Will Toronto 9/11 Hearings ignore Pentagon to avoid ‘controversy’?


By Craig McKee

While most eyes will be on New York City on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 in September, the real news could be made north of the border.

To coincide with the anniversary, the International Centre for 9/11 Studies is organizing The International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001 in Toronto, Canada. These hearings, to be held at Ryerson University Sept. 8-11, will address the evidence from 9/11 and will produce a final report that could become a very valuable document in getting the truth out to the world.

Some of the most prominent names in the 9/11 Truth movement will be participating. Notable are author David Ray Griffin (who has written more books on the subject that anyone), Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and physicist Steven Jones. Other familiar Truth movement names include Peter Dale Scott, David Chandler, Jonathan Cole, Kevin Ryan, and Niels Harrit. Check out their bios on the Hearings site here.

But there could be a problem. And that problem could arise because not everyone agrees on what constitutes the weakest link in the official government story of 9/11 – and what constitutes strong evidence.

The concern is whether an important point of view – that no commercial airliner hit the Pentagon – will be excluded from serious discussion at the Hearings. Already, a boycott of the event has been called for by the web site 911newscentral.com. The site’s operator, Jeff Jacobucci, says he fears that researchers who don’t believe the official story of what happened at the Pentagon won’t be included. He suggests that it might be necessary to organize a parallel event that would allow the Pentagon evidence to be fully debated.

Laurie Manwell, one of the Toronto Hearings’ organizers (she’s also one of the witnesses presenting evidence), says the fear that this point of view won’t be represented is groundless because the guest list for the four-day event has not yet been finalized.

While that is certainly true, there is something on the web site for the Hearings (http://torontohearings.org) that makes me nervous. That is a paragraph describing the type of evidence that will be addressed:

“Evidence presented at the Hearings will be chosen according to the following criteria: high degree of certainty; importance; and consensus. High degree of certainty means that the Hearings will concentrate not on speculation but on facts that can firmly be established. Importance means that the Hearings will concentrate on elements of the governmental explanation that are crucial to that explanation. Consensus means that evidence chosen will be that which is least controversial within the movement of dissent that is critical of the official explanation.”

I have no problem with certainty, nor do I have a problem with importance (although both are subjective). It’s the consensus part I’m worried about. Is it fair that important evidence is considered “controversial” simply because there are loud voices dismissing it? If someone gets a bunch of people together to claim the Holocaust never happened does this make the existence of the Holocaust a controversial question?

There are some very loud voices that have been attacking the research of Citizen Investigation Team, which contends that no commercial airliner hit the Pentagon. These voices – many of whom voice their opinions at 911Blogger – have ridiculed the idea that no plane hit. They have called CIT all kinds of names: divisive liars and disinfo agents among them. 911Blogger has routinely banned those who support CIT, continuing to attack them when they can’t defend themselves.

In the past few months, prominent Truthers Gage, Chandler, and Cole have denounced or withdrawn support from CIT (although they have been much more civil than most CIT critics). Among their claims is that it is too hard to establish what happened at the Pentagon so it’s much more productive to go after controlled demolition at the World Trade Center.

I think this is dead wrong. A look at the clear evidence from the Pentagon event suggests the official story could not be true. There is the small hole in the building, the lack of significant pieces of wreckage (certainly none that can be tied positively to Flight 77), and the refusal of the Pentagon to release the many videos of the event that would answer all the questions. There are also the claims of Pilots for 9/11 Truth that the alleged approach of Flight 77 defies the laws of physics and common sense.

I’m not going to make the detailed case here; I’d rather see evidence about the Pentagon – even if some consider it controversial – being presented at the Toronto Hearings. One supporter who is not among those who are confirmed is 9/11 researcher Barrie Zwicker. He is both a Torontonian and a supporter of CIT.

David Ray Griffin stands apart from others who have confirmed in the sense that he doesn’t believe the evidence supports the idea that a Boeing 757 hit the building. He agrees with CIT that the fallen light pole evidence appears to have been staged. If he’s right, the whole official story crumbles.

I believe ignoring the Pentagon squanders a critical opportunity to show the official story for the complete fraud that it is. We’ll see over the next few days whether the organizers of the Toronto Hearings agree with me.

31 comments

  1. Demand that CIT explain how broken light poles can be put on display on an embankment in the short grass for several hours in the cloverleaf as the Pentagon night shift leaves work and nobody notices. Demand that CIT confront Staff Sergeant Mark Williams, who told USAToday that he saw airplane passengers strapped in their seats in the Pentagon wreckage, demand that they call him a liar to his face. Demand that Rob Balsamo get his calculations right and stop embarrassing himself. Demand that Dwain Deets answer the question that was put to him on the Jesse Ventura show: “Where did the plane go?”

    1. Well, if CIT is given the chance to present its research at the Toronto Hearings then you might get some of the answers you’re looking for. I’ve commented many times now about why I don’t buy your point about the light poles being so obvious to passing motorists. You find it incredible that no one would notice them, but you have no problem with Lloyde England’s claim that he and a silent stranger pulled a light pole out of his windshield without even ONE witness seeing it.

      As for passengers strapped in their seats, is there any other evidence that corroborates his “account”? In the absence of even one airplane part that can be positively connected to Flight 77, I am not going to ignore the physical evidence because of one claim by one member of the military.

      Don’t know what you mean about Rob Balsamo, and I don’t know the context of the question to Dwain Deets, but I can guess. Was it that he couldn’t explain where the real Flight 77 went? He doesn’t have to explain this. No one has to. All they have to do is show that the official story is a lie. Read about Operation Northwoods to find out how willing the U.S. military would be to fake a plane crash while diverting the plane to a military base.

  2. Craig, CIT has had an opportunity for years to answer the questions. Why should they be given the stage in Toronto to once again refuse to address questions they have refused all along to address?

    It is unreasonable to expect people to notice Lloyde England at the west side of the road when the Pentagon is burning east of the road. It is unreasonable to expect people NOT to notice broken lightpoles when there’s no distraction present and the poles are set up for display right in front of their eyes as they drive up the onramp after the night shift at the Pentagon.

    CIT has to show that a flyaway is possible. They used to imply that the plane landed on DCA runway 15 until I showed that runway 15 wasn’t long enough for a 757. Also, the wind direction was such on 9/11 that landing traffic was coming in from the SE, so any landing from the W on runway 15 would have been very conspicuous.

    Where did the plane go? “It went somewhere” is simply an empty assertion and an article of faith.

    1. So, let’s get this straight. You don’t think CIT has answered all the necessary questions. How do you make the leap from this to saying that all the research they have done is of no value? If they present evidence and it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, then people can conclude that. Why should you and those who agree with you get to censor points of view in advance? Who are you to decide who should and should not get the stage?

      When it comes to the eternal England vs. light poles discussion I sometimes wonder whether you’re being entirely serious. A more than 20-foot-long light pole protruding from a taxi wouldn’t be noticed because of the explosion? And yet poles on the grass would be seen when no one has reason to think anything is out of the ordinary? That’s just not believable. If a light pole impaled a car within my line of sight I would notice it. Maybe not the first couple of seconds, but the alleged pole would have remained in the windshield for several minutes. People would have seen it.

      You think CIT has to prove how flyover was done. How about starting with ruling out the official story? You and people who agree with you don’t seem even willing to try to do that.

  3. Craig, it wastes everybody’s time for CIT to make the case that’s already been made. What little new material they’ve presented in the last couple of years, Rob Balsamo’s bumbling calculations, has been discrediting. It’s only disruptive to bring up the same old debate, which has been recapitulated quite thoroughly in this forum. On the one hand, the CIT crowd claims that they’ve proven flyover, and on the other they claim they don’t have to show that any plausible flyaway flight path exists. Given their behavior in the past, it’s likely that CIT will accuse their critics of being government agents, which is hardly the kind of controversy a respectable inquiry will want to encourage.

    Their work was valuable–to compile the testimony of a number of witnesses which casts doubt on the official flight path and suggests the need for further investigation. Unfortunately they draw unjustified and grandiose conclusions from their limited data set, and they refuse to do more work to test and validate their hypothesis–such as interviewing the people who saw the Pentagon damage and the plane parts–and their behavior has been discrediting to the movement as well as themselves.

    A plane flew over the highway at 20 feet and 3/4 of a second later there was an explosion to the east at the Pentagon. And you think people should be looking west, at some taxicab? It’s not in their line of sight. Poles in the cloverleaf at 8:00 am and 9:00 am are out of the ordinary. How many broken light poles have you seen in your life? Have you ever seen more than one in any given place? Dead dogs are a far more common sight along the side of the road. What if you saw three dead dogs in one cloverleaf? Wouldn’t that strike you as strange?

    I don’t think CIT has to prove how flyover was done. I think they have to show that it’s possible: they have to show there is a practical flyaway flight path. Their refusal to do so is damning. Like I said, they used to think the plane landed on runway 15. When you take that away, there’s no place for the plane to go.

    This is the work CIT needs to do to fill out its work:

    *Track down the flyaway witnesses to which you claim Eric Dihle referred
    *Clarify Roosevelt Roberts’s location
    *Explain how the broken light poles were faked (and your “stupid sheeple witness” theory that dozens or hundreds of people drove past broken lightpoles in the cloverleaf all morning and didn’t notice them is so dumb as to be a lie)
    *track down Deb Anlauf, who saw the whole thing from the Sheraton
    *canvas the area for bus drivers, airport workers, pilots, park employees, limo drivers, Pentagon employees, occupants of nearby highrise buildings, dog walkers, planespotters, bicyclists, freeway commuters, golfers, marina employees, marina tenants, fishermen who might have been flyover witnesses
    *canvas the Pentagon for witnesses who were near windows in the courtyard and would have seen and/or heard any flyover plane
    *interview those who cleaned up the wreckage at the Pentagon and picked up the bodies
    *establish the parameters for possible flyaway flight paths given limitations of a high-speed 757 or any plane that might be mistaken for it
    *interview air traffic controllers

    1. Mr. Good said:

      “This is the work CIT needs to do to fill out its work:

      *Track down the flyaway witnesses to which you claim Eric Dihle referred
      *Clarify Roosevelt Roberts’s location
      *Explain how the broken light poles were faked (and your “stupid sheeple witness” theory that dozens or hundreds of people drove past broken lightpoles in the cloverleaf all morning and didn’t notice them is so dumb as to be a lie)
      *track down Deb Anlauf, who saw the whole thing from the Sheraton
      *canvas the area for bus drivers, airport workers, pilots, park employees, limo drivers, Pentagon employees, occupants of nearby highrise buildings, dog walkers, planespotters, bicyclists, freeway commuters, golfers, marina employees, marina tenants, fishermen who might have been flyover witnesses
      *canvas the Pentagon for witnesses who were near windows in the courtyard and would have seen and/or heard any flyover plane
      *interview those who cleaned up the wreckage at the Pentagon and picked up the bodies
      *establish the parameters for possible flyaway flight paths given limitations of a high-speed 757 or any plane that might be mistaken for it
      *interview air traffic controllers”

      IMO, Mr. Good is partly right, and partly wrong. Yes, some of these may be good questions to ask the new 9/11 Commission to investigate when that time comes lol. But, no, it is NOT the responsibility of the CIT to do this additional work. The CIT are to be commended, IMO, for the work they have already done, which disproves the government’s official account. Many details of the crime will only come to light in the course of a FULL INVESTIGATION with subpoena power. Wouldn’t you gentlemen agree? And, I say, as well as others do say, “Let the CIT present their evidence at the Toronto Hearings.” And, let the Pilots for 9/11 Truth present their evidence as well.

      I personally would be willing to endorse and support the Toronto Hearings when I first receive word that the Pilots and CIT have been invited to the event. I look forward to that day with hopeful optimism.

    2. Why should you or anyone have the right to determine that CIT’s research isn’t worthy of time before these hearings even start? What harm can come from CIT presenting their findings regardless of whether they’re already known? Richard Gage’s case has already been made hundreds of times but that won’t keep anyone from allowing him to speak. And it shouldn’t.

      As for Balsamo, please provide details about “bumbling” calculations because without proof to back up what you’re saying, it sounds like character assassination. This is, of course, the specialty of CIT “critics.”

      I don’t care whether flyover has been proven or not. What has been proven to me is that the official story is IMPOSSIBLE. And this includes any 757 hitting that building. To me, this is the important thing. If CIT were able to present their findings, everyone could evaluate them, just as they will get the chance to look at what Gage, Chandler, and Cole have to say. It’s only fair.

      You won’t even consider that they might be right about the north of Citgo flight path, so why would I think you’d be open to anything they’d say about where the plane went?

      1. Craig, you have a habit of ascribing to me opinions that I don’t hold. I do not think CIT has to prove how flyover was done, I do consider that they might be right about the NoC flight path,
        I am open to considering whatever they might say about the flyaway path, and I don’t think I have the right to determine that CIT’s research isn’t worthy of time before these hearings even start?

        I do think that CIT’s claims that they’ve proven flyover are premature and irresponsible, that they need to provide a plausible explanation for the cloverleaf light poles, and that the organizers of the Toronto hearings have the right to determine who gets stage time or not.

        I also think that my opinion that (unless they have new information to offer) CIT is not ready for the Toronto hearings, an opinion based on at least 100 hours of investigation of their information and interaction with them, is an authoritative one to which I have a right.

        The harm that can come from CIT presenting their findings is that, based on their past behavior they will claim proof of things they have not proved, they will misrepresent some of their evidence, they will present deceptive arguments, they will refuse to answer questions, and they will attack those who question them, claiming they are government agents. The flyover hypothesis will be quite attractive to reporters who want to paint the hearings as a tinfoil kook-fest, and will thus damage the credibility of the entire enterprise and everyone associated with it.

        Balsamo’s bungled calculations were in the paper where he claimed that the official flight path was impossible because a ten-G pull-up was required to level off just before the light poles. He arrived at this by forcing the plane to fly over the DoT radio tower instead of alongside it and then instead of executing a gradual arc of leveling off, he imposed all the angle at one point.
        He also presented a dishonest diagram that exaggerated the vertical scale and distorted the horizontal scale, and it appears that he exaggerated the height of trees along the Columbia Pike that he claims were in the way. There is no need to assassinate Mr. Balsamo as he does that himself quite siccessfuly. You can see that in his performance in a debate with me at Op-Ed News in August of 2009. http://www.opednews.com/articles/INDEPENDENT-INVESTIGATION-by-Craig-Ranke-090825-917.html He also fled from 911oz, refusing to answer my 23 questions. Are you aware of the website of Pilots for Truth co-founder John Lear, which hosts papers claiming that the Germans have maintained manned lunar bases since 1943?

        I disagree that the official Pentagon story has been proven impossible. I don’t think it’s that difficult to fly a plane in on a radio beacon. What makes you think it’s impossible? Many people think the wreckage had to go through 6 masonry walls to make the C-ring hole, but that’s not true; the first floor space was continuous, with only two walls. Everybody has a chance to evaluate CIT as it is. Why don’t they make a new DVD that tones down their claims and apologizes to the people they have wronged? My guess is that it’s because they made $30,000 worth of the National Security Alert DVD and they don’t want to scrap them.

        Bushbots are very fond of the argument “You conspiracy theorists wouldn’t believe the evidence no matter how good it was, so there’s no point in doing new investigations.” You raise the same argument in claiming that I would not consider CIT’s information on flyaway paths. My point is that their refusal to discuss them suggests that, like NIST, they have examined the issues and they don’t like what they see.

        1. Okay, fair enough. You haven’t claimed that CIT has to prove flyover. But you did say it would be a waste of time for them to appear before the hearings (“Craig, it wastes everybody’s time for CIT to make the case that’s already been made.”)

          I don’t like this idea of prejudging evidence. If CIT were to present their case, then intelligent people would draw their own conclusions. They might draw the same ones you have. But at least they would have the chance to hear those opinions in the same forum where Gage and others will speak. The evidence will stand up or it won’t.

          We can’t worry so much about how reporters will react. We’ve had several years where the main focus has been on the demolition of the towers and we’re still struggling to be heard in the media. I believe we need to attack ALL aspects of the official story. I agree that we should put the focus on where the official story is wrong rather than on theories that can be easily picked apart. But I think CIT has presented some very valuable evidence. If some others want to unearth more, that’s fine.

          All your fears about what CIT would do at the hearings don’t concern me. And if journalists are determined to mock the event, they’ll do it anyway. And your concern that CIT doesn’t answer questions also doesn’t concern me. They’ve offered research. If people think it’s incomplete, they can pick up the ball themselves.

      2. Dear Mr. Good, you wrote with emphasis added:

        The harm that can come from CIT presenting their findings is that, based on their past behavior they will claim proof of things they have not proved, they will misrepresent some of their evidence, they will present deceptive arguments, they will refuse to answer questions, and they will attack those who question them, claiming they are government agents. The flyover hypothesis will be quite attractive to reporters who want to paint the hearings as a tinfoil kook-fest, and will thus damage the credibility of the entire enterprise and everyone associated with it.

        Well, gee. By your reasoning, all of the mainstream 9/11 theories also will do great harm.

        – As an example, super-dooper nano-thermite has been proven neither to pulverize content nor to burn for months under the rubble (at least in amounts that weren’t overkill excessive and unreasonable to have been applied.)
        – Deceptive arguments have been made against milli-nukes, stemming from assumptions in the analysis of the radiation levels, not to mention how, when, and by whom such measurements were made. No talk of cold fusion being involved at all.
        – Few theories venture into answering questions about the anomalous vehicle flipping and destruction. Govt agents are indeed all around the 9/11 truth movement (eh, Mr. Good? LOL!) because they have to be even if the long-shot probability of govt LIHOP (or less as in the OGCT) is what God reveals to us as the truth in the afterlife. Why? Because control of the media and the message is a military strategy. They have to be involved & meddling to steer it, to control it, and to make use of it to their ends ongoing and today.
        – Make 9/11 into a “tin-foil kook-fest” and they have a leg up into discrediting questions about Japan, anomalous weather & earthquake pattern throughout the world, and wars wars wars.

        Are you aware of the website of Pilots for Truth co-founder John Lear, which hosts papers claiming that the Germans have maintained manned lunar bases since 1943?

        In the words of the Dr. Suess’s Cat in the Hat, “And that is not all I can do, no, that is not all.”

        Not just Germans. Aliens. Not just one species of aliens, but several. In fact, one species of aliens is reportedly more native to earth than humans are. Humans of today? Version 2 of a DNA genetically created slave race, purposely dumbed down, because version 1 was too smart.

        Now if this isn’t a far out “tin-foil kook-fest”, then I don’t know what is… making me the ultimate duped useful idiot.

        Rational people, however, should give this some serious consideration.

        Where did the pyramids come from? I’ve studied math and physics, and let me tell you, Newton’s calculus is one very trippy concept. It works in many different areas (not just falling objects but rate of change of voltage/current in capacitors/coils in electronics.) How in the hell did Newton discover it? Laplace Transforms and Fourier Transforms: all very helpful and useful once they are taught to you, but who taught the teachers?

        More importantly, why would humans have put up with such irrational policies like atomic bomb proliferation, landmines, chemical & biological weapons of mass destruction, torture, war, etc.? Or even environmental destruction, throw-away mentality, wasting non-renewable resources? Left to our own devices, we wouldn’t have put up with it; we would have moved on to more productive and sustainable ventures. But if our governments and the ruling classes/elite of our society were co-opted by another force with another agenda, it makes more sense; the history of the human world makes more sense. We, humans, have been played for a long, long time. Our history isn’t what we’ve been told.

        It behooves us to step back and see a bigger picture. How far does our manipulation go and to what end?

        This really isn’t the right forum for this, Mr. Good. I’ve been trying to get you to respond to my messages sent to your hotmail account on a completely different topic. I’m no expert in the alien field, but would be happy to discuss further off-list what I’ve gathered (but still on the fence regarding believing.)

  4. CIT’s premature claims that they’d proven their hypothesis coupled with their demonstrated unwillingness to test their hypothesis by seeking further information suggests that something other than truth is their goal. No subpoena power is necessary to go out looking for flyover witnesses. No subpoena power is necessary for the aviation experts at PfT to establish the limiting parameters of possible flyaway paths for a 757 or other aircraft that might be mistaken for a 757. Can we agree that a 180-degree turn followed by flyaway to the SW as described by Roosevelt Roberts is impossible? Can we agree that flying over the DCA runways and flying away to the SE against the incoming airliner traffic is out of the question? Can we agree that buzzing the Capitol and the White House in the prohibited zone is out of the question? See, we’ve limited the universe of possibilities pretty severely without breaking a sweat or subpoenaing anybody.

    Where did the plane go? is not an abstract question. By establishing the limits you can define the areas where you might most likely locate witnesses.

  5. It’s not necessary to know the answer to a single one of Brian Good’s questions to accept that the witnesses saw the plane north of the Citgo which proves inside job. Just like it’s not necessary to know exactly what brought down the towers to prove CD, it’s not necessary to know exactly how the plane flew away or what type of explosives were used in the Pentagon etc to prove the plane was north of the Citgo and therefore was not the cause of the damage. Sometimes all it takes is for one small detail to be proved for the entire house of cards to come tumbling and that is exactly the case with regard to the north of Citgo evidence.

    1. Mr. Burner wrote: “It’s not necessary to know the answer to a single one of Brian Good’s questions to accept that the witnesses saw the plane north of the Citgo which proves inside job.”

      That “the witnesses saw the plane north of the Citgo” is only an opinion. The objective statement of fact would be “the witnesses said they saw the plane north of the Citgo”. One of the big problems in the truth movement is that most of us overvalue our own opinions, and undervalue the public’s opinions. Few of us are actually interested in being effective in changing public opinion. Another problem is that many of us come to the facts with a great deal of confirmation bias. If you already believe that 9/11 was an inside job, you are far more likely to believe that the NoC witnesses confirm your beliefs than are reasonable members of the public who don’t yet believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

      When physical evidence conflicts with eyewitness testimony, generally responsible people go with the physical evidence–unless it can reliably be shown to have been faked. This makes it essential for CIT to provide a plausible explanation for how the lightpoles were faked.

      For public presentation of their ideas, CIT needs to be able to answer questions. If a newspaper reporter asked them “Well, where did the plane go?” (and it’s a reasonable question) they need to be able to respond. If they are called before a congressional committee to present their information, they will have to answer questions reasonably, maturely and rationally. As pointed out to Mr. Balsamo in our discussion at Op Ed News, he will not be able to respond on C-Span with “Fuck you, Senator. I am a pilot! You don’t know the first thing about flying and you should just STFU with your picky questions!”

      When normal people make claims they are prepared to defend them in a mature manner. Until CIT is able to do so, they will impress the general public not as serious researchers but as wild-eyed and zealous conspiracy kooks.

  6. Where did the plane go? That’s a great question, because it sure didn’t go into the buiding lol.

    If this is helpful to this discussion, perhaps when the Pilots and CIT both present their evidence at the Toronto Hearings in September, the combination of their separate researches, when heard together, will mesh into one cohesive whole? And, suddenly, questions that we ask now will be answered, and perhaps even seem obvious?

    The CIT’s evidence does not exist in a vacuum; neither does the Pilots’, or Richard Gage’s, or anyone else’s. The evidence is meant to be combined together.

    May I post a link to an image here? Kind of like this cartoon, which shows men examining an elephant from different points-of-view. Link: http://www.journeyifc.com/modx/assets/images/5GodTheElephant.gif

    Perhaps the CIT are trying to tell us about a part of the elephant that no one else has considered yet. We really should let the Pilots and CIT present their case at the upcoming Toronto hearings, IMO.

    1. That cartoon is priceless. And it sums up how most people look at politics and the world around them. Good find. The more evidence the better. If something is bogus, it won’t stand the test of time or scrutiny.

  7. Mr. Burner has perhaps not considered the possibility that the NoC witnesses are lying. One of CIT’s key witnesses, Sergeant Lagasse, wrote in 2003: “The fact that you are insinuating that this was staged and a fraud is unbelievable. You ask were the debris is…well it was in the building..I saw it everywhere. I swear to god you people piss me off to no end…. I live with what I saw everyday of my life, It has taken a long time to deal with the images, screams and anger I felt that day, to be honest your website angered me to the point I wanted to just curse and rant and rave.”

    If the witnesses are telling the truth, the NoC flightpath suggests inside job. That makes CIT’s failure to track down Deb Anlauf (who saw the whole thing from the Sheraton) all the more troubling.

    1. Yes, as you know Lagasse wrote that three years before being interviewed on location with CIT. Everyone knows that he STILL believed the plane hit even in 2006 as intended by this deceptive false flag operation. The north side approach and an impact are mutually exclusive, regardless of whether or not Lagasse, who was clearly traumatized by this event as anyone would be, wants to face that reality. Rational, honest people who watch his interview and the interview with the other north side witnesses can easily see which claim he is correct about (impact or north side appraoch). It is virtually impossible for him to be incorrect about the north side approach given his incredible vantage point, and he admitted to CIT that he flinched after seeing the plane on the north side and jumped into his car, and also that he didn’t see exactly what the plane did as it reached the building due to the large fireball (if he was actually even looking as opposed to still flinching/ducking).

      The north side approach proves an inside job, so it sure is interesting that for years you have spent countless hours trolling everywhere that CIT is discussed writing dishonest propaganda to try to cast doubt on it and to defame CIT and Craig.

      You supposedly think Lagasse might be “lying” about the north side huh. Even though he sticks by it AFTER being made aware of the implications (inside job). I guess Robert Turcios, Chadwick Brooks, George Aman, Darrell Stafford, Donald Carter, Sean Boger, Ed Paik, Terry Morin, William Middleton, Levi Stephens, etc are all “lying” too. A big conspiracy between maintenance workers, cops, a retired aviator, an auto mechanic, etc. They sure are good actors at pretending that they don’t understand that the north side contradicts the official story and proves 9/11 was an inside job. Watching the interviewed you’d think they were all just a bunch of normal people who genuinely saw the plane on the north side. Or are they all just mistaken in the same way even though many of them had vantage points that make such a mistake virtually impossible, and some are even on record weeks after 9/11 describing the same flight path?

      That was a rhetorical question. I know you know the plane was on the north side.

      Brian Good fails to accept CIT debate challenge, but vows to continue attacks
      http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1094

  8. CIT has not demonstrated that the north path and impact are mutually exclusive. In fact the reported width of the impact hole much better fits an impact straight on than it does an impact at 45 degrees as the official flight path calls for.

    It is possible for witnesses to be confused about the proximity of a large, fast-moving, and noisy object like an airliner and think it’s closer than it is. It was probably in his view for less than a second.

    I didn’t say he was “lying” and for you to make out like that was a quote is not OK. It’s possible that he’s simply wrong, and the physical evidence of the light poles suggests that’s so. But all of the witnesses are IMHO highly motivated to lie to a couple of gullible conspiracy kooks from California whose conspiracy theory is extremely offensive to military people. CIT’s inability to get any cooperation in their research from local DC residents suggests their claims are not getting much respect in the region. Anybody who ever drove past the Pentagon in rush hour knows that a flyaway is impossible.

    I’ll never forget that when I met Mr. Ranke in the summer of 2009 and he told me his stuff, after I’d listened for half an hour or so I said OK, I’d look into it, and I mentioned that I had driven my car past the Pentagon. “You drove past the Pentagon?” His face fell. I noticed that.

    There’s no need to debate CIT. Until they fix the holes in their story and start answering questions, there’s nothing to debate. You’d think they could make an updated DVD that fixes the worst of their errors. The fact that they don’t suggests to me that a large stock of unsold DVDs makes them unwilling to admit their mistakes.

    I was at the Santa Cruz conference and expected that Ranke would be there–after all, his big fans DRG, PDS, Richard Gage, and Barrie Zwicker were all there. Ranke didn’t show. In 2010 I challenged him to come to the conspiracy con in Santa Clara for a frank exchange of views. He didn’t show. I hung around the conspiracy con again this year. No Ranke.

    1. Brian Good said: “Mr. Burner has perhaps not considered the possibility that the NoC witnesses are lying. One of CIT’s key witnesses, Sergeant Lagasse, wrote in 2003…”

      Me: “You supposedly think Lagasse might be “lying” about the north side huh.”

      Brian Good: “I didn’t say he was “lying” and for you to make out like that was a quote is not OK”

      I didn’t say that you said he was lying, Brian. I said that you think that he “might be ‘lying'”. “Might”. It is obvious that this is what you were saying when you referred to “the possibility” that Lagasse and the other north side witnesses “are lying” and speculated that “perhaps” FalseFlagBurner had “not considered” that “possibility”. I contend that this is not a reasonable consideration given the evidence. Lagasse has been proven as truthful and correct about the north side approach by all of the other witnesses on record who could see the Citgo station, including ones who were in comparably excellent locations to judge where the plane flew in relation to it.

      Your spin about how Craig Ranke wasn’t at some conferences in California, as though that proves anything, is pathetic. He is the one who has uncovered and published damning evidence proving that 9/11 was an inside job. You are the one who has published no research on the topic yet is persistently trolling him with disinformation and trying to whitewash that evidence. Clearly that was your goal since the beginning given that you have been doing this since shortly after you met him, and you were just trying to learn about the evidence on the fly as you went. He has no obligation to drop everything and spend his time and money driving all around California to attend random conferences hours away just because someone trolling him online “challenges” him to, especially AFTER he has already engaged with you extensively AND offered to debate you and you fail to accept. In fact no sane person would do that.

      Furthermore, let’s see here…

      Craig Ranke published the following two threads on the CIT forum in March of 2010 documenting your ridiculous smear campaign against him and failure to take him up on a debate challenge even though you constantly made posts all over the internet falsely claiming that HE was “running” from debate with YOU!

      Original discussion w/alleged truther Brian Good, via email in June 2009
      by Craig Ranke
      z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1092

      Brian Good fails to accept CIT debate challenge, but vows to continue attacks
      by Craig Ranke
      z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1094

      (removed the “http” so that this comment doesn’t get queued for having too many links… not sure how Craig M’s blog works)

      I just did some Google searching and and this appears to be the Santa Cruz conference you are referencing:
      http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20100513120622776

      It took place on May 10, 2010, two months AFTER Craig Ranke published that stuff.

      On CIT’s site it lists their P.O. box as being in San Juan Capistrano, CA. According to Google Maps that is 400 miles and 7 hours from Santa Cruz! What does him not being at this random event that his nowhere near him and where he is not featured as a speaker prove? Nothing!

      You say you “challenged” him to come to “the conspiracy con in Santa Clara”. This is the only one out of the three random conferences you name that you even indicate that you “challenged” him to attend, and you give no information or documentation about when or how you issued this “challenge”. and once again according to Google Maps Santa Clara is 400 miles and 7 hours away from San Juan Capistrano! Why the hell would someone in Craig Ranke’s position drive hundreds of miles away to attend some random conference just so he can talk to a person who has published no Pentagon resesarch yet has been smearing and trolling him on the internet for a year and who has already failed to accept a debate challenge?

      Brian Good fails to accept CIT debate challenge, but vows to continue attacks
      by Craig Ranke
      z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1094

      Answer: They wouldn’t.

      You say you went to this years Conspiracy Con. So what?? According to their website it was one again in Santa Clara, 400 miles from Craig Ranke. Him not attending this random conference nowhere near him proves nothing. Nice try though.

  9. My mistake about “lying”. I’m sorry I was not being clear, and I fear that trying to explain it will only make things worse. When I referred to “the possibility that the NoC witnesses are lying” as an undeniable fact necessary to an understanding of reality. As a fact, it’s equally undeniable that your mother might be lying when she says she loves you.

    What got my hackles up was the suggestion that I claimed that Sergeant Lagasse might be lying, because I did not do that. I do not claim that people are lying, or might be lying (especially 9/11 witnesses) unless I can prove it. The one statement is in the context of a fact (that anybody could be lying) and the other is in the context of an accusation or a suspicion.

    In the context of the fact, it is important to recognize that the witnesses may be highly motivated to lie, and Sergeant Lagasse’s email demonstrates that. You contend that it’s not reasonable to even acknowledge that with the facts available you can’t know if the witnesses are lying or not. Your judgment may be clouded by the fact that these witnesses confirm certain of your other highly-valued beliefs.

    I’m not suggesting that they’re lying or may be lying. I’m pointing out that your confidence that they are not lying is not justified.

    I have debated Mr. Ranke 5 times: once in a witnessed email exchange, once at Op Ed News, once at a French blog, once at 911oz, and once at the artists zetaboard. In every case Mr. Ranke got testy, refused to answer questions, and fled. The record is quite clear on that, despite Mr. Ranke’s attempt to obscure it by leaving out the final emails in the original exchange when he published it.

    The Santa Cruz “Deep Politics” conference was a major conference that attracted participants from as far away as the UK. Mr. Ranke’s absence was quite conspicuous. The conspiracy con is four miles from the San Jose airport. Mr. Ranke attended in 2009. It was quite reasonable to expect that he would attend again in 2010–after all, one of biggest fans was there, Richard Gage.
    It was not a “random conference” this year either. Richard Gage was listed as an attendee, Steven Jones and Carol Brouiller and Sofia Smallstorm and Tony Hilder and Barbara Honegger, were speakers. JIm Fetzer was there, Commander Muga, Byron Belitsos, Ken Jenkins.

    1. So why couldn’t Lloyde England, Mike Walter, or Theresa Renaud be lying? Obviously we don’t know they are for sure, but why should we consider that N of C witnesses might be motivated to lie but not these three?

  10. As a matter of logic, Lloyde England, Mike Walter, or Theresa Renaud could be lying. We should always consider that any witness could be lying. That is why I object to the irrational denial among many CIT supporters that the NoC witnesses could be lying and that they have no motivation to lie.

  11. Could I just say, on the subject of this idea of a flyover, Craig Ranke was asked in an interview ‘Where did the plane go? and he said ‘It flew over the building and up-river- there is nowhere else for it to go’.
    In a Pilots for truth presentation all about how the plane could or couldn’t fly in particular paths, Rob Balsamo shows a path for the plane that had it fly over the building , bank to the right , and line up with the airport runway, with the commentry to the effect ‘We even think the flightpath as described by Roosevelt Roberts is possible.’
    A plane flying over the building and flying up-river would not be seen by Roosevelt Roberts – it would be flying low over the building about 500 feet behind him and then banking left and flying away. He described it as flying over the lightpoles in the lane one area of south parking.
    Roosevelt Roberts also said in his interview that the plane did not fly towards the airport.
    I think all of the things I have said here are accurate so can anyone make sense of what they are saying because I can’t.

    1. From what I can tell the exact flight path of the plane flying away can not be accurately determined based off Roosevelt’s known statements. But what’s clear is that he is describing a plane flying away after the explosion. He describes it banking and turning; “if a pilot missed his (unintelligible) he’ll try to do a banking and coming around because he missed the target, he missed the landing zone.”

      Planes that are turning are constantly changing direction which is probably why the exact direction was difficult for him to explain.

      But obviously you are not denying that he is describing a plane flying away after the explosion. This is really all that matters, particularly since so many witnesses have the plane approaching the building on a flight path that is irreconcilable with the physical damage. Any flight path at all immediately after the explosion proves 9/11 was an inside job so your desire to know the exact flight path becomes irrelevant.

      Similarly; once you accept that 2.5 seconds of free fall acceleration of building 7 has been established the exact method to facilitate this (traditional explosives, nanothermite, space beams, etc) becomes irrelevant.

      We will never be able to answer all the questions surrounding the 9/11 attack, nor is that necessary once the official story has been proven false with very simple established facts like the north side approach and free fall acceleration of building 7.

      1. As I said in my original post there, the very thing that is not clear is that he is describing a plane flying away after the explosion. None of the details he gives match a plane flying away after the explosion. He couldn’t physically see the plane flying over the building. If it flew over the building and up-river he would never have seen it and that according to CIT is the only place it could go. Unless it banked right and flew in the direction of the airport he would not see it at all and he said specifically it didn’t fly towards the airport. He said specifically it was flying over the lightpoles in the lane one area of south parking- that is in a completely different place. A plane that flew north of the gas station, over by the ANC car park, over the road , over the impact point of the Pentagon, cannot then fly over the lane one area of south parking- if it can’t even fly over the lightpoles at the bridge it can’t fly over the lane one area of south parking. There isn’t one detail in his account that can be matched to a plane flying away from the Pentagon after the explosion.

      2. Then you must be talking about a different witness. While the exact details of the flight path are not clear, the fact that he saw a plane turning and flying away after the explosion certainly is 100% clear. Don’t forget the official approach/impact would not have the plane banking at all so obviously that is not what he is describing.

        Here he confirms that it was no more than 10 seconds AFTER he heard the explosion that he ran out to the center of the loading dock and saw the plane:

        MARQUIS: Um, uh- so- uh- y- how close were you to running outside ’cause this seemed to be pretty qui-eh- at least from what your account sounded like; it sounded like literally the explosion happened, and then you ran outside. I mean do you remember how many seconds it was when you heard the explosion and then saw that plane?

        ROBERTS: From the time the explosion hit, oh. . . I ran outside and saw- it’s a loading dock, and you can run right out to the. . . look out and look off.

        MARQUIS: Uh-hum.

        ROBERTS: And then uh. . . you see the flickering lights. . . uh, and saw the area, and then. . . uh, real quick I realized that it was some sort of attack, and there was going to be a counter-measure with it.

        MARQUIS: Right. So, how many seconds-

        ROBERTS: Uh. . .

        MARQUIS: -would you guess?

        ROBERTS: Maybe uh, ten seconds tops.

        MARQUIS: Ten seconds tops?

        ROBERTS: Ten seconds tops.

        MARQUIS: So you– you heard the explosion and ten seconds later you were outside and you were able to see that plane?

        ROBERTS: Correct. You could see that plane just as clear as day. Couldn’t miss it.

        He described the same thing to the Library of Congress in 2001:

        ROBERTS: I ran to the center of the dock and I looked up, and I saw another plane flying around the South Parking Lot.

        Furthermore he was clear that it came FROM the route 27 side and was headed east towards DC:

        MARQUIS: Do y– do you remember which direction it was headed?

        ROBERTS: Uh, coming from the, uh, 27 side. . .27 heading, uh. . .uh, east towards DC; coming from that area. . . uh, it was the highway. If you to come up 395, uh, north heading towards the pentagon, and you got off in south parking. . . you were like right there Cause 395 went right into 27.

        There can be no denying from honest people that he is describing seeing the plane AFTER he runs to the center of the dock AFTER the explosion both to the LoC in 2001 and CIT in 2008.

  12. A. Wright, if Ranke actually narrowed down the universe of flight paths to an upriver escape route, that’s progress, because in my experience Ranke and Balsamo refused to discuss flyaway paths at all. Do you have a link for the interview? Did anybody do calculations on how a high-speed 757 might manage such a turn?

    Landing on runway 15 at DCA is not possible. The 5200 foot runway isn’t long enough for a 757. 757s don’t use that runway and it was against the SE arrival landing pattern that morning. It would have been very conspicuous.

    Roosevelt Roberts describes a plane flying away to the SW. If you try to reconcile his timeline with the 180 degree turn necessary for that you’ll see his story is impossible and always was. CIT’s attempts to make it credible were reprehensible.

      1. @Brian Good
        That interview is with Matrix News – it’s on their website ‘news’ section. The Rob Balsamo video is I’m sure on Pilots for Truth and I’m not sure they are saying it landed at the airport but that it lined up with the runway. But any flight in the direction of the airport, besides the fact that it contradicts what Roosevelt Roberts said about it not flying towards the airport, and also every other detail he gives about it, is basically preposterous. The idea that a plane would fly over an airport or anywhere near an airport without the ATC people noticing it, is foolish. The idea that someone would plan to do it and think that no one would notice it ,just compounds the implausibility of it.

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