owe you a great debt of gratitude.

      I find some of the best (physical) evidence so far to basically be AE911Truth, Pilots, CIT, Simon Shack/tv fakery, Chandler/freefall, Dr. Jones/thermite and maybe the seismic evidence.

      I think Shack’s TV fakery work is actually especially important since it refers to the mountain of TV footage in the public domain. The criminals hauled away the WTC debris and confiscated the security tapes and black boxes, etc. However, it is their weakness that if, in fact as Shack alleges, they faked parts of the TV broadcast. Well, that genie can never be put back in the bottle, agree? It’s evidence that we, as a Truth movement, all have access to, is it not? And, so, I would like to see Shack’s research given the full light of day over the coming year. It may be the evidence that breaks the case in many people’s minds. (Audiences today are familiar with photoshop and special effects in movies. They will understand the evidence when they see it.)

      I apologize for the infighting.

      Thank you for joining us in the forums today, Mr. Marquis!

    • Dear Mr. Marquis,

      I can understand why you do not want PFT and CIT at the Pentagon associated with other theories, such as Simon Shack’s September Clues and no-planes at the WTC. They are separate events with separate implementation factors.

      However, you cannot deny that a real plane flying over the Pentagon equates to no plane hitting the Pentagon, and the extent of their efforts to perpetrate such a ruse while preserving their flying asset. Although the large area over which debris was spread in Shanksville also indicates that some sort of real plane was involved, the OCT spouts that the crash hole without evidence of a plane also fits into a no-plane (in hole) motif. Together they are two data points between which a trend line can be drawn.

      Is it coincidence that this no-plane (in the damage) trend line castes a shadow of doubt on the reality of WTC planes, that gets darker when the pixel evidence is reviewed more closely?

      I’m the dupetest duped useful idiot in this here McKee forum, such is the extent of my open-mindedness and objectivity. Evidence and correctly applied science are what help me achieve my present views on 9/11, which embarrassingly circumscribe both no-(commercial)-planes-at-the-WTC ala Mr. Shack as well as the DEW theories of the most villified member of the 9/11 Truth Movement (in particular by the 9/11 Truth Movement itself) Dr. Judy Wood.

      I’ll be the first to admit that I could be wrong. I am waiting for the evidence and correctly applied science to separate the nuggets of truth from the disinformation in such theories. If you have details on where Simon Shack ventures into disinformation, please do indeed share, so that I’m not left believing the wrong thing in my duped useful idiotness. Otherwise, I kindly ask you to refrain from labeling it “disinformation,” because I’m sure you’ve experienced such unproductive “disinformation-labeling” cycles with regards to CIT and how it unnecessarily consumes energies. Let’s let the evidence and science expose the truth.

  7. What annoys me about this is that its irrelevant for present purposes because we dont have any good images of whatever hit the building. But we do have a lot of evidence showing 3 skyscrapers in Manhattan were blown up with explosives. Why, when proving demolition lower Manhattan means the whole thing was staged, would anyone spend time arguing conclusions based on much weaker evidence?
    Think about it; it makes NO sense whatsoever that the perps would have flown anything other than a 757 into the pentagon because they could not be assured ahead of time that no videos or photos would leak out, as we saw with the north tower impact where Naudet happened to be filming and captured it. So I just dont get it.

    • How does not having any images make it irrelevant? It just means all the other physical evidence comes into play. And do we have to drop all the other evidence because the World Trade Center case is so strong?

      In a murder investigation, the cops don’t pick their favourite piece of evidence and ignore the rest; they build a case with all the available evidence. And rarely do they have video to confirm the guilt of the accused.

      As to video at the Pentagon, how many people would be taping the scene at exactly the same time and at exactly the right angle to capture a plane going more than 500 mph? If there was no plane (and explosives in the building) there’d be no visual proof the story was a lie.

      The Pentagon is crucial to the 9/11 case along with the WTC. No one other than the U.S. military would have access to the building, so if we can prove the crash was faked, we’ve proved inside job.

    • Winston,

      Think about it; it makes NO sense whatsoever that the perps would have flown anything other than a 757 into the pentagon because they could not be assured ahead of time that no videos or photos would leak out, as we saw with the north tower impact where Naudet happened to be filming and captured it. So I just dont get it.

      A few points.

      Do you actually believe that it would be easier to carry out the manouevre allegedly made down an incredibly steep hill (just before the Pentagon) at cruise speed (OCT), pull up and fully penetrate the first floor of the Pentagon?

      Putting credulity aside, do you think that the perps would risk a move where the slightest failure from the alleged descent, pullup and “impact” would result in identifiable, accessible debris being sprayed all over a public area?

      The OCT path in the final seconds is so detailed that we are talking about a flightpath defined within feet. Any divergence from that trajectory at the very least proves manipulation of a crime scene. Until the evidence is addressed, the only conclusion that can be reached is that there was a flyover.

      Have you watched National Security Alert?

      There have actually been more developments with at least half the number of witnesses in the presentation above being added to the growing list that prove a black op. And not one confirmed witness to counter their testimony. Not one.

      Finally, are we really so close to being on the brink of world opinion acknowledging the need for a new enquiry that we can afford to drop any evidence available to us?
      Especially as this evidence (along with the preposterous manouvre allegedly carried out by a 757 and the equally preposterous “damage” caused) has been branded “weaker evidence” by people who

      1) Have never studied the issue.

      2) People who have purposely pushed disinfo no matter how blatant it is. That’s not an empty “sabre rattle” by the way. I can provide definitive proof if you wish. One of those people is posting in this thread right now.

      3) Depend more and more on the Pentagon OCT and complete faith in the word of government agencies to “counter” the evidence (yet at the same time openly query the same sources in the Manhattan op)

      Hope that helps.

      • It wasn’t an “incredibly steep hill”. It was just a hill. You guys put your elbows on the scale at every opportunity. Balsamo’s sudden herky-jerky pullup is a bit of dishonesty worthy of NIST. To conclude that bad FDR data (as processed by some unknown person of unknown competence) proves flyover is just loopy. If my car picks up a nail in the tire, I should conclude that space aliens are strewing my path with nails? The one who is putting faith in government data is you, with your FDR fetish.

        I put my faith in my own powers of reason. Dozens of people saw the plane fly toward the Pentagon. Nobody saw it fly away, and there is nowhere it could have flown away. Thus it flew into the Pentagon, unless a trap door in the Pentagon lawn opened up and swallowed it up and it flew under the Pentagon. Why don’t you guys interview the people who cleaned up the bodies? Sergeant Mark Williams said he saw bodies strapped in their seats. Unless you’re willing to call Sergeant Williams a liar to his face, you’ve got no business making the silly claims you do.

      • Dear Mr. Good,

        You wrote:

        To conclude that bad FDR data (as processed by some unknown person of unknown competence) proves flyover is just loopy.

        A purposeful misframing of the evidence. The “bad FDR data processed by some unknown person of unknown competence” with the barometer altimeter 120 feet out of synch with the radio altimeter is just one nugget that disproves a plane flying into the building. Had the plane flown into the building, there would have been no reason to release bad FDR data that required further post-release processing “by some unknown person of unknown competence”.

        You write:

        Nobody saw it fly away, and there is nowhere it could have flown away.

        Overstating your case again, Mr. Good. One witness on the East loading dock did see a plane fly away. Of course, he was badgered so badly (by someone trying to prove the opposite of flyover) that short of a court order he won’t talk to anyone anymore.

        You write:

        Sergeant Mark Williams said he saw bodies strapped in their seats. Unless you’re willing to call Sergeant Williams a liar to his face, you’ve got no business making the silly claims you do.

        You mean, Mr. Good, you have never worked in a cube farm where your office chair has seat belts to prevent you from falling on the floor and injuring yourself when the boredom puts you to sleep on the job? Where have you been? This is state of the art.

        Where are the others who along with Sergeant Williams saw (and helped remove) both the bodies of ONI employees as well as bodies of alleged plane passengers strapped in seats? Why don’t you go interview them? And given the alleged intense heat that melted the aluminum aircraft, how is that bodies on the alleged plane escaped being vaporized? (Where are the pictures? I’ve only seen a couple of this nature, and they could have been staged and taken from anywhere.)

        Oh, that’s right. The Pentagon hasn’t released the videos, because they don’t have to and everyone asking can just go jump in a lake. Therefore, they don’t have to cough up any other military or first responder witnesses (or pictures) to bodies strapped to seats.

        What happens when it is discovered that Sergeant Mark Williams was ordered to lie? Are you going to call patriotic Sergeant Mark Williams a liar to his face then? What about his superiors who gave the order? You know, the same very superior space aliens who strew your path with nails and open a trap door in your lawn to swallow you up and inject you with liquid determination to venture forth into the wild realms of cyber-space and engage in pointless battles?

      • Ignoring the regurgitated response of one of those people that I’ve mentioned in my post to Winston (disinfo extraordinaire Brian Good)

        It wasn’t an “incredibly steep hill”.

        Umm, the Navy Annex sits atop a hill 145ft AGL. The lightpoles were on Route 27 @45ft AGL
        The aircraft had less than 2.3 seconds (OCT speed) to descend and pull up from a furth x feet above the Annex at cruise speed and then pull up.

        Here’s an idea of the 100 ft difference in agl levels.

        http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/16457230.jpg

        source:

        http://www.panoramio.com/photo/16457230

        I’d say it’s “very steep” in the scheme of things Good. I’d also say that the pull up would also have to be more than “sudden”.

        There’s only a “smooth” descent and pull-up when you don’t use the NTSB provided official data, tweak (make that forcefully bugger) the numbers, ignore values not seen in the piece of crap data, ignore g-forces, ignore the limitations of a 757 and ignore all of the NOC witnesses

        It’s actually no different from your approach. Only yours is more akin to “alien conspiracy theories” (“NOC impact” and all of the NOC witnesses are “liars/playing a prank”) than anything those other liars mentioned have argued.

        The risk was too great to do anything other than fly a 757 in on autopilot on a radio beacon.

        You obviously missed my post Good.

        Do you actually believe that it would be easier to carry out the manouevre allegedly made down an incredibly steep hill (just before the Pentagon) at cruise speed (OCT), pull up and fully penetrate the first floor of the Pentagon?

        Putting credulity aside, do you think that the perps would risk a move where the slightest failure from the alleged descent, pullup and “impact” would result in identifiable, accessible debris being sprayed all over a public area?

        Do you think they’d take the chance Good?

  8. Winston’s right. They couldn’t use anything other than a 757 flying into the building for the same reason they couldn’t do a flyover. They had no way of controlling who in dozens of windows overlooking the Pentagon might set a video camera running just on the chance that something interesting might happen at the Pentagon. The risk was too great to do anything other than fly a 757 in on autopilot on a radio beacon.

    • Just on the chance something interesting might happen at the Pentagon? Is that a joke? If it was a 757, why doesn’t the Pentagon just show us one surveillance video that shows the plane clearly. Gee, I wonder…

    • Dear Mr. Good,

      I concur with Mr. McKee. Any “no-planes” or “fly-over” non-sense could have been nipped in the bud… oh, about 10 years ago, if they just would have released the security tapes they confiscated.

      Moreover, let us put things into perspective regarding why a fly-over of the Pentagon wasn’t that great of a risk. Other than the workers at Citgo, who lives by, commutes by, or works at the Pentagon? The vast majority have connections to the Pentagon or need to curry-favor with the Pentagon (e.g., media personalities), and would thereby be put under orders regarding what they could or couldn’t speak freely about, because it is always better, young private, to have a govt spokesman present the unified story; that is what you are to believe. No back talking.

      • Who lives by, commutes by, or works by the Pentagon? You mean you haven’t thought about this? How about thousands of office and hotel workers at Crystal City, tens of thousands of freeway commuters, airport employees, park employees, VaDoT employees, marina employees, marina residents, dogwalkers, bicyclists, hikers, birdwatchers, planespotters, fishermen, pilots, gardeners, hotel guests, airport limo drivers, cab drivers?

  9. No, that’s not a joke. A tourist or a businessperson in the Sheraton or the Doubletree, for instance, hearing about the attacks in NYC, might set up a camera in the hotel window expecting to see armored vehicles moved into place around the Pentagon or busloads of soldiers deploying or helicopters flying in and out–footage they might sell to the news media.

    We’ve already talked ad nauseam about why they won’t release the surveillance videos. To preserve the principle that they don’t have to, that it’s military business, it’s none of our business, so don’t even ask. Also quite possibly to encourage Pentagon theorists to spin all kinds of fantasies so that if the truth movement ever gets any traction all they need to do is release the tapes and some burned plane parts and everybody who ever stuck their necks out for Pentagon no-planery will be embarrassed.

    I have no intention of being embarrassed. That’s why I stick to what I can prove. And I avoid building my case on shaky data points like “Deaths that occurred in the A and B rings”.

    • Mr. Good,

      What business would a business person have for staying at the Sheraton or DoubleTree so close the Pentagon? Why would a tourist be there?

      Yes, maybe they could have stuck their cameras out the window and began filming the Pentagon when they saw the action in NYC on the telly, but such a premise defeats your intention of not getting embarrassed. Most of us have to have a reason to pull out our cameras and start filming. Far away news on the telly to entice me to film a building where nothing was happening… except a low-flying plane heading for Reagan airport?

      I actually agree with your statement:

      [T]hey won’t release the surveillance videos [t]o preserve the principle that they don’t have to, that it’s military business, it’s none of our business, so don’t even ask.

      However, this statement becomes truer as the probability increases that the surveillance videos did not contain the proper footage of the Pentagon’s 9/11 official story. Had the videos really depicted any truthful aspect of (fiction of) a plane entering the building, they would have been utterly foolish to thump their chests in defiance – we’re not showing you the videos, ’cause we don’t have to, nya, nya, nya –. They know it. I know it. And even you know it, which is why your undercut your credibility in not questioning it.

      Strongest argument? Strongest evidence? That is just another tactic of the same game to stop questions and investigations into the matter.

      • Why stay at the Doubletree? To be close to the airport, maybe? Why the Sheraton? To be close to Arlington Cemetary maybe? What, you think the hotels are empty?

        Nobody had to stick a camera outside a window. They could set up a camera on a tripod inside the window. I told you the reason to start filming. Because the nation was under attack and and reasonable person might think there might be some interesting action at the Pentagon–moving anti-aircraft defenses in, perhaps, or mass evacuations.

        The Pentagon’s credibility is in no way undercut by Pentagon conspiracy theorists. In fact by diverting attention from the true issues of NORAD’s inability to defend the skies for 100 minutes on 9/11, their lies to the 9/11 Commission, and the amazing number of key personnel who were away from their desks that day, Pentagon conspiracy theorists actually aid the Pentagon’s credibility.

        By all means, investigate away. Nobody’s stopping you. You can start by investigating the possible flight paths for a flyaway aircraft, and then going out and looking for witnesses to see if anybody saw anything. Investigation is fine. My problem is with unjustified conclusions and overstated claims of proof and vicious personal attacks on cooperating witnesses.

      • Dear Mr. Good,

        I apologize for being unclear in my point about the types of people likely to stay in such hotels close to the Pentagon or the Naval Annex. I speculate without basis that most would be connected to it it in some way, and thus beneficiaries from the war drums that would get pounded.

        I guess that makes us even, because you speculate without basis that someone in a hotel in one part of the world would suddenly be inspired by the images on the telly from another part of the world to take his camera out and film for no reason a building from his hotel window (when he should have been at his first meeting with clients). Don’t get me wrong, because such things do happen in the aftermath of various sporting events, but it is usually the cheering local fans in the street or something that is the true inspiration for filming (a real reason), not the events unfolding on the telly. Certainly, when the fire engines pulled up to the Pentagon, or the tanks and anti-aircraft guns as you suggest, that would provide enough commotion to give reason for filming. By then, though, the plane, missile, or planted bomb has done did its damage.

        But come on, Mr. Good! To say that an amateur would begin filming the Pentagon based on television news about events in NYC (and without seeing or hearing something from the direction of the Pentagon)? You’re being absurd, because your agenda is to take off of the table any doubts into the legitimacy of the Pentagon plane.

        I was on the fence about fly-over until just recently. Now I’m completely tipped over into the no-plane(-crash) camp. You can thank Frank Legge for that. He did such a bang-up, crash, and burn job on the FDR information in his (unproven) premise that the barometer altimeter readings were supposedly outside their calibration range for a low-but-fast flying aircraft, so its measured altitude of +/-120 ft above the Pentagon shouldn’t be trusted when compared to the radar altimeter readings…from the final 4 seconds of FDR data that first wasn’t there, but then was discovered, and got decoded by “Mr. Farmer”, and showed the smooth flight path into the Pentagon ground floor, barometer altimeter readings be damned.

        You say it is risky for amateurs photographing or observing a plane not hitting and flying away? (Yep, the testimony has been marginalized of the witness who did observe this from the East loading dock.)

        A far greater series of risks include (a) insufficient victims on the planes, (b) insufficient targeted damage from the plane, (c) the plane not having any serial number parts matching its maintenance records, (d) inaccurate targeting of the plane to hit the ground floor after creaming a series of light poles… etc. Why risk a plane and (auto-)pilot if the the belief of a plane impacting is more useful than the unpredictable damage a real plane would cause, when the exact ONI investigators and record targets would be easier to knock out by other means?

        And which FDR did not report the cockpit door ever opening during flight, not even to let the hijackers in?

  10. Of course it’s important to investigate what happened at the Pentagon. You don’t investigate half a crime. Then, you would arrive at half a truth.

    Every aspect of the crimes must be investigated: every death, every alleged hijacking, every explosion, every anthrax letter, every “put” option (insider trading), etc. The whole of the crime must, of course, be investigated. And, every criminal be brought to justice. Yes?

    If there is even a possibility that people died in the A and B rings, must not we know for certain?

    I agree with Craig and Sr El Once about the notion that the WTC evidence is “strongest.” I think actually the CIT north/south of CITGO evidence is strongest. And, one could argue, Simon Shack’s TV fakery evidence is strongest. (Has anyone here seen it?)

    Finally, Brian Good, have you seen the Pilots evidence? Apparently, a 757 could not have hit the Pentagon, as alleged for at least two very good reasons. 1) Ground effect and 2) the alleged speed exceeded the specs of the aircraft – it would have fallen apart. (Is this not correct, Pilots?)

    • Just to clarify, I wrote that the WTC evidence is “so strong,” not “strongest.” An important distinction, I think. I agree that every aspect must be investigated; that’s why I don’t buy the idea that we have to concentrate on the WTC. All of the official story has to be taken down.

    • *Sniffle* *wipe tears from eyes*

      I used to be sole resident bat-shit crazy duped useful idiot on the September Clues/Simon Shack front in this forum!!!

      *Waaahhh! Boo-Hoo!*

      So, Mr. 911NewsCentral.com, be careful when you tread on my turf. You write:

      [O]ne could argue, Simon Shack’s TV fakery evidence is strongest.

      Even given my stated leanings, I do not argue such. Of Mr. Shack’s work, the strongest piece of evidence that he presents is corporate media complicity as illustrated by the efficiency with which the official govt story (right on down to Osama, jet fuel, weakened steel, and speed-of-gravity pulverization) was planted into the broadcasts by govt spokespeople and other associates of the media before the dust had settled, and played over and over and over.

      Interesting that in our discussion about the Pentagon with Mr. Good, we brought up that the flyover (e.g., no-plane-crash) at the Pentagon could have been easily set straight 10 years ago if they just would have released the videos they stole from the neighboring businesses, like the hotel and gas station.

      On the towers video fakery front, the no-planers probably could have been put to rest if the broadcast media would have released their original, hi-quality, and un-bannered footage. Instead, Mr. Shack makes most of his case (from network footage) from video copies of what was broadcast. When the CNN or Fox banner consumes literally the lower 1/3 of the screen on the defining event of this century (so far) and is replayed endlessly, one would think that corporate media complicity would be able to provide raw footage. *BEEP* *BEEP* *Fail*

      Coincidence that neither the Pentagon nor the corporate media would step forward to set the record straight with the raw original footage? (Or is this proof of the military PSYOPS and ongoing coordination?)

      Mr. 911NewsCentral.com, Mr. Shack goes into great details about SimVictims. Whereas both Operation Norwood and I agree that the faking of some of the victims would play a role to juke the numbers and emotionally move the nation into a state of war, the extent of the SimVictims and some of the foundation supposedly proving SimVictims might be where I deviate from that Shack party line.

      • “Mr. Shack makes most of his case (from network footage) from video copies of what was broadcast.” I agree wholeheartedly, El Once. I think Shack’s work is outstanding.

        “Coincidence that neither the Pentagon nor the corporate media would step forward to set the record straight with the raw original footage? ” Opinions will vary, naturally. Myself, I say no coincidence.

        “the extent of the SimVictims and some of the foundation supposedly proving SimVictims might be where I deviate from that Shack party line.” I have not had time to look at Shack’s SimVictims research. To me, if a person accepts Shack’s TV fakery work as true, then, it would logically follow that fake passenger lists might be needed to complete the story of the fake jet crashes.

        Yes, El Once, it was your posts maybe two months ago that first got me into Simon Shack and September Clues. Thanks for posting the links; that was the first time I had ever heard about it.

    • Ground effect is bullshit. It’s a low speed phenomenon. It disappears at high velocities. Obviously the plane did not fall apart. So either its speed was not as fast as is claimed or the airframe is more robust than is claimed. Pilots for Truth co-founder John Lear features articles on his website that claim that the Germans have been maintaining manned lunar bases since 1943. Who would associate themselves with such nonsense?

  11. Can anyone here offer a little knowledge about the mock-terror drill(s) being conducted at the Pentagon on 9/11? I think it ties in perfectly with the points of evidence Craig tells us that Griffin made in his new book. One point being, was there not a smoke generator on the Pentagon lawn? And, did it not generate the enormous plumes of black smoke that were visible above the Pentagon? I think people assumed (from what they were told) that the black smoke was from a 757 crash. However, wasn’t the mock-drill in fact simulating that very thing: a plane crash into the Pentagon? If these points are all true, the smoke generator (which was seen and photographed) becomes a physical connection leading the Pentagon scenario away from the OCT that a 757 hit it and instead toward all other remaining possibilities such as pre-planted explosives inside the building. My question again is can anyone here share any knowledge about the mock drills, the generator, and/or provide links? Thank you.

      • I’ve also uploaded whatever consecutive scraps of MSM and video footage caught in the first 50 minutes to an hour(?) here. Nine parts with links below the video.

        The first footage of the Pentagon lawn that have been released only starts from around 9 minutes after the explosion. What little has been released has been editted. Including alleged “FOIA” released footage. Some parts are slow but if you’re really interested they’re wellworth the watch.

        Consecutive timestamped images can be found here.

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21156

        Just for the heck of it, here’s proof of manipulation of the Citgo footage released just days after the first NOC witness was revealed. It was confirmed by the Citgo manager that a camera had been physically removed by the FBI and that the same camera would have had an excellent view of the Pentagon facade.

        http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=7&view=findpost&p=71856

        The original researcher who discovered this and has since denied it and removed all of his “work” can be found here:

        http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12296

      • This drill was at the National Reconnaissance Office 20 miles from the Pentagon.

        Article: 9/11 Training Exercise Planned for Simulated Plane Crash Five Minutes before Pentagon Attack Took Place

        http://hcgroups.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/911-training-exercise-planned-for-simulated-plane-crash-five-minutes-before-pentagon-attack-took-place/

        “Five minutes before the Pentagon was hit on September 11, 2001, a training exercise being run by a US intelligence agency just over 20 miles from the Pentagon was set to include the scenario of a small private jet plane crashing into a building.”

        “Planned inputs included, at 9:30 a.m. a smoke generator was going to be started, to simulate the fire resulting from the crash.”

        Timed almost perfectly with the “real” “attacks.” The drill was called off when it went “live.”

        Note to new people: The “drills” on 9/11 probably never went “live.” There probably were no actual hijackings or plane crashes. The drills probably only went “live” in the sense that Tom Brokaw starting reporting them on TV. In no other sense did these drills probably ever become “real.”

        Thanks Craig and mrboz. So that was probably a burning electrical generator at the Pentagon. Was there a similar drill at the Pentagon, I wonder?

      • @Oneslice- although it isn’t entirely ‘off topic’ here, I was just reading your recent post about “heavy objects” on the CIT “FBI releases more Pentagon attack photos” thread:

        http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1765&view=findpost&p=2477497

        Going back to Jim Hoffman’s legendary “Boeing” from my post #216 on the 911oz thread:
        “Impact from NOC” Sarns debunk
        http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=44543&postcount=216

        I decided to fire up the ol’ CAD program and do a little analysis on the Hoffman “Boeing:”
        ———————–

        [URL=http://img227.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=173604929_BlueColumns_122_600lo.jpg][IMG]http://img227.imagevenue.com/loc600/th_173604929_BlueColumns_122_600lo.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://img173.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=360494793_BlueColumnsNoImg_122_411lo.jpg][IMG]http://img173.imagevenue.com/loc411/th_360494793_BlueColumnsNoImg_122_411lo.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://img269.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=360498841_HoffBoeingEngines_122_418lo.jpg][IMG]http://img269.imagevenue.com/loc418/th_360498841_HoffBoeingEngines_122_418lo.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
        [URL=http://img268.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=360499283_HoffBoeingEnginesNoImg_122_21lo.jpg][IMG]http://img268.imagevenue.com/loc21/th_360499283_HoffBoeingEnginesNoImg_122_21lo.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://img288.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=360502113_PinkColumns_122_446lo.jpg][IMG]http://img288.imagevenue.com/loc446/th_360502113_PinkColumns_122_446lo.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://img181.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=360504686_PinkColumnsNoImg_122_550lo.jpg][IMG]http://img181.imagevenue.com/loc550/th_360504686_PinkColumnsNoImg_122_550lo.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
        —————————
        [url=http://img227.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=173604929_BlueColumns_122_600lo.jpg][img=http://img227.imagevenue.com/loc600/th_173604929_BlueColumns_122_600lo.jpg][/url] [url=http://img173.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=360494793_BlueColumnsNoImg_122_411lo.jpg][img=http://img173.imagevenue.com/loc411/th_360494793_BlueColumnsNoImg_122_411lo.jpg][/url] [url=http://img269.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=360498841_HoffBoeingEngines_122_418lo.jpg][img=http://img269.imagevenue.com/loc418/th_360498841_HoffBoeingEngines_122_418lo.jpg][/url]
        [url=http://img268.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=360499283_HoffBoeingEnginesNoImg_122_21lo.jpg][img=http://img268.imagevenue.com/loc21/th_360499283_HoffBoeingEnginesNoImg_122_21lo.jpg][/url] [url=http://img288.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=360502113_PinkColumns_122_446lo.jpg][img=http://img288.imagevenue.com/loc446/th_360502113_PinkColumns_122_446lo.jpg][/url] [url=http://img181.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=360504686_PinkColumnsNoImg_122_550lo.jpg][img=http://img181.imagevenue.com/loc550/th_360504686_PinkColumnsNoImg_122_550lo.jpg][/url]
        ————————–

        ———————-
        [Note to Mr. McKee- I'm not sure which of the 3 image link formats would work here on the WordPress software, so I tried all 3 so the images wouldn't get lost in binary-land]

        The “blue columns” are those stated to have “No Damage” in the ASCE report. The “pink columns” are those that showed “cracking but no functional impairment” in the ASCE report. My extension lines were copied & pasted from the approximate fuselage centerline as depicted on Jim Hoffman’s “Boeing” on his original image from Hoffman’s website:

        http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/floorplan_757traj.png

        All those extension lines should be parallel (at the roughly 139.97 degree BEARING relative to the “surface normal” to the damaged [west-north-]Western Pentagon wall as depicted in Jim Hoffman’s original diagram). Of course this assumes Conservation of Linear Momentum (as Frank Legge appeared to agree with his post #103 regarding my post #100 at 911oz about Linear Momentum):

        My post #100
        http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=44343&postcount=100
        Legge’s post #103
        http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=44348&postcount=103

        Feel free to use those images oneslice (or let me know if you need something else- I saved the file from my work on Jim Hoffman’s “Boeing impact” diagram).

  12. Large black plume on right apparently is from generator trailer; smaller plume on left is from site of explosion (alleged crash site). That is, most of the smoke we saw on TV that day was from the trailer.

    http://www.rense.com/general65/smudgepotLD.jpg

    Rense: “The ‘construction trailer’, actually a large generator trailer with its own 500 gallon diesel tank, was not used but kept for an emergency. As there was no need for the large extra tank nearby, the tank apparently was filled with a crude oil-diesel oil mixture, similar to an orchard smudge pot…”

    • While you all are looking at those photos down those “rabbit holes,” perhaps you can help me locate something- the generator/engine that was allegedly inside that trailer box (because I certainly didn’t see it in any of the video or still photos). Also, I have more than a passing familiarity with gensets and diesel engines in general- I ran a military surplus diesel generator for several months at a remote, desert worksite location and documented/charted its fuel consumption curves for 3 seasons (including “arctic” -40 deg-F weather).

      If that is say a 2 MegaWatt (MW) or 2000 kW generator similar to this Caterpillar trailer unit:

      http://www.uspowerco.com/used/diesel-generators/caterpillar-2431.htm

      then we seem to be missing about TEN TONS of Caterpillar engine/generator according to the specs for a Cat 3516TA diesel generator motor (see the last page):

      http://www.cat.com/cda/files/842582/7/3516+1750+ekw+Standby+Low+BSFC_EMCP4.pdf

      Hmmm….

      • Dear Mr. Boz,

        The generator trailer becomes a unifying piece to the conspiracy theory. The missile that hit the Pentagon? Seemingly staged and launched from the generator trailer that conveniently didn’t have much of a generator in it, eh? The other trailer that was torched? Maybe it was some sort of “Jack-in-the-box” filled with miscellaneous air craft parts.

        Maybe the reason the real plane flew NOC instead of SOC was that SOC would put it right over the jack-in-the-box when it was triggered to blow and spew its garbage. The popping jack-in-the-box might have hit the real plane with debris that was supposed to go all over the lawn and make people think of “airplane crash”.

        This is more wild-ass speculation from me in my bid for my own level of cognative dissonance.

      • Most[/all?] of the Caterpillar-powered diesel generators that ride in 40-foot containers (or on 40+ foot trailers) are of the 750-2000 kiloWatt (kW) variety. The 2000kW (or 2 MegaWatt) sample above was just a ‘typical’ enclosed large Caterpillar diesel genset that I found in a quick search- for the purposes of ‘what if’/back of the envelope calculations.

        Even if the “generator” was Cummins, Detroit Diesel, or ‘other’ powered, I don’t expect the brand to make much difference to the weight of the system. Wattage (or power output) however makes a HUGE difference in the weight and fuel consumption (as well as where & how it can be shipped and operated).

        There are many more ‘large’ diesel gensets here:

        http://www.sunbeltrentals.com/equipment/category.aspx?id=66

        http://www.dieselserviceandsupply.com/manufacturer/Caterpillar.aspx

        http://www.dieselserviceandsupply.com/manufacturer/Cummins.aspx

        http://www.dieselserviceandsupply.com/diesel_generators.aspx?filter=power&filterval=Diesel

        I remember seeing “Caterpillar” mudflaps on the burned-out trailer shell in one or several of the Pentagon photos- while this does not CONCLUSIVELY identify the [missing] engine that SHOULD HAVE been found in the trailer- it points more towards Caterpillar than it does towards Cummins gensets (or other brands).

        While I have NOT seen conclusive proof of ‘missiles,’ this “genset” certainly provided a ‘convenient’ source of black, sooty smoke at the Pentagon (if equipped with say 500-3500 gallons of Diesel #2 fuel oil in one or several tanks…)

        I would also think that one or several high tension cables pulling downward/forward inside the trailer itself and 1 or 2 smallish charges on the roof of the “generator” trailer could go a long way towards creating the “groove” mentioned on that CIT thread seen in the damage aftermath photos.

      • Thanks for the images Mr Boz. I’ll definitely use them for an internal damage project I’ve been working on for some time now.

    • I certainly respect your choice, Aldo, although I’m disappointed. You offer a valuable point of view. I have mixed emotions when it comes to intervening to restrict where discussions end up going. When I first joined 911blogger, I was told that the rules were: no nukes and no TV fakery. Instinctively it bothered me to be restricted that way, although I wasn’t aware of the history discussions on those topics on that site.

      I guess I’m an idealist in that I think arguments should stand or fall on their merits. I’ve read dozens of times how people won’t even consider CIT evidence because they think everything you guys say is leading the movement to ridicule. I’ve always fought that because I think those people should address your evidence and not just take shots at you.

      Obviously, it’s up to me to watch whether a thread is being led off into unproductive areas. But I don’t want to follow the Blogger example.

      I guess my last point is that’s it’s impossible to control who agrees with you and who doesn’t. Someone can love your work but also hold a belief you cringe from. We just have to trust readers that they don’t treat everyone who mentions you as an official spokesman for CIT.

    • Dear Mr. Marquis,

      Are you serious? No plane disinformation? Turns out that your theory amounts to “no planes” as well, as in no planes crashed into the Pentagon.

      Of course, you and I both know that your reference was to the alleged WTC planes, but your work does fit in well with the tend line of the ruse we all were duped by. If you consider “no commercial planes at the WTC” disinformation, kindly prove it. It probably does have elements of disinformation, and we’ve been led around by our noses by parts of it.

      But in your childish departing comment, you fail to recognize that all disinformation is founded on a solid layer of truth. Part of the life-cycle and planning of all functional disinformation is for that layer of truth to be dismissed and forgotten when the (faulty) conclusions are dispensed with for other reasons. The same tactics used against CIT to dismiss its nuggets of truth are applied against the entirety of September Clues as well as Dr. Judy Wood’s DEW.

      September Clues has indeed many nuggets of truth. If you can’t handle the truth, if you aren’t man enough to help mine and separate the truth nuggets from the dross, then run along, little child.

      I admit that I’m a bit flippant in embracing the bat-shit crazy duped useful idiot meme so readily. It loses its power to sting or to be used against you when you own it, a lesson for all 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists. Mr. McKee can write you off-list regarding his assessment of me, but I am not Señor El Once (or Herr der Elf elsewhere) without reason. Your premature departure underestimates the importance of Mr. McKee’s blog, and the bat-shit crazy duped useful idiots who play here. True, it does attract its share of agents, who play their God-given roles of proving the Cass Sunstein and NSA Q-Group efforts. Truth wins out, although it might be latter-day lurkers and database archeologists who discover it and vindicate that grandpa and his Zeitgenossen were on to something and weren’t the ignorant sheople his generation was mostly played to be.

      Here’s hoping you continue to lurk and participate when appropriate.

  13. About Mr. Marquis Leaving:

    Mr. Marquis faces political implications when he posts publicly online.

    Marquis has posted in this thread that “There were four planes involved with all four events. The towers were struck by two of those planes. Both were caught on video.”

    http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/griffin%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%98no-plane-hit-the-pentagon%e2%80%99-arguments-eclipse-%e2%80%98consensus-approach%e2%80%99/#comment-1873

    Similarly, Rob Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth has recently posted in the Pilots forums that he believes that planes hit the WTC Towers:

    “‘The planes hit the buildings;’This is not disputed. What is disputed is if the aircraft were stock, 767′s.”

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18300&view=findpost&p=10778616

    Recall that the CIT and Pilots recently held a screening of National Security Alert in Toronto on the 11th at Mr. Zwicker’s event.

    Politics prevents Mr. Marquis from associating his work with “no planes” evidence. For example, how will the Pilots and CIT hold another joint event next year if Mr. Marquis suddenly shocks all of his closest friends and associates by jumping on the “no planes” bandwagon?

    Of course, that’s just exactly what will happen if Mr. Marquis considers the evidence at SeptemberClues.info, I believe. It’s THAT strong.

    Readers, visit septemberclues.info today and see for yourself why the tv broadcasts on 9/11 were faked. You’ll never look at 9/11 the same way again, guaranteed!!!

    • 911newscentral.com,

      There is another possibility you don’t mention. Many of us, and I would imagine Aldo is in this category, reject September Clues not because of politics or because it “looks crazy.” We reject it because we did our homework and looked at both sides of the argument (just as we did with CIT). We looked at the arguments in favor of TV fakery as well as the arguments countering it. We saw that weak arguments (in favor of TV fakery) were defeated with stronger arguments, in this case, on the “debunking” side. The exact reverse is true in the case of CIT, where CIT holds the strong case while the “debunking” side has a weak-to-nonexistent case. Have you watched Anthony Lawson’s debunk of September Clues? Go to youtube, it’s called “September Clues Busted.” He debunks a number of assertions in Shack’s film.

      And please don’t come back at me with “Adam the disruptor is trying to steer people back toward the OCT.” Facts are facts, whether or not they support aspects of the OCT. It is part of the OCT that the towers were destroyed. Duh.

      • @Adam Syed
        What you say about CIT- about doing your homework and looking at both sides of the argument to decide whether they present a convincing case or not- you would certainly have to do that yourself because you certainly will not get any of that from looking at anything presented by CIT. Watching NSA or any of their other DVDs the impression anyone would get who didn’t know better is that on September 11th at the Pentagon the only witnesses who were there were the witnesses they interviewed. This is supposed to be an investigation and they present only a small part of the evidence, and more importantly the conclusions they reach are based only on that evidence.
        The whole CIT thing is flawed and illogical and one of the things that tells me that is listening to the people who create it as they seem unable to understand the concept of anyone disagreeing with them. Reading A.Marquis here, he bristles with indignation at the idea that his conclusions could be wrong, and since they can’t be wrong ,anyone who does disagee must either be incapable of seeing the obvious or be an agent working for the perpetrators, or someone who is mislead by these paid operatives- which is more proof they are right. Coming to your own conclusions isn’t an option. I’ve heard Craig Ranke respond in the same way if an interviewer for instance even hinted that he wasn’t totally convinced by their conclusions.

      • @Mr Wright

        Aah! Hello again. Fancy answering all of those questions you’ve left hanging all over these blogs??

        Nice little (empty) speech but I’ll ask the question that seems to have an effect on you lke a farmyard cat has on a rat.

        Can you name the witness(es) who describe the official flightpath to the south of the Citgo Gas Station?

        Cheers big ears.

      • @onesliceshort
        Can you name anyone who said the plane crashed into the building? That’s the list of people who say the plane flew south of the Citco gas station, since the plane can’t hit the building if it flew north of the Citco gas station- it’s aerodynamically impossible according to CIT. Unless you think it can fly north of the Citco gas station and hit the building. Or unless you think the only evidence that needs to be considered about where the plane flew in relation to the gas station is where eyewitnesses said it flew, in which case you haven’t done an intelligent assessment of the evidence. By that logic the only evidence that needs to be considered about whether the plane hit the building is the eyewitnesses who said it hit the building, which undermines your argument.

        The argument that all eyewitnesses are wrong about where the plane flew on the grounds that some of those eyewitnesses can’t be wrong about where the plane flew is an argument that undermines itself. Especially since all the eyewitnesses agree that it flew into the building. Evidence of the plane ends at the wall of the Pentagon. The idea that scores of people watching a plane flying over a building would all think it had crashed into the base of the building and that there would not be one report from anyone who said they saw a large airliner flying over the building is as implausible as it gets. The idea that any group of people would plan to do that and think it would have any chance of success just compounds the implausiblity of it. People aren’t stupid. People don’t come up with stupid plans. If your conclusions involve stupid plans it says something about your conclusions.
        If you can’t find one person who says they saw the plane flying over the building when, according to the ‘hadmatter’, it then flew southeast away from the building, towards the airport, did a big banking turn across the river in full view of the ATC people in the control tower, flew over central Washington, not even remotely near the departure route out of the airport, returned to the Pentagon about 2 minutes later, crossing the runway approach path at right angles, and then banked and flew away again, where Roosevelt Roberts lost sight of it, 5 seconds after he first saw it. You posted a reply that didn’t take issue with anything he said. This was also described by A.Marquis as an ‘awesome post’ which was ‘dead on’ apparently even though it contradicts what they put in National Security Alert showing Roosevelt Roberts in the loading dock of south parking and practically every single thing that Roosevelt Roberts says when they interviewed him. A.Marquis who says he is not sure where Roosevelt Roberts was, where he saw the plane, and what direction the plane was flying in – apart from that it’s ‘black and white’. The really bizarre thing is the idea of A.Marquis explaining back to Roosevelt Roberts what he saw when there is hardly one basic fact about it that he is sure about himself.

      • Mr. Syed wrote:

        Have you watched Anthony Lawson’s debunk of September Clues? Go to youtube, it’s called “September Clues Busted.” He debunks a number of assertions in Shack’s film.

        Yes, I have seen it.

        Correctly stated, Mr. Lawson attempts to debunk a number of assertions in just one part of Shack’s films. Namely, “nose-in, nose-out.” Interesting that he doesn’t go into reverse-play zoom-out to reveal that the plane is not anywhere in sight where one would calculate it should be.

        I should point out that one of his debunking methods is ridicule and sarcasm. That doesn’t cut it for me.

        Putting that aside, September Clues runs 1 through 9 and then A through H. Mr. Lawson does not even address all of the points brought out in one part of SC, let alone all parts. He states that he hasn’t even bothered to watch the other parts. He saw no need after supposedly debunking what he did. Therein lies the flaw and how he attempts to pull the wool over our eyes.

        Mr. Lawson does not debunk the very strong argument of media complicity. Yes, one or two (or even many) elements of SC might be in error, particularly were raw network footage to be analyzed (which the media is guarding and not making available).

        The argument regarding media complicity does not die if the SC analysis on one or two (or many) elements are proven wrong. It is not IF A, THEN B; IF B, THEN C, whereby debunking A debunks C. The case is cumulative. IF A or B or C, then …

        To be fair, 100% of SC doesn’t have to be debunked to prove it wrong. For the sake of discussion, if 1/4 or 1/3 or 1/2 were proven to be not just wrong but also deceitful and lies, then the whole genre could maybe be dismissed. This isn’t the case with Mr. Lawson. Were we to be generous in claiming that Mr. Lawson’s interpretation was right (and Mr. Shack’s wrong), Mr. Lawson hasn’t reached any significant threshold in the body of SC work. He thinks he has, just like he thinks his interpretation is right. But like the seething ridicule in his near BBC accent, it does not sound true. It sounds like an agenda.

  14. Good work as always Craig.

    As ever logic and certain 9/11 Truth groups are not easy bedfellows but sometimes logic is lost to such a degree that the motivation of such people has to be questioned. Frank Legge can take the interview of Albert Hemphill with Craig Ranke where he clearly states his view that the plane flew over the Navy Annexe and north of the Citgo and claim that it proves the official flightpath correct.

    Now those of us who have been looking into the Pentagon for a few years know that Hemphill’s name was always thrown in as supporting the official flightpath because of his website quotes where he said the plane came from over his right shoulder while he stood in an office in the Navy Annexe with the Pentagon in front of him. This could be said to support the official flightpath if he was situated at the southern end of the Annexe. Craig’s interview confirmed that Hemphill was actually towards the northern end of the Annexe where his description of the flightpath fits the NoC approach (as documented by multiple witnesses). Now you would think this would be a blow to supporters of the official flightpath – yet we see supposed 9/11 Truth supporters racing to cast doubt on his memory, Craig’s methods and using any other way they can muddy the waters.

    10 years on we are getting to the end game of 9/11 as it reaches the set in stone stage within the mainstream media. Setting up 9/11 Truth “stars” who end up as strictly LIHOP is an obvious method to use – and “they” have used it. It has had the desired effect of causing division within the ranks. What it can’t do is stop real people discovering the truth for themselves and it happens one by one as they watch National Security Alert on Youtube. Some day we will all have to make a choice about which side we want to be on.

  15. People either do or do not believe TV fakery was deliberately used on 9/11 as a KEY part of the false flag illusion which turned controlled demolitions at the WTC, a smoking generator at the Pentagon, and official US wargames into Hollywood daytime theater with the OCT, the Patriot Act and a list of 19 Arabs patsies ready to be released on a moment’s notice to deceive the American public and the world.

    So, on this thread, I believe we have – I think maybe we need to coin a term here – “Shackers” and “no Shackers.” Or, “Photoshoppers” or “no Photoshoppers.” Because “planers” and “no planers” are really not the correct terms IMO for this discussion. To me, the real debate here is about TV fakery, not the existence of real planes (pardon, not trying to split hairs, here). “Were the live TV broadcasts altered, yes or no?” is the question, I believe. “Were there real planes, yes or no?” is a closely related, yet separate, question, I offer. B/C, who knows? There is the possibility, however slim, that there were real planes and yet the broadcasts were altered anyway; to what purpose, who knows?

    I believe this is the video to which Mr. Syed is referring us (I just watched it):

    http://www.youtube.com/user/alawson911?blend=6&ob=5#p/u/0/B6jS2Ah22us

    Having seen Shack’s full length documentary, “September Clues” IMO I found Shack’s arguments to be so powerful and persuasive that Lawson’s rebuttal seems weak and unconvincing to me, personally.

    Let me suggest that everyone reading this thread post whatever links they have either supporting or debunking Simon Shack’s September Clues?

    It’s long, but, has everyone here actually visited Shacks’s website and considered his evidence? It’s WELL worth the investment of a busy patriot’s time, I assure you.

    http://septemberclues.info

    PS — Thanks Craig for allowing this debate on your fine blog. No matter how this pans out, I think it will be a productive look at some critical evidence.

      • Do I really have to ask this question again Mr Snowcrash??

        Okay your answer to my question..

        Can you name the witness(es) who describe the official flightpath to the south of the Citgo Gas Station?

        the following horsekack is typical of the nonsense that poses as “debate” on this evidence.

        Can you name anyone who said the plane crashed into the building? That’s the list of people who say the plane flew south of the Citco gas station, since the plane can’t hit the building if it flew north of the Citco gas station- it’s aerodynamically impossible according to CIT

        NOC “impact” coupled with the exterior and interior damage is impossible. Not because CIT says it is but because it aerodynamically and physically has been demonstrated.

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/North-Approach-Impact-Analysis.html

        Even the official story has the aircraft flyiing well above its limitations by a “terrorist” who couldn’t handle a Cessna!

        You really can’t name one bona fide “SOC witness” without using that ridiculous argument?
        A recap of Snowballs’ “logic” here.

        “If the aircraft was claimed to have been seen to have crashed then the plane must have flown the official path”

        Haha.

        Help a guy out and name just one of these people? Pick any of those who claimed to witness an “impact” and where a flightpath can be ascertained.

        Oh, and the claim that “all evidence” should be taken into consideration. Exactly which uncontaminated, uncensored, hands on, independent “evidence” have we been privy to regarding the Pentagon?

        Cheers big ears.

  16. Respectfully submitted: food for thought?

    Albert Einstein:

    Correct about Relativity.
    Famously incorrect about “ether.”

    Mr. Aldo Marquis, CIT:

    Correct about NSA.
    Incorrect about Simon Shack?

    Has anyone, anywhere, ever conclusively disproven TV fakery? If not, then, it still stands, does it not?

  17. If it can help your considerations about September Clues, I will note this:

    The research of September Clues, and at the sister forum Cluesforum, is not limited to the “planes or no planes” debate. It is instead a profound reasoning about the falsification of the news; the world of make-believe that Hollywood and the media create around our lives and our perception of reality.

    9/11 was the pinnacle of a method of deception that has been going on for a long time. To understand media fakery in relation to 9/11, one does not have to look at the videos trying to separate true elements from fake elements: rather one should first consider if it would be possible to completely fake the event in question, and if the images we are seeing, together with the stories we are told, could be completely fabricated.

    Fabricated in order to keep us confined into an alternative, tightly controlled reality, *were, alas, even the alternative opposition is fabricated*.

    Opposite to what people at first think, to completely fake the event is the *safest way to go*. The way with less problems, less chances, less impediments, less margins of error.

    The only real thing about 9/11 was that two towers were demolished. All the rest is a bit of magic, and a bit of persuasion.

    • The whole September Clues debate seems like the ultimate “taboo” in the 9/11 Truth movement. Even mentioning it can elicit very angry and dismissive rebukes. While I am not endorsing or dismissing anything at the moment, I instinctively rebel when someone tells me not to talk about something. When I first signed up at 911blogger.com (for a big 10 days before I was banned) I was told that the rules prohibited mention of TV fakery. That bothered just on principle.

      There are a number of people who I like and respect who reject the idea of falsified video evidence. I know they feel very strongly that entertaining the subject could lead a loss of credibility for the movement. I’m not convinced that this is true; but in any case, I will make my own decision based on the evidence. I think a case could be made that focusing on this (at least when it comes to convincing the public) isn’t in the interests of the movement right now.

      But either way, I won’t ban discussion of this issue anymore than I’ll ban any other subject unless I feel the discussion has become destructive in some way.

      • Craig, Is it premature to suggest that an interview with Simon Shack might be an appropriate follow up to your ongoing reporting of key 9/11 evidence censored from the Toronto Hearings? Probably so, but, thought I might suggest it now while the topic is on the table.

    • “If it can help your considerations about September Clues, I will note this:

      The research of September Clues… is instead a profound reasoning about the falsification of the news; the world of make-believe that Hollywood and the media create around our lives and our perception of reality.”

      Nonhocapito, For those of us here who would like to understand the September Clues research better, can you please talk a little bit more about “the world of make-believe that Hollywood and the media create around our lives and our perception of reality”?

      Also, readers here in this forum are already very familiar with the work of a Canadian author who wrote a book about the role of the media in covering up the crimes of 9/11: Barrie Zwicker. His book (and DVD) are both called The Great Conspiracy. Can you tell us, does Zwicker’s work relate to the September Clues research in any way? If so, how?

      Thanks again for that informative post!

    • Dear Mr. NonHocapito,

      I thank you and Mr. Grav for making the effort to come here from September Clues and post. I agree with what you write, except maybe a minor tweak… 9/11 was the pinnacle to that date of a method of deception

      On SC, you wrote:

      but my impression is that there is a lot of bashing of September Clues going on over there and not much room for debate.

      There is still plenty of room for rational debate that I hope you will participate in.

      Yes, Mr. Good and Mr. Wright have become somewhat regular. Pick and choose what points you want to discuss, but don’t waste too many keystrokes on them. Otherwise they will detour, distract, and lead the discussion around in circles.

      Most of the other posters, like Mr. Syed, appear to be sincere and objective. Some stances in beliefs are difficult for people to make; they are leaps in faith too great. I do not hold out that Mr. Syed can be convinced of no planes at the WTC. However, I believe that evidence, science, and rational debate might be able to move him onto the fence in seeing the validity of the claim of some of the extent of media manipulation and complicity.

  18. Would the 9/11 perps *really* let their whole operation rest on the idea that two airplanes could strike and completely penetrate the steel columned WTC towers…

    .. that these impacts would create impressive enough exterior damage and sustained fires to provide the illusion that enough destruction was done to initiate a full collapse?

    Furthermore, would they rely completely on a demolition of the WTC towers to go off without a hitch, without causing any crucial visual discrepancies that would expose the collapse as controlled?

    Why would they leave this Rube Goldberg-style chain reaction to confidence or chance when they could fabricate the perfect plane impacts and building collapse video imagery in a studio, thereby eliminating 100% of the risk? The logic here is quite clear.

    The power of persuasion of the mass media would take care of everything else. Whatever they repeat enough times will become the accepted truth of the majority.

    We couple this reasoning with the fact that all “amateur” shots (except one that was released recently) are from individuals directly connected to media agencies.

    And then look at the piles of visual mistakes people like Simon Shack have discovered in all of the 9/11 imagery.

    In all honesty we could strike all of the above information, and just take a look at the Hezarkhani plane impact video. It is a poorly done animation, plain and simple. It is embarrassing to hold that imagery up as an authentic.

    We really need to stop arguing over physical minutia that will always be debatable and dust samples that will never hold up in court. We must also stop regarding any 9/11 imagery as authentic because too much of it has been proven to be tampered with. We need to look at the bigger picture about what the Mass Media actually is, and how their infrastructure allows these hoaxes to succeed.

    I urge everyone with questions to visit Cluesforum and see the work being done there.

    • “Why would they leave this Rube Goldberg-style chain reaction to confidence or chance when they could fabricate the perfect plane impacts and building collapse video imagery in a studio, thereby eliminating 100% of the risk? The logic here is quite clear.”

      grav, Did I hear you right? Did you just say the criminals fabricated the video images of the building collapses?” Or, did you just mean they fabricated the plane crashing into footage of actual, physical buildings collapsing. Kindly clarify, if you please.

      Thank you for that great post, also!

  19. For an airplane to penetrate the perimeter columns is predictable. The box columns at that height were built of 3/8″ and 1/4″ plate. Also note the wing tanks had fuel in them. Imagine a full beer can lobbed at your face at 500 mph.

    Even if the planes did not fully penetrate, the fuel would. Landing gear, the engines, the wingbox and the keel would. This would provide sufficient rationalization for the official collapse theory.

    The collapses were were exposed as controlled. Our problem is getting people to care–and unfortunately, credibility-killing 9/11 fantasies make it easy for people to laugh it all off.

    Even if it were true that “all” amateur video of the event was from media-connected persons, the perps had no control over who could and could not shoot video. Thus to attempt to blow up the towers without the benefit of airplane impacts would be intolerably risky–just as risky as flying anything other than a 757 into the Pentagon, or flying a 757 away from the Pentagon.

    • “Even if it were true that “all” amateur video of the event was from media-connected persons, the perps had no control over who could and could not shoot video. Thus to attempt to blow up the towers without the benefit of airplane impacts would be intolerably risky–just as risky as flying anything other than a 757 into the Pentagon, or flying a 757 away from the Pentagon.”

      Respectuflly: Brian Good is, effectively, expressing his disbelief that TV fakery could have been used deliberately on 9/11 to complete the illusion of a false flag attack. However, disbelief does not a theory disprove. That would be like someone saying, “I just can’t BELIEVE that gravity can act on an apple at a distance.” However hard to believe, the fact is it DOES. Surely, there are many aspects of the 9/11 crimes that honest and morally upright people would find hard to believe. However, again, not believing something does not make something not true.

    • Mr. Good wrote:

      For an airplane to penetrate the perimeter columns is predictable. The box columns at that height were built of 3/8″ and 1/4″ plate. Also note the wing tanks had fuel in them. Imagine a full beer can lobbed at your face at 500 mph.

      This is the issue: the airplane penetration did not match what was predicted. Prediction is that a full beer can lobbed at a steel baseball bat at 500 mph would exhibit different effects, such as deceleration and deformation of the beer can, messy beer spilling everywhere, etc. Would the beer can have sliced the steel baseball bat? In this analogy, however, the tower represents a series of baseball bats evenly spaced, while the tip-to-tip on the wings represents a bunch of beer cans. Some penetration into the towers through the window slit portion was to have been expected as the tower’s steel sliced the wings, but full wing tip-to-tip penetration and tail penetration at its speed through thin air? That defies physics predictions.

      Even if the planes did not fully penetrate, the fuel would. Landing gear, the engines, the wingbox and the keel would. This would provide sufficient rationalization for the official collapse theory.

      I agree with the first sentence. As for the second sentence, rationalization does not have to equate with truth or reality. A rationalization is a fancy way of justifying a belief based supposedly on reason. Clearly, the whole premise of airliners hitting the towers was a fundamental part of the official conspiracy theory to rationalize the sudden onset of their destruction. But as you well know, only through skewed physics can any damage attributed to airplanes be rationalized to explain the thoroughness and speed of the destruction.

      The collapses were were exposed as controlled. Our problem is getting people to care–and unfortunately, credibility-killing 9/11 fantasies make it easy for people to laugh it all off.

      Just like supposedly wild-ass fantasies can be credibility-killing (e.g., jello destroyed the towers), so can official govt rationalizations that don’t align with physics predictions and are thus lies to thinking science-educated people.

      Getting people to care about the truth or become informed is easy. The bigger issue is to get them to act on their knowledge. We are all individual ants facing against the massive machine.

      Even if it were true that “all” amateur video of the event was from media-connected persons, the perps had no control over who could and could not shoot video.

      Not completely true. The public was pushed several blocks away from the towers. Other buildings obstructed views from people on the street; close proximity to tall buildings limits views of skies and other buildings. Today, cellphones have video cameras. In 2000, how common was that? How many average Joe’s would have carried their video cameras with them to work and/or had them readily available as they ran for their lives? How close were they to the action? How consistently would they have filmed?

      Cellphone service was spotty. Interference could have been on purpose. The number of videos that caught the alleged second plane is actually pretty high, attributable to media-connected people. The errors in those videos is what castes them in a new light.

      Thus to attempt to blow up the towers without the benefit of airplane impacts would be intolerably risky–just as risky as flying anything other than a 757 into the Pentagon, or flying a 757 away from the Pentagon.

      They did blow up WTC-7 without the benefit of even an alleged direct hit by an airplane, so confident were they in being able to control the media and the message given to the public. Yes, WTC-7 is discussed regularly by the 9/11 truth movement, and broadcast news videos shows them discussing it on 9/11. After 9/11? How long was WTC-7 suppressed in any of the mainstream media? Given that the 9/11 Truth Movement had to come up with the “Building What?” campaign, one could argue about the ongoing complicit media cover-up into 9/11 with WTC-7 being exhibit A. (What about WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 and their anomalous damage?)

      No, only blowing up the towers without the benefit of the belief of airplane impacts would have been intolerably risky. Same applies to the Pentagon and Shanksville. Without the belief of an airplane, all forms of rationalizations fail because they would involve the govt. The belief of airplanes is truly the only thing that doesn’t rat out the govt and corporate media as suspects number 1.

      • The perimeter columns were tubular box columns built, at impact height, of 3/8″ and 1/4″ plate. I have never seen any engineer or physicist question the ability of the airplanes to penetrate the towers. The towers could be videotaped from Jersey and Brooklyn and surrounding tall buildings. The perps had no control over who could videotape. Blowing up WTC7 in broad daylight can not have been part of the plan. Obviously something went wrong there.

      • Dear Mr. Good,

        Again you skew. The issue isn’t penetration. The issue is the manner in which penetration was achieved: wing tip to wing tip, no deceleration of tail, no deformation of plane body, nothing shearing off plane body, nothing bouncing off the towers (like tail).

        The towers could be filmed from lots of places, true. Were they? And were they filmed at the crucial final seconds?

        The perps had no control over who could film it, but they did have control over what would be re-broadcast.

        Using me as an example, if I would have been present with my FlipVideo, it is doubtful I would have had the patience to continue filming. Smoke gets boring. I doubt I would have been lucky enough to catch the alleged plane. If there was no plane, it becomes a whole lot more certain that I would not have caught it even had I been filming. I would have looked later at my footage of the buildings exploding and concluded that I was filming from the wrong side to have caught the plane. Thus, I wouldn’t have bothered trying to get this to some network in the light of the crashing videos they put into endless rotation for public consumption.

        Blowing up WTC-7 (and all of the buildings) in broad daylight was most certainly part of the plan, because it was what they did. However, something probably did go wrong that WTC-7 did not self-implode under the canopy of dust of the towers’ destruction. They did WTC-7 anyway at 5, because, as you say, they could and as I say, they had to due to it holding the SEC records for lots of in trouble corporations & individuals who were undoubtedly hopeful of Bush acting on his promise to make such cases go away (in exchange for the investment to get Bush back into office). And they were successful in delaying most viewing and any questioning of WTC-7 for years. So powerful and intertwined was their manipulation of the messaging from complicity corporate media.

  20. Mr. McKee, David Ray Griffin has a large part in setting up something that is now functioning like a church both psychologically on people and financially. For example, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit organization but where do the profits from David Ray Griffin’s books go when sold from their store?

    http://www.ae911truth.net/store/index.php?cPath=21

    Richard Gage is on salary there. The faithful volunteer their time, buy things, and donate money and the priests live off the church. Everything quickly becomes about money and power.

    Further last year Griffin started a project called Actors and Artists for 9/11 Truth against my objections to the title only. Now that project is being used to generate a for profit film based on David Ray Griffin’s books with David Ray Griffin as a character in the story. His books are being sold off that site.

    As far as Adam Syed goes you can judge for yourself.

    http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=10481

    When challenged to direct debate by me he responded with probably the lowest example of mudslinging in the history of the Truth Movement. Also, he published my words said to him in private out of context, without my consent, and putting words into my mouth.

    I extend my list of public debate challenges to now include David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage here on your site.

    original list:
    http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=49879&postcount=4

    This church has got to go. I cannot devote the time to text debate on this but I’ll take on all comers with audio. Anybody want to fight me on this? LET’S GO!

    Paul
    http://www.911artists.com/
    http://www.911truther.com/

    P.S. “Stop, look and listen, baby. That’s my philosophy.” – Jones and Warren sung by Elvis
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GMy_i_hHb0t

      • Hello, 911NewsCentral.com. I’m glad for the opportunity to talk to you again. My view on what happened at the Pentagon on 9-11-2001 is that every human on earth needs to be looking into it urgently. I realize that’s probably not the type answer you were looking for, but it’s the truth.

    • When challenged to direct debate by me he responded with probably the lowest example of mudslinging in the history of the Truth Movement

      Jesus Christ, chill out Paul.

      That’s a bit rich coming from somebody who wanted to act as “mediator” between the disinfobots spreading absolute kack about the NOC evidence and the likes of me and Adam Syed.
      Problem is you have never felt any inhibitions about “slinging mud” yourself with the rest of the schoolyard kids at 911Oz when discussing “one side” and their actions in defending both themselves and a crucial piece of 9/11 evidence. Yet you cry “peace man” when 100% proven facts are pointed out about the underhandedness and dishonesty of those participating in what can truly be described as the lowest example of mudslinging in the history of the Truth Movement

      From what I read of Adam’s thread it was an attempt to nip what can only be described as incessant pestering in the bud.

      And for Rob Balsamo to ban you takes some doing mate. Those that have been attacking both his hard work and personal life for years aren’t even banned!

      I’m disappointed though because I had thought that you could have been an honest broker. I’ve a few hairs on my arse now and it takes a lot to pull the wool over my eyes.

      PS. Why has this blog suddenly turned into an NPT discussion??

    • 911Artists,

      I “don’t ask questions”??? What blog are you reading?
      And your posts are full of insults. Towards Craig McKee, Adam Syed, your pathetic “challenge list”. Throughout this blog.

      And how the hell does my anonymity give me an advantage? I don’t know who the hell you are!

      Grow up.

      • ———–
        onesliceshort says October 10, 2011 at 11:55 pm:
        I “don’t ask questions”??? What blog are you reading?
        ————
        Anonymously ordering someone to sift through volumes of your content on another site and give an opinion is not a valid question or something anyone in their right mind would respond to.

        ———–
        onesliceshort says October 10, 2011 at 11:55 pm:
        And your posts are full of insults. Towards Craig McKee, Adam Syed, your pathetic “challenge list”. Throughout this blog.
        ————
        What your saying is not the truth. My posts are not full of insults. Also, what I said on this blog is in one location only not throughout this blog.

        ———–
        onesliceshort says October 10, 2011 at 11:55 pm:
        I “don’t ask questions”??? What blog are you reading?
        And your posts are full of insults. Towards Craig McKee, Adam Syed, your pathetic “challenge list”. Throughout this blog.
        ————
        You put two phrases in quotes here. One phrase is a part of something I said and one phrase is something you made up. No one could have conversation, debate, or anything to do with what your presenting here.

        ———–
        onesliceshort says October 10, 2011 at 11:55 pm:
        And how the hell does my anonymity give me an advantage?
        ————
        Unbelievable. Absurd. Your wasting everybody’s time and worse.

        Mr. McKee you’re wrong not to ban this participant and to broadcast his content containing so many false statements. Citizen Investigation Team you’re wrong to not oppose what the person posting as onesliceshort is doing at every opportunity. I wonder now who David Chandler was referring to on his response to my question on 911Blogger.com:

        http://911blogger.com/news/2011-01-01/joint-statement-pentagon-david-chandler-and-jon-cole#comment-243904
        David Chandler – “ Did I communicate with CIT? NO. No way! Another element of my decision to come out on this subject is the hijacking of an email list and offensive comments made using that list by one of CIT’s proponents. (Some of you may have been on that list and know exactly what I’m talking about.) This was followed up by a chance interaction with another CIT follower which included negative comments on a public forum about several key leaders of the “scientific wing” of the Truth Movement, this time specifically naming me. I’ve had my fill of these guys in just a few short days.”

        • Your objections are noted. But as I’ve written to you privately, I am not going to ban someone because you don’t like what they have to say. These types of debates happen on forums all the time without anyone being banned. You have as much room as you need here to correct false assertions, or what you perceive to be false assertions. And, as I wrote previously, quotation marks can be used to suggest irony or sarcasm, not only for verbatim quotes. It’s time to move on to other topics.

      • Dear Mr. 911ARTISTS,

        I concur with Mr. OneSliceShort: Grow up.

        You are making a mountain out of a molehill and purposely spamming this forum with your faux battle over alleged misquotes. If you were to have deep pockets to take your case to court, you would lose because you can’t prove damages to the alleged misquotes.

        Actually, you would do well to look up the rules of grammar and how quotation marks can be used. They can also be used to set off words or phrases in order to call attention to them, whether or not they were things you actually wrote. They can mark mocking or paraphrased or interpretations of what others position was, so as to differentiate that from the writer’s views.

        Now if Mr. OneSliceShort were to misquote you on things that might matter, like “I believe jello brought down the towers;” “I admit to molesting children;” “I enjoy donkey dongs”… well, then you might have a case.

        Your contribution to this blog has amounted to dragging out old axes from other forums. You split hairs over inconsequential things, which you want to escalate into banning a great contributor to this blog, Mr. OneSliceShort. At face value, these are classic disinfo techniques. This is before someone follows those rabbit holes and discovers some of your larger agenda, like in what you are doing with “911ARTISTS” branding.

        Again, Grow up. Or you’ll be the one that Mr. McKee bans.

      • Señor El Once, you’re wrong about what you said here. I cannot devote any more time to this. I consider this effort a loss for all concerned.

        Mr. McKee , I agree it’s time to move on to other topics. Please shut down comments on this thread and thank you, sir.

    • I removed your postscript because I did not feel that an Elvis Presley song served any purpose. You may wish to explain the purpose, or you could just use words to express what you wanted the song to say.

      • Mr. Mckee, you removed text as well as video. It seems clear to me that the quote that I posted as a P.S. was an integral part the of philosophical component of my presentation. The video was multimedia support so that people could hear the words as well as read them. I did not intend to embed the video. I only posted the link to the YouTube page. Your site automatically embedded the video. It’s unethical to alter then broadcast someone’s writing without permission. Again please restore my work to it’s true state. I’m placing my full original comment beneath to remain unpublished there so that you can copy and paste it into the proper location.

        • Paul,

          I have restored your conclusion but with a link to the video instead of an embedded video. I do want to make one thing clear, however. It is not unethical for a moderator to edit a comment when it is not germane to the blog (If you can’t make your point clear without Elvis on backup…).

          The link is acceptable, but it is the prerogative of a moderator or a newspaper editor dealing with letters to the editor to make final decisions on comments that are posted. I’ve worked at several newspapers, and believe me, ALL the letters are edited, even rewritten. I do not do that here unless something doesn’t make sense. A forum doesn’t have space limitations, so the rules are much more relaxed on line. This blog is as open to all points of view as any out there (I believe), but ultimately I’m responsible for anything that appears here.

          I’m not sure if it’s the best idea to join a forum for the first time and accuse the moderator of being unethical right away. But that’s your call. Criticisms of me are not a problem – lively debate and criticism is exactly what I like to see.

  21. Brutal Metal is PRO Sept clues Research and all the 911 Wannabee Truthers that dismiss Audio and Video fakery are the ones that have NO CLUE! The Jones’s and Avery’s of the world need to get a grasp on LIFE and come Clean instead of aiding the Deception!

  22. “the lowest example of mudslinging in the history of the Truth Movement.”

    Obviously you don’t know the definition of “mudslinging” and anyone who goes to the 911oz thread I created to set things straight with you will see that I was not mudslinging, I was correcting/establishing the historical record as to why people have problems with you. When you alienate SO many people, maybe it’s not those other peoples’ fault. It’s yours.

    Yes, ladies and gentlemen, please look at the 911oz thread I created some months back:

    http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=10481

    You are nothing short of a whining two year old and you can’t accept the simple fact that the people at “Actors and Artists for 9/11 Truth” refused to change their name because you wanted them to. Learn how to change the things you can, accept the things you can’t, and the wisdom to know the difference.

  23. @A.Wright

    I don’t know if it’s dyslexia, or simply a dirty monitor, but this posting by you -

    If you can’t find one person who says they saw the plane flying over the building when, according to the ‘hadmatter’, it then flew southeast away from the building, towards the airport, did a big banking turn across the river in full view of the ATC people in the control tower, flew over central Washington, not even remotely near the departure route out of the airport, returned to the Pentagon about 2 minutes later, crossing the runway approach path at right angles, and then banked and flew away again, where Roosevelt Roberts lost sight of it, 5 seconds after he first saw it.

    is more than a little bizarre. To say you have a serious lack of reading comprehension skills is an understatement. Your gross distortion of the analysis I made about Roosevelt Roberts’ CIT interview is duly noted, though “distortion” doesn’t begin to describe what you’ve written. Your description is the exact opposite of what I said about Roosevelt’s interview with a little extra unsupported nonsense thrown in to boot. That you chose to come back and publicly humiliate yourself with this feeble attempt at misdirection is an indication of how damaging an interpretation of Roosevelt’s true location at the east loading dock is to the official story, and those supporting an impact of the plane at the pentagon.

    For the record, and nice and short for you, according to Roosevelt’s statements in the CIT interview, he was at the east loading dock when he heard an explosion at the other side of the pentagon. He ran about seven steps to the edge of the dock where he looked out over the section of south parking in front of the east loading dock to see a commercial airliner flying low and fast away from the pentagon, that was already starting to bank into a turn. The plane turned north toward the Capitol Mall, but couldn’t just fly north into that restricted airspace. It had to make a complete u-turn back around to the west, which put the plane somewhere to the northeast of the pentagon at first, then traveling back west across the Potomac somewhere to the north of the pentagon, still coming out of the hard left banking turn when he lost sight of it going around the river entrance side. Based on the plane’s position north of the pentagon, and the fact that it was “facing west” as it was coming out of the turn, he estimated it straightened out heading southwest, passing by the pentagon on a course somewhat in line with the mall entrance side of the building.

    Everything in that short description is based on statements made by Roosevelt. What you posted is absolute nonsense based on nothing more than your desire to discredit Roosevelt Roberts and confuse the issue.

    As for the rest of your post, while your arguments about all witnesses support the SOC approach since they believe the plane struck the building ( “a party trick” as I believe Mr. Bo put it) are easily debunkable, I’ll leave that to OSS if he cares to reply since you directed that at him.

    With regards to Aldo’s comment, I don’t pretend to speak for CIT. They’ve done an amazing job of recording and compiling all these witness interviews, and presenting them for the whole world to see. That does not mean they’re infallible about all their interpretations of the witnesses’ statements. Speaking for myself, I agree with most of what they’ve interpreted and concluded. This one point though, where they positioned Roosevelt Roberts at the south loading dock in their NSA video, is simply one conclusion I don’t believe is correct. Aldo’s statement seems to be an acknowledgment their original interpretation that Roosevelt was at the SLD when he saw the plane was incorrect, and that the east dock appears to be the more accurate interpretation.

    Glad I could help straighten that out for you.

    • Snowcrash Wright. Have a look at this video which shows a projectile moving 500mph (40-80mph less than the official speed) moving across a 750ft track (nearly twice the length of the Pentagon lawn). What do you think those people actually witnessed if the OCT is to be believed?

      http://static.photobucket.com/player.swf

      Don’t forget the alleged descent and pull up at that speed.

      Cheers big ears.

    • So you think the plane did a 180 crossing the flight path of departing airport traffic twice, crossing Interstate 395 twice and then flew back across highway 27–and none of the people who tell us that the plane flew into the building noticed the very same plane flying back the other way?

      • Mr. Good

        Are you really this confused, or was your intent to sow confusion?

        No need to respond to that. I’m familiar with your work. In fact, I suspect most people here understand the intent of your question.

        Maybe I was a little too subtle above with A.Wright, but just so we’re clear, I don’t appreciate it when people try to put words in my mouth, especially when it’s done as clumsily as you have.

        I know you’re familiar with the transcript of Roosevelt Roberts’ interview with CIT. Go read it again. If you have any problems with the transcription itself take it up with the author. You know where to find him. In that interview Roosevelt Roberts mentioned I-395 twice, and both times in connection with when he was describing where the plane came from.

        Roosevelt: “Coming from the 27 side 27 heading, uh…uh east towards DC, coming from that area…uh…,was the highway. If you would have come out 395 North heading towards the Pentagon you got off in the south parking. You were like right there, except 395 went right into 27.”

        At no time did Roosevelt say anything about the plane he saw flying away towards I-395, nor did I at any time suggest he did. But you knew that. Still, it didn’t stop you from posting this bogus account of my describing the plane doing some kind of do-si-do with 395 as it flew away. Roosevelt described the plane turning to the north, not the south. That would be away from the highway and the airport, not towards them. Where I believe the plane flew is not the issue. It’s where Roosevelt was when he saw the plane, and in his CIT interview he clearly states he was at the east loading dock.

        Roosevelt:” I was in south parking, and I was at the east loading dock when I ran outside and saw the low-flying aircraft above the parking lot.”

        The question is whether he meant the actual east loading dock, or the east side of the south loading dock (notwithstanding he said he ran to the center of the dock). What I pointed out was that several statements he made, referencing the capitol mall, that he was south of the plane when it flew back west, and that it appeared to go back across on the mall entrance side of the building (the north side), could have only been observed from the east dock, not the south dock, which is exactly where he said he was.

        That’s a real problem for you and your friends pushing the idea the plane he saw was AA77 coming across hwy 27 just before it hit the pentagon.

        http://i42.tinypic.com/js147b.jpg

        That’s impossible if he was really where he said he was. It kind of puts your whole theory in the trash and out by the curb. That’s why you’re here now flailing away posting this gibberish about the plane going back and forth over 395 as it flew away. Anything to create a distraction. Like I said, I’m familiar with your work.

        Be seein’ ya

  24. Brian Good should not be encouraged. Any entity who poses as being for one side of a debate and clumsily attempts to pose for the other under a different name, has an agenda. He is a wordsmith and a troll.

    Those aren’t insults. They are facts. Enough with this idiot infesting blogs and forums. Why is he tolerated?

    @hadmatter

    “I don’t know if it’s dyslexia, or simply a dirty monitor, but this posting by you -”

    Haha. Love it.

    I had also run through the possibility that he may have been referring to the “East side of the Souh loading dock” but there are two problems with that.

    1) It doesn’t really make sense for him to say it like that. He would more likely have said “the eastern side of south loading” to even have an air of legitimacy. Even then, he specifically says “East Loading Dock”

    2) One half of the South Loading Dock (the half closer to the west side of the building) was actually closed up for the renovation work. There was a temporary wall constructed right down the middle of SLD that ran all the way through Wedge 1 to prevent dust, noise and contamination to the rest of the building (I can hunt out the PenRen quote on that if you want)

    SLD was like a building site in the weeks leading up to 9/11 and I truly don’t believe that deliveries were being made there. There was a massive, new site to the North of the building that can be seen in the link you posted. The Remote Delivery Facility that all deliveries had to go through to be screened for security.

    http://i42.tinypic.com/js147b.jpg

    The East Loading Dock was being used specifically for the PenRen supplies (and is actually bricked up now that the project is finished.

    There is one possibility of sorting this out once and for all. Roberts claimed to run back inside and “clear offices” out. There is one road through South Loading to AE Drive (which is for deliveries and moving heavy loads) which has no offices. One half of SLD was boarded up, so the only offices that he could be talking about would have to be on the side of the loading dock that was allegedly open. If detailed floor plans of the Pentagon can be found, we’ll know the answer one way or the other.

    • @hadmatter

      http://wayback.archive.org/web/jsp/Interstitial.jsp?seconds=5&date=1199870266000&url=http%3A%2F%2Frenovation.pentagon.mil%2Fprojects-st.htm&target=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20080109091746%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Frenovation.pentagon.mil%2Fprojects-st.htm

      “A five-phased construction plan was conceived for the South Terrace. Phases 1-3 included the Corridor 2 bridge and lobby entrance, new dockmaster offices, and the renovation of the eastern half of the existing South Terrace loading dock. Phases 4 and 5 included the bridge at the Corridor 3 building entrance and the bus stop wall connecting the two bridges, which also provides a visual and security barrier to the loading dock operation.

      Due to the construction of the new Remote Delivery Facility, only the eastern half of the existing South Loading Dock was renovated. The western half was converted into occupiable tenant space.

      Now complete, the Corridor 3 Bridge will not open for use until the completion of WEDGE 1 in Fall 2001.”

      http://wayback.archive.org/web/jsp/Interstitial.jsp?seconds=5&date=1199860320000&url=http%3A%2F%2Frenovation.pentagon.mil%2Fprojects-W1.htm&target=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20080109063200%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Frenovation.pentagon.mil%2Fprojects-W1.htm

      “In order to begin demolition and abatement work, it was necessary to isolate Wedge 1 from the rest of the building. To accomplish this task, mechanical, electrical, plumbing and communications systems had to be disconnected in Wedge 1 while ensuring that the rest of the building remained operational. Two sound attenuating barrier walls were constructed to separate Wedge 1 from the two adjacent wedges (2 & 5). The barrier walls were mostly built in occupied spaces at night. The work was completed by the end of 1998.”

      http://i41.tinypic.com/o9lv1z.jpg

      Layout of Pentagon first floor:

      http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b465/KP50_2010/Pentagon/Page18.jpg

      http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b465/KP50_2010/Pentagon/page92.jpg

      See what I mean?

    • Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,

      You wrote:

      Brian Good should not be encouraged. Any entity who poses as being for one side of a debate and clumsily attempts to pose for the other under a different name, has an agenda. He is a wordsmith and a troll.

      As a former (and possibly future) wordsmith myself and speaking for Mr. McKee on this matter as well, I can say that wordsmithing is honorable. It is a habit that should be encouraged by all. “Think twice before posting once… edit, edit, edit.”

      I can certainly see where you are coming from when you say that Mr. Good should not be encouraged (to post). This is more true for other agents and Q-bots than it is with Mr. Good.

      Alas, without some (contrived) conflict, everything from novels to movies to Dear Abby to this blog would be extremely boring.

      Here’s how you can appreciate Mr. Good for all of his God-given virtues as our resident… shall we say… dissenter. In his respectful and wordsmithy way, he does indeed pick at weaknesses.

      If you’ve ever played the ancient oriental board game of “Go”, an effective strategy is to attack your opponent from your weakness. Why? If you attack from your strong area, you only make a strong area stronger and the weak area remains weak or weaker or gets surrounded and killed. On the other hand, if you attack from your weak area, the battle will make the weak area stronger, leaving you with two strong areas to connect themselves together and push out the opponent. And even when the weak area is doomed despite the battle, it can retain influence.

      When Mr. Good makes a posting, you can either respond or tenuki (not respond to him; ignore; play/respond to something else). When applicable and productive, Mr. Good’s postings can be an opportunity to express truth, which will be invaluable to the latter-day lurkers. Of course, tenukying is best when the whole theme is repetitive or an unproductive detour.

      The thing to watch out for is articulate Mr. Good’s penchant for twisting (your) words and meaning in disingenous ways.

      Mr. OneSliceShort, you seemingly accuse Mr. Good of clumsily attempts to pose … under a different name. Maybe it happened here (Winston?), maybe it didn’t. Maybe he did it elsewhere. Doesn’t matter. Mr. Good knows how Mr. McKee’s home court tilts. He has been a respectful and worthy (albeit sometimes frustrating) opponent.

      So, like in Go, learn to pick and choose your battles. Tenuki when you get a chance, because just like Mr. Good’s postings open the door for you to respond (with truth), your postings to him open the door for him to respond and potentially lead you down the garden path and twist things.

      Mr. Good doesn’t respond to me directly too much anymore. I think it is because he already knows that I cultivate my bat-shit crazy 9/11 image via my championing of video fakery (ala September Clues) and directed energy weapons (ala Dr. Judy Wood). On the one hand, he probably figures he can’t improve upon my bat-shit crazy perfection by calling other reader’s attention to it. On the other hand, he can’t go there, because it gives me the stage to respond and he doesn’t have much that can refute such bat-shit crazy topics without making weak aspects of my premise even stronger in the battle.

      By the way, I don’t relish being bat-shit crazy and alone on these two themes. I can be convinced of other conclusions given sufficient evidence and science-backed reason. Political reasons? Because it sounds too bat-shit crazy and isn’t mainstream 9/11 enough? Yeah, well, they said the same thing about Punk Rock, and I’ve lived long enough to hear it played as elevator music in my fitness club. Go figure.

      • @Señor El Once

        Mr. OneSliceShort, you seemingly accuse Mr. Good of clumsily attempts to pose … under a different name. Maybe it happened here (Winston?), maybe it didn’t. Maybe he did it elsewhere. Doesn’t matter. Mr. Good knows how Mr. McKee’s home court tilts. He has been a respectful and worthy (albeit sometimes frustrating) opponent.

        Sorry señor, I definitely don’t see it that way at all.
        One thing is to cross swords with someone who disagrees with you. Another is to give this cretin the slightest bit of credulity. Why do I say this? People posting here (or on any other forum of the “truther” persuasion), for the most part are trying to unravel what happened on 9/11. Some are genuinely outraged and frustrated that ten years on, we seem no nearer exposing the truth to the masses.

        I’m not really a “debater” and am more interested in researching. Looking under those insignificant looking rocks and pouring over mindnumbingly boring titbits of information regarding the Pentagon.
        Trawling through every single witness testimony available and making them public.
        Trawling through every image and video that I know of.
        I’ve even watched and put together the first 45+ minutes after the explosion there from up to 80 hours of editted, purposely eratic scraps of MSM footage, alleged FOIA released videocams and timestamped images (most of the time having to look at smoke formations to get an idea of the time (that was fun!)
        .I’ve measured the entire Pentagon basin from every imaginable angle, including the topographical layout and the alleged physical damage (angles, points at which the lightpoles were “cut”, etc)
        I’m in the middle of laying out the interior damage to the Pentagon and trying to put some perspective to it for genuine researchers to look at for themselves.

        In between, I’ve been recording all of the disinfo spammed against the NOC evidence and P4911T’s work regarding the FDR.

        Brian Good is like a boil that has never been lanced. He plays dirty and doesn’t give a flying fuck. It’s a game to him. Not to me. Why do I keep responding to him? Because he’s allowed to post any shit he wants whereever he wants. It’s not a question of right to fre speech or censorship. He’s a manipulative, lying, time-consuming troll, but as long as he’s allowed to post, I guess somebody has to use up their valuable time to refute his nonsense in case lurkers actually see him as “respectful and worthy”. He’s a disgrace.

        I ws actually referring to one of his many “alter egos” at 911Oz. Brian Good the “OCTist” and “Watson”, the “NOC impactite”. Have a read through this link and then look up posts by “Watson” and Brian Good.

        http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=42313&postcount=7

        What annoyed me more? He was given a free run over there and nobody objected. Nobody piped in and said “what the fuck?”. As long as he was attacking CIT, nobody cared. Fuck that and fuck him (told you I wasn’t much of a wordsmith lol)

        I hate censorship but in his case I’d gladly turf him out on his ear.

        Respect

        OSS

      • Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,

        Let me begin by thanking you for your research and service to 9/11 truth. Each time you post a link to past discussions elsewhere and I explore them, I’m amazed at the effort they represent.

        Your opinion of Mr. Good is valid and overlaps portions of my own, and maybe even to a larger degree Mr. McKee’s opinion, because he has dealt with him more. (At the time, I assisted Mr. McKee by dealing with one or two other trolls.) Since then, I’ve jumped in here or there against Mr. Good to offer a break. Right now, you are affording Mr. McKee some Mr. Good reprieve; when you dispatch him, Mr. McKee doesn’t have to, allowing Mr. McKee time to contemplate his Jonathon Kay interview and handling.

        You wrote:

        He plays dirty and doesn’t give a flying fuck. It’s a game to him. Not to me. Why do I keep responding to him? Because he’s allowed to post any shit he wants whereever he wants. It’s not a question of right to free speech or censorship. He’s a manipulative, lying, time-consuming troll, but as long as he’s allowed to post, I guess somebody has to use up their valuable time to refute his nonsense in case lurkers actually see him as “respectful and worthy”. He’s a disgrace.

        He is certainly manipulative and time-consuming. If spinning and misrepresentation are forms of lying, he is certainly that, too. He doesn’t get to play too dirty here, because he doesn’t have home court advantage.

        I would assist your more in refuting Mr. Good’s nonsense, except that (a) I need to redirect my mental efforts this semester into other academic pursuits and (b) CIT isn’t my trick pony.

        [I ride the twin trick ponies of DEW and no planes until evidence and reason shoot them out from underneath me... with my blessing, because I don't like being the sole duped useful idiot believing radical thoughts and straddling these ponies like a circus clown. I have personally purchased the ammunition (in the form of Dr. Wood's book) for people like David Chandler to send at least one of my ponies up to heaven. As the link shows, they can't get their guns cocked, so still I ride the prancing ponies back-and-forth. Go figure.]

      • Sorry for the rant. Having reread that post, I appeared to paint myself as an “uberresearcher”.when I meant to qualify it by pointing out that Brian Good is at the other end of the spectrum (and to go some way to explain my bluntness when discussing him)

        In one “debate” , I pointed out the lack of damage to the Pentagon facade by the aircraft extremities. Believe it or not, he said that he could “explain” that if somebody
        linked him to the 757 specs of the stabilizers! “Bring them to me..”

        I feel like this when I discuss anything Pentago related with Good:

        This post at P4911T sumed it up for me:

        It’s a pretty simple formula – if someone actually believes in what they are saying – they want to discuss it, want to draw attention to it, want to debate everyone they can on it.

        If someone is being dishonest and knows they are wrong, they will attack it, but will never, ever debate it, draw attention to the facts, or acknowledge any counter points to their arguments let alone respond to them.

        9/11 Truth – wants to debate and respond to all counterpoints against the research in detail
        Debunkers – want to attack from sidelines and refuse formal debate, ignore counterpoints and fail to respond to them

        People aware of CIT’s evidence – want to debate and respond to all counterpoint against the research in detail
        CIT detractors/smear campaign – want to attack from sidelines and refuse formal debate, ignore counterpoints and fail to respond to them

        If they actually believed the lies they spam they would be happy to see them tested in debate.

        Instead all they can do is attack viciously and censor all responses.

        Thankfully most people are smart enough to see through it but it’s surprising how many gullible people get sucked into it.

        StefanS

        Peace

        OSS

    • So I guess hadmatter declines to answer a simple question. I’m not pushing anything. I just want to clarify what the claims are of those who are pushing something.

      So if Roosevelt is on the E loading dock, how does he see the plane flying back over 27? Did it ever occur to you that maybe he’s trying to confuse you?

      • @Brian Good

        How many times does this have to be repeated?
        He never claims to have physically seen the aircraft fly back over Route 27. He uses phrases like “it appeared that” and “it looked like” after having claimed that the aircraft flew over the “Mall” to the north of the Pentagon.

        By the way, you do know that Route 27 extends beyond the Mall?

        http://i42.tinypic.com/js147b.jpg

        And what are you saying now? Roberts is playing a “prank” like the other 20 NOC witnesses?
        He made the same statement about seeing a “second plane in the parking lot” to the LOC interviewer. Was he playing a “prank” on them too?

        The most unambiguous part of his testimony is this:

        “I was in south parking, and I was at the east loading dock when I ran outside and saw
        the low-flying aircraft above the parking lot.”

        Got it?

  25. As I stated at the bottom of my most recent post, I attended a talk last night by Jonathan Kay, who wrote the “book” Among the Truthers. He has agreed to an interview. Sorry the latest batch of comments couldn’t be moderated sooner.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s