Quest for consensus: Toronto 9/11 hearings navigate Pentagon minefield


By Craig McKee

For Graeme MacQueen, the word is – or should be – consensus.

MacQueen, a member of the steering committee for the Toronto 9/11 Hearings (Sept. 8-11), says the event was conceived as an opportunity to reach people who are not yet convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, and to show how the evidence does not support the official story. He says the fight over whether a 757 did or did not hit the Pentagon should be put on the back burner so that the hearings can succeed in raising awareness with the public and the media.

“The movement has been tearing itself apart with respect to what hit the Pentagon,” MacQueen said in an interview. “It doesn’t make sense.”

For this reason, he says he prefers the “consensus approach” that David Ray Griffin has advocated in his most recent book, “9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed.” Griffin devotes a chapter in the book to the position that it’s not important what hit the building, but what is important is that it was not Flight 77 piloted by al-Qaeda.

Some have pointed out that the danger in taking this approach is that some of the strongest evidence (that the physical damage and lack of wreckage don’t support an airliner crash at the Pentagon) would be left aside.

MacQueen says he would favour a conference that focuses on the Pentagon alone, as long as an evidence-based approach is used.

The question of what Pentagon evidence would be presented in Toronto, and which witnesses would appear, has dominated debate about the hearings since mid-summer. It became clear fairly early on that no one from Citizen Investigation Team (which contends that a large airliner flew over the Pentagon, not into it) would be invited, nor would CIT supporter and Toronto 9/11 researcher Barrie Zwicker (He was on the advisory committee for the hearings, but this appeared to offer little opportunity to influence decisions).

Fears expressed in this blog and elsewhere that pressure from CIT opponents would result in a speaker being invited to attack the CIT position have turned out to be unfounded.

April Gallop, who was injured in the Pentagon on 9/11 and who doesn’t believe a 757 hit the building, was to appear in video form, but this idea was dropped, apparently at her request.

“April really values her own privacy,” MacQueen says. “We tried hard to respect her wishes.”

He adds that the removal of her name from the list had nothing to do with pressure from the anti-CIT group. Oddly, that group and another source close to the hearings were talking about a major change to the line-up being imminent, but nothing like that has happened. Laurie Manwell, also on the steering committee, did not respond to requests for comment that, frankly, might have helped avoid misperceptions.

The only recent changes of note involve the unexpected unavailability of Dr. Steven Jones (Kevin Ryan will do double duty as a result). Also, former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney was taken off the list, but now appears to be back on. MacQueen said that her attendance has been uncertain, but organizers remained hopeful she would attend.

Keeping all members of the 9/11 Truth movement happy with the roster of witnesses is clearly an impossible job. But even though the CIT position isn’t directly being represented, there are positives that need to be emphasized.

First, Barrie Zwicker has organized a screening of CIT’s film National Security Alert for Sunday night, Sept.  11. This does not conflict with any part of the hearings, which conclude that afternoon. The new Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth film will also be screened in Toronto on Wednesday night.

At the hearings, Barbara Honegger is slated to make a presentation on the subject of explosives inside the Pentagon on 9/11, while David Ray Griffin (who has been supportive of the idea that a 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon) will address anomalies of flights 77 and 93. He will also give a talk on the failings of the 9/11 Commission Report.

There is a full complement of witnesses who will cover the evidence of controlled demolition at the World Trade Center:

  • Richard Gage will discuss the evidence of a controlled demolition at the WTC
  • David Chandler will refute the official version of the Building 7 destruction
  • Kevin Ryan will handle the inadequacies of the NIST reports as well as the question of extreme temperatures
  • Niels Harrit will talk about incendiary/explosive residue in the WTC dust
  • Graeme MacQueen will discuss eyewitness evidence of explosions in the towers
  • Jon Cole will address the official account and the experimental method

Other important aspects of the 9/11 story that will be discussed as well. Paul Zarembka, editor of The Hidden History of 9-11 (an essential volume for anyone concerned with evidence that goes beyond just the scientific), will speak on insider trading prior to 9/11, while Jay Kolar (who contributed a chapter to HH of 9/11, will talk about what we now know about the alleged hijackers.

Peter Dale Scott will talk about 9/11 and the deep state, while former Senator Mike Gravel will discuss state deception, past and present. Laurie Manwell will give a talk on state crimes against democracy and psychological resistance to alternative accounts. Lance deHaven-Smith will talk about state crimes against democracy and Michel Chossudovsky will tackle the global consequences of 9/11.

MacQueen says his one regret is that there will be no pilots testifying. He says at least three were invited (including members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth), and all were unable to attend. While MacQueen says he won’t release names of witnesses who declined invitations, it is already public that one of those was Ted Muga of San Diegans for 9/11 Truth. Muga is a CIT supporter.

As efforts to select and get commitments from witnesses have proceeded, the organizers of the hearings have been coping with attacks from all sides, MacQueen says. He adds that it even got to the point where he and his wife were harassed at home by individuals who were unhappy with decisions that hearings’ organizers had made.

“I’m not sure I’ve seen anyone stoop this low,” MacQueen says. “It’s very disheartening.”

With just three days to go before the event gets under way, the focus is shifting to the hearings themselves rather than who is going to be invited. It’s perhaps time to step back and consider the good that can come from the examination of so many important topics related to the 9/11 false flag operation.

We can always go back to fighting next week.

97 comments

  1. This is a balanced and informative article. I look forward to attending the hearings. I do not believe either side in the Pentagon controversy has made a solid case – not even close. I think it’s best not to insert questionable “evidence” into the hearings. The SCADs evidence is very important, to inform the general public that despite its disbelief that this country would ever do such a thing, it already has, many times over, which the history books fail to mention.

    1. Thanks, Laurel. I agree the evidence presented should be solid, but I would only add that a strong case can be made that the evidence does not support the idea that a 757 crashed at the Pentagon. Even if you don’t believe a plane flew over the building as CIT contends, the lack of wreckage and anomalous interior damage (not to mention the impossibility of flying at greater than 500 mph just a few feet above the ground) is solid evidence that the Flight 77 story is false.

  2. Hi Laurel,

    “I do not believe either side in the Pentagon controversy has made a solid case – not even close”.

    Doesn’t the fact that the word “controversy” is still being used to describe the Pentagon attack after 10 years tell you something?

    You making a comment like that indicates to me you haven’t done enough research or have truly fell for the trappings of the ‘counter intel team’ assigned to us.

    How can I say something like that? Well, it’s simple. We have heavily corroborated and independent witness interviews on location where said witnesses adamantly place the plane on the north side of the gas station.

    They were there. You were not. They stood by their placement of the plane even after learning the implications. Some would even testify to it. All unwitting witnesses to an inside job, all thought they were supporting the official narrative.

    The north of the gas station flight path=flyover. PERIOD. It was seen flying away. It was seen flying away by officer Roosevelt Roberts. I know this because I have spoke with him. The north of the gas station flight path=inside job. PERIOD.

    These are facts that are unchangeable. Irreversible.

    No let’s tackle this differently. You tell me, Laurel, how much research on the Pentagon attack have you done? How much experience or knowledge do you have to make the call that “neither side in the Pentagon controversy has made a solid case – not even close”? What defines a solid case at the Pentagon according to your criteria? Can you please be specific? Because I don’t think a fragment of a sentence constituting what amounts to opinion is considered counter evidence to what we or PFT present. Do you have expertise in aviation or aeronautics that gives the professional credibility to make a bold statement that all the work that PFT has done analyzing the gov’t data and giving us actual PEER-REVIEWED analyses proving the alleged black box does not support an impact or the gov’ts story is not a “solid case”?

    I’ll tell you what is a “solid case”, Laurel. 15+ witnesses to a north of a gas station/columbia pike flight path who were all at opposing vantage points describing the same thing, literally connecting-the-dots of the flight path, all unwittingly thinking they were supporting the official story, none being pro-9/11 conspiracy mindset. Witnesses who are still walking and breathing and can be subpoenaed to testify, some who said they would do it willingly. Witnesses who implicate a cab driver named Lloyde England who was seen on the highway with shirt and tie guys (with perfectly readable license plates) and a light pole on the ground that was clearly moved into position as the north side flight path proves and the scratch on the asphalt clearly indicate. A cab driver that virtually admitted involvement to us on secret recording. A ‘solid case’ is a large roster of military and commercial pilots and aviation professionals standing behind analyses of alleged black box data that does not support an impact at the Pentagon.

    So you tell me, Laurel. What makes all of these witnesses or the gov’ts own problematic black box data not “solid”?

    1. You’re right, Aldo. People should not throw around generalizations without backing them up. Understanding what happened on 9/11 takes some leg work, and not enough people are willing to do it.

      1. Hi Craig,

        Well that is part of their gimmick. It’s all about appearances. If they can cause enough doubt and rely on people’s inability to research they can breed a level of ignorance that works in their favor. People like Laurel here can make general statements like and in his/her mind feel it’s enough to give an opinion win out backing it up.

        The anonymous A. Wright is also using the “general statement” tactic. Literally just saying things to slowly chip away at people’s confidence. Their gimmick is to act as if all people have to is just say they don’t agree with us hence there is a reason to doubt us and a reason to not be confident in the evidence.

        Anytime “A wright” wants to hash this out publicly using their real name I’ll be glad to explain where they are wrong.

  3. Graeme M. said:

    “He adds that it even got to the point where he and his wife were harassed at home by individuals who were unhappy with decisions that hearings’ organizers had made.”

    The notorious Jeff “shure” Hill is the local Toronto anti-CIT person. He’s quite famous for harassing a WTC plane crash witness on the phone at 1 a.m. while drunk and actually recorded the call.

  4. To A. Marquis,

    Your response to ‘Laurel Burik’ is in my opinion an indication not just of an inability to objectily assess the evidence , which I said in a previous post I thought you were at this stage incapable of, but an inability to even realise that other people , having seen the evidence ,could come to a different conclusion to the one you have arrived at. There seems to be a total disbelief that anyone could disagree with your conclusions, with the only explanation you can seem to come up with is that they are either just pretending to disagree with your conclusions- because they are nefarious agents who have been assigned to do so- or they have been fooled and mislead by those people. What other reason could there be? Some of these people -not me – are people who are supposedly exposing all this evidence of controlled demolition at the WTC -which I think is equally foolish- but they are apparently at the same time agents and infiltrators trying to suppress the truth. A bit of join-up thinking needed. When I see all this ‘your an agent’ –‘no your an agent’ stuff it would make me laugh if I didn’t think that people where sincere in their beliefs. I heard Barrie Zwicker come out with this same idea , that those who disagree his, and your, conclusions must be some kind of agents who have to be exposed -God help us- and this coming from Mr. Zwicker who is supposed to one of the most intelligent people of the 911 truth movement- which I think might just be the case. I hope he never has to serve on a jury where he might find other members of the jury disagreeing with his assessment of the evidence , that apparently is not allowed.

  5. “A. Wright”,

    I will ask you the same questions I asked the anonymous “Michelle de Boer”…

    Do you agree or understand that a north side flight plane proves an inside job?

    Do you accept that the witnesses, namely the officers at or next to the Citgo, stood by where they saw the plane even after learning the implications?

    Does it make sense that genuine 9/11 truthers would fight to suppress these witness accounts, especially when some including the officers, would testify to it?

    Were you near the Citgo gas station the morning of the 9/11 attack or would you say the witnesses we interviewed would have a better idea than you to tell us where the plane flew in relation to the gas station?

    Would you agree with that fact that you are essentially an ANONYMOUS online entity devoid of any real identity or background? Would you agree that the name “Michiel de Boer” is a common name where u are allegedly from? Would you agree that we don’t know anything about you other than what you post online?

    Would you agree that you reneged on your promise to a live debate with Craig?

    Would you agree that a live debate would allow the correct party to corner the incorrect party and get them to concede on certain points they have been wrong on? Would you agree that this live debate would have prevented one party from side stepping certain questions or issues?

    Would you agree that if it is accepted that the plane was truly on the north side of the gas station, that anonymous online entities, such as yourself, who have attacked us, attempted to marginalize us, and suppress or minimize the importance of this evidence are likely part of a intelligence infiltration team? Would that be an unreasonable conclusion or assumption to come to based on the fact that the witnesses were so adamant about the north path even after learning the implications?

    1. @A.Marquis

      “Do you agree or understand that a north side flight plane proves an inside job?”

      You have put out a lot of videos,presentations etc., too many to mention , and I understand perfectly what your argument is, it is not that hard to follow- that if the plane flew on the north side of the gas station then it couldn’t hit the lightpoles and all this damage would have to be faked and the plane could not cause the directional damage inside the building so it would have to have flown over the Pentagon.

      “Do you accept that the witnesses, namely the officers at or next to the Citgo, stood by where they saw the plane even after learning the implications?”

      What witnesses say and think is up to them, I can’t speak for them ,and I don’t think I’ve heard any witnesses not standing by their accounts.

      “Does it make sense that genuine 9/11 truthers would fight to suppress these witness accounts, especially when some including the officers, would testify to it?”

      Not being a truther . genuine or otherwise, I can only say that not a lot of what they say makes much sense to me so I’m probably the wrong person to ask. If people say they think the idea of a plane not crashing into the Pentagon undermines the credibility of the truth movement and it’s ‘leaders’, then I think that’s what they believe. I hardly think it would undermine their credibility not to endorse – meaning people not wanting to be associated with it would be genuine truthers. I don’t see, as I said before, how anyone can suppress these witness accounts when there are any number of ways and means of presenting them on the internet, public presentations and everywhere else. If anything, they are drawing more attention to it so people can go and look for themselves at what they are talking about, in which case it would be up to you to convince them..

      “Were you near the Citgo gas station the morning of the 9/11 attack or would you say the witnesses we interviewed would have a better idea than you to tell us where the plane flew in relation to the gas station?”

      I was not at the Citgo gas station on 9/11 which means I am in the same position as you and 99.999% of the population. The witnesses are obviously the only people who can describe their memory of what they saw, which is why I always listen to what they say. I don’t of course think what every eyewitness says is fact otherwise if one eyewitness contradicted another eyewitness my head would explode.

      “Would you agree with that fact that you are essentially an ANONYMOUS online entity devoid of any real identity or background? Would you agree that the name “Michiel de Boer” is a common name where u are allegedly from? Would you agree that we don’t know anything about you other than what you post online?”

      I know this wasn’t addressed to me but I didn’t think having a common name was a crime. I can say ‘A.Wright’ is not my real name , just picked off a book on my bookshelf , I’m just an non-american 9 to 5 office worker. This idea of anonymity – there seems to be a kind of intimidatory idea behind that– wanting to ‘expose’ people by publishing their names and photographs which is not something that a lot of people, including myself, are comfortable with, any more than giving their email address or telephone number out to everyone. Having seen what can happen to people like Jane Standley for instance being harrassed and traduced all over the internet by people, some of dubious mental status- who needs that.

      “Would you agree that you reneged on your promise to a live debate with Craig?

      For myself I have no problem debating with anyone.

      “Would you agree that a live debate would allow the correct party to corner the incorrect party and get them to concede on certain points they have been wrong on? Would you agree that this live debate would have prevented one party from side stepping certain questions or issues?”

      I’m not sure live debate is neccessarily the best way to discuss an issue, sometimes it only tells you who the best debater is. Presenting things in terms of the ‘correct party’ ‘cornering’ the ‘incorrect party’ doesn’t seem to be an appropriate mindset to approach things really- more about heat than light.

      “Would you agree that if it is accepted that the plane was truly on the north side of the gas station, that anonymous online entities, such as yourself, who have attacked us, attempted to marginalize us, and suppress or minimize the importance of this evidence are likely part of a intelligence infiltration team? Would that be an unreasonable conclusion or assumption to come to based on the fact that the witnesses were so adamant about the north path even after learning the implications?”

      No.
      Yes.

  6. Way to go, Aldo, jumping to conclusions about someone you don’t even know. IN FACT, I offered to sponsor April Gallop, P4T and/or Aidan Monaghan to give testimony at the hearings, and this was before Victronix lobbied for the other side. I have studied CIT’s work along with other 911 theories, BECAUSE I have an open mind.

    I find P4T’s work to be quite credible, especially as concerns the FDR. I lobbied my friend David Chandler months ago, when I heard he was working on a paper with Frank Legge, to get the paper peer-reviewed, if not by P4T, then by other aviation experts. As it turns out, Steven Jones submitted the paper to P4T, and I greatly respect him for doing that.

    I have driven on the same highway as the alleged flightpath, and have also driven along the road adjacent to the side of the Pentagon that was hit. In my opinion, and it is only my opinion – see, I don’t state opinion as fact, like some people do – there is no way a flyover would be missed by hundreds of people on that highway. Also my opinion is that there is no way a jet could maneuver to hit the lower 2 floors of the Pentagon, given its sunken location.

    If there was a way (in my opinion), it had to have been flown by remote control, and perhaps was a tricked out drone that could make that maneuver. But that is just speculation on my part. As is the possibility that it simultaneously fired a missile, because I do not believe (my opinion) that a 757 could make that exit hole (although, I have read that some nose cones are made with DU, which hardens them).

    It is also my opinion that eyewitness testimony, especially from people on the ground (or in cars) looking up at a plane in the sky, is unreliable. CIT’s evidence is almost 100% eyewitness testimony, and also relies on the FDR data – which, by the way, is highly suspect.

    I fully agree that the FDR data provided is completely suspect, but it could be for reasons other than the flyover theory. It could be because whatever hit the Pentagon was NOT Flight 77. Which isn’t to say it wasn’t a plane.

    This is why I fully support Aidan Monaghan’s FOIA lawsuit to obtain information on the planes. Until someone shows me serial numbers that match up with parts on that particular aircraft, and shows me an FDR that positively identifies it as coming from that aircraft, and shows me all the confiscated video, and shows me two engines postively identified as coming from that plane, I do not buy the govt. story that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

    So DO NOT label me as a no-planer, missile theory, flyover theory, official theory, CD theory or any other theory. I have friends on different sides of this issue, and I remain Switzerland until I see some definitive proof. Eyewitness testimony – on either side – without verified solid evidence in the forms I mentioned, is not proof.

    Did it ever occur to you, Aldo, that maybe those people were yanking your chain?

  7. [quote]Way to go, Aldo, jumping to conclusions about someone you don’t even know. IN FACT, I offered to sponsor April Gallop, P4T and/or Aidan Monaghan to give testimony at the hearings, and this was before Victronix lobbied for the other side. I have studied CIT’s work along with other 911 theories, BECAUSE I have an open mind.[/quote]

    Maybe that’s your problem. Your mind is too open. Open to everything and anything. That’s why it is clear you haven’t done any serious research or you wouldn’t make vague, general statements like the one you did. Statements that indicate that after all this research your only conclusion is no one has a solid case. Your mind is so open that you seem to only skim the surface of every single piece of information out there perhaps to the point that your head is spinning and your only conclusion is no one has a solid case. Maybe your mind is open because it is friends and people you think you look up to who are telling you otherwise.

    You seem to also not understand the difference between evidence/proof and theories.

    What those witnesses saw is not a theory.

    [quote]I find P4T’s work to be quite credible, especially as concerns the FDR. I lobbied my friend David Chandler months ago, when I heard he was working on a paper with Frank Legge, to get the paper peer-reviewed, if not by P4T, then by other aviation experts. As it turns out, Steven Jones submitted the paper to P4T, and I greatly respect him for doing that.[/quote]

    Ah so let me get this straight. You find Pilots for 9/11 Truth’s work to be credible. In other words, you believe that a group of commercial and military pilots working with FDR experts and aviation industry professionals have analyzed the data and the data does not support an impact at the Pentagon or as coming from an American Airlines 757 (not to mention other problems).

    While in the same breath you lobbied to get a high school physics and math teacher and a shady Australian octogenarian chemist (who had to make 8 revisions to a paper he publicly released) to get their hit piece on the very PFT information you claim to find credible peer-reviewed???

    You want a group of military and commercial pilots and FDR expert/aviation industry professionals who have already analyzed the data and produced their PEER-REVIEWED reports to peer-review a piece written by a high school physics/math teacher and a shady retired chemist that attacks not only our findings but theirs???

    Why do you need their work peer-reviewed? Because you believe there is merit to what they are saying? In reality you don’t know what to believe which is why you have to declare that no one has a “solid case”. You are trying to play both sides of the fence. Do you believe that these two have actually proved that what those witnesses saw didn’t happen? Do you believe a retired chemist and high school physics/math teach should comment on matters of aviation and flight data? Have you read PFT’s rebuttals and answers to the Stutt (another shady Australian alongside Australian John Bursill “former” army intelligence) “decode” which is now confirmed as blatant disinformation?

    Do you understand that it is disinformation? Do you understand that? In other words Legge and Stutt have both left FALSE information that they have been corrected on in their “work”. Do you know that?

    Ok, better yet, why don’t you tell me what it is you find credible about their case that you need it to be validated to you?

    [quote]I have driven on the same highway as the alleged flightpath, and have also driven along the road adjacent to the side of the Pentagon that was hit. In my opinion, and it is only my opinion – see, I don’t state opinion as fact, like some people do – there is no way a flyover would be missed by hundreds of people on that highway. Also my opinion is that there is no way a jet could maneuver to hit the lower 2 floors of the Pentagon, given its sunken location.[/quote]

    So you drove by the Pentagon. Did you drive by it on the morning of 9/11? No you didn’t. You drove by it in your post-9/11 conspiratorial, flyover critical mind set. You drove by looking for a plane flying away in your minds eye. NEWS FLASH: People weren’t looking for a plane flying away. They were driving along, some on phones, some listening to the radio learning of the events in NY or just looking straight ahead driving along. If they were scanning the skies they wouldn’t have seen this plane, because this plane crept up right behind them as most were sitting unaware in that basin. They were caught off guard. If you are on the impact side, you WOULD be fooled. If you were conditioned by the plane attacks in NY, you’d expect an impact. If you were running, ducking, covering, flinching you’d still expect an impact and deduce the details of the impact later, like Lagasse did or admit “anything is possible” when it comes to being fooled about the impact like Sgt Brooks did. As for people who saw it from 395 or the parking lot or saw the whole thing and saw it fly away… SO WHAT?!?!

    We KNOW people saw it happen. We never denied it. We never said people would have missed it. We know Roosevelt saw it. We know he is scared to talk. ANC worker Erik Dihle clearly talked to people who were yelling that “a bomb went off and the plane kept on going”…. so where are they?!?!

    People are scared. You act as if all these potential witnesses to a flyover all know each other and are going to band together march on DC or into news offices. They are individuals I am sure in many cases and were by themselves when they saw it. The ones who only saw it flying away with a huge explosion behind it would be confused and like believe it was an errant airliner from Reagan Airport, like Roosevelt likely did. I am sure some probably told news people what they saw as we have pointed out in the comments of Dave Statter’s witness and other reporters comments on the scene. But what in the world do you think they are going to report on after two planes hit the towers in an apparent terrorist attack and after others told them they believed the plane hit the building…a plane hit the Pentagon or a witness who thinks the plane flew by/over the Pentagon and huge explosion went off? Which would they likely report? Would they think the US Gov’t, certain fooled witnesses, other news agencies, their own eyes and ears witnessing the events in New York made a mistake in regards to a plane impact or the random guy who said the plane didn’t hit or who saw “a second plane” flying away made a mistake?

    What would a flyover witness do once it was announced that a plane hit the Pentagon?
    That’s if even one flyover witness could make it to a reporter in time. By the time reporters are on the lawn seeing scraps of what appear to be plane debris and the news announced that a plane hit the pentagon Keep in mind the official declaration/announcement of a plane impact at the Pentagon took place within 10 minutes of the event. A flyover witness would be reluctant to comment and probably laughed out of the room if they insisted the plane didn’t hit. The confused ones who saw it flying away would be told or simply deduced there was a second plane in the area and would likely be satisfied with this explanation.

    But to make it worse, you seem to understand the plane can’t hit on the official path due to the Pentagon being “sunken” yet doubt it was on the north path and flew away.

    You just seem confused and gullible, because you seem to believe everything. That which is true/possible and that which is not.

    [quote]If there was a way (in my opinion), it had to have been flown by remote control, and perhaps was a tricked out drone that could make that maneuver. But that is just speculation on my part. As is the possibility that it simultaneously fired a missile, because I do not believe (my opinion) that a 757 could make that exit hole (although, I have read that some nose cones are made with DU, which hardens them).[/quote]

    So you choose to go with your own opinion backed absolutely no evidence or logic whatsoever.

    So are you an expert in munitions now, Laurel? Can you show me an example, perhaps some reports with multiple pictures that show that missiles fired into buildings and through a forest of columns, leaves a perfectly round hole?

    What makes you think a missile can do that? Because you saw it in Loose Change?

    [quote]It is also my opinion that eyewitness testimony, especially from people on the ground (or in cars) looking up at a plane in the sky, is unreliable. CIT’s evidence is almost 100% eyewitness testimony, and also relies on the FDR data – which, by the way, is highly suspect.[/quote]

    Well we could rely on your layman speculation and theories. But that wouldn’t make sense.

    Let me explain something to you that your opinion cannot and never will change. Heavily corroborated testimony about a simple right-left, black-white detail about a plane on a specific side of a gas station is very reliable. It’s so reliable, it was corroborated 15+ times over by people in different and opposing vantage points. It’s so reliable, that they actually stand by it even after learning it’s serious implications.

    [quote]I fully agree that the FDR data provided is completely suspect, but it could be for reasons other than the flyover theory. It could be because whatever hit the Pentagon was NOT Flight 77. Which isn’t to say it wasn’t a plane.[/quote]

    Again, I don’t know why you use the word “theory”. What those people saw on 9/11 is not a theory. They did not see a theory fly by the north side of the gas station.

    And again, you show your lack of knowledge and logic. You just said the FDR is suspect- well part of the reason it is suspect is because A. it is proven that it did not come from an AA 757 and B. because it DOES NOT SUPPORT AN IMPACT OF THE CRAFT IT IS ALLEGED TO HAVE COME FROM. You can’t have your Conspiracy Theorist missile firing Drone that allegedly crashed show data that it didn’t crash. Do you understand? That’s your first mental hurdle.

    The other is, there is NO evidence of an SoC missile firing drone.

    [quote]This is why I fully support Aidan Monaghan’s FOIA lawsuit to obtain information on the planes. Until someone shows me serial numbers that match up with parts on that particular aircraft, and shows me an FDR that positively identifies it as coming from that aircraft, and shows me all the confiscated video, and shows me two engines postively identified as coming from that plane, I do not buy the govt. story that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.[/quote]

    So instead you’d rather wantonly speculate and litter the internet with your theories, rather than embrace witnesses who stand by their testimony and data that prove a deception and cover-up?

    The NTSB and FBI refused to comment any further on the FDR, yet you demand they do even after all these years. So long as they show you something, something that can be fabricated or forged, you will be satisfied?

    Again, you show your lack of knowledge on the event as they have released all the videos they had in relation to the alleged impact. Two sets of grainy edited gate came frames. That’s all they had!!! Or claim to have. Do the research!

    I don’t really want to spend much more time on you, because it seems pointless. You seem to want to hang onto pet theories while spinning in confusion circles embracing both argument and rebuttal leaving yourself at a bewildered personal impasse.

    [quote]So DO NOT label me as a no-planer, missile theory, flyover theory, official theory, CD theory or any other theory. I have friends on different sides of this issue, and I remain Switzerland until I see some definitive proof. Eyewitness testimony – on either side – without verified solid evidence in the forms I mentioned, is not proof.[/quote]

    Well here in the American court system, eyewitness testimony, especially heavily corroborated testimony is evidence or proof to be used in cases.

    I think you just summed it up. You have “friends on both sides”. You don’t want to upset anyone, even if they are wrong. You don’t want to learn the truth about your friends. You’d rather exchange e-mails, read a little here, read a little there, drive around the Pentagon once and then declare there is “no solid case”.

    [quote]Did it ever occur to you, Aldo, that maybe those people were yanking your chain?[/quote]

    Are you trying to insult my intelligence or are you inadvertently insulting yours?

    No it never occurred to me, because I am not a gullible fool. Nor a lying operative, like Brian Good.

    There has been back channel dialog with these witnesses, along with genuine anger and fear. How dare you say such an insipid thing?

    Did it ever occur to you to do some more research before saying such a ridiculous thing?

    Were they yanking the chain of the Center for Military History interviewer too when they gave these same details shortly after 9/11?

    I can tell, you are probably a nice Canadian lady (I assume), who is seeking truth and justice in 9/11 but in reality you are an armchair researcher and a conspiracy hobbyist who enjoys the camaraderie of high profile alleged and real truthers and you simply have fallen for their mantras and one liners and simply do not know who or what to believe. That is how cointel works. You also clearly love to make your OPINIONS known on the internet where they do more damage than good, possibly influencing people who are as naive as you.

    It’s as if because you don’t understand the homework like everyone else, you have to throw your hands in the air and declare that since you don’t get it it’s too hard and we should move on to another assignment.

    It’s doesn’t work like that and it’s the reason we won’t and don’t go away, and attention and support only grow…people are doing the homework, Laurel.

    1. Dear Mr. Marquis,

      You have good points buried in your posting. Alas, it is marred severely by several factors: its length, its formatting, and its ad hominem attacks on third parties and more importantly on Laurel. It is repetitive drivel. Four times these factors stopped me from reading it to the end. I really really had to force myself to start where I left off and finally finish it.

      EDIT, EDIT, and EDIT.

      I suggest strongly that you make a second attempt at this to fix those blatant errors, to format it as HTML (replace [Quote] with <blockquote>), to shorten it, to remove all of the personal asides and “drunk comments” ala “Did it ever occur to you to do some more research before saying such a ridiculous thing?”. You attribute way too many thoughts and motives to Laurel’s posting and person, another indication that I’m critiquing a drunk posting. And even if I am wrong on that account, it is your seething anger that comes through, drunk or not. Such postings shoot you in the foot and diminish for superficial reasons support you might get from others, like bat-shit crazy me.

      Here’s some advice in your editing. Because you slip so easily into a condescending and attacking tone, try removing all second-person “you” references. Write in third person. Remove your rhetorical questions. Make it about the facts. You don’t have to do a paragraph-by-paragraph or line-by-line rebuttal to everything Laurel wrote.

      Maybe to know Laurel from other venues and exchanges, but this isn’t the place to drag those old vendettas out and continue those flame wars here. It does little, so very little for Mr. McKee’s present and future audiences.

      When you post your newer much shortened version, you can ask Mr. McKee to remove both the old one ~AND~ my critique here.

  8. I see you’re winning over many hearts with your , as usual, Aldwin.

    Craig McKee, who harassed Graeme MacQueen? Did you forget to ask? Surely a ‘journalist’ would want to know?

    1. Gosh, Fly, Mr. MacQueen just begged me to print the names and addresses of all the people who harassed him, but I lacked the “journalistic” instincts to agree. Have you ever asked Richard Gage for the names of those who he said were harassing him to denounce CIT? Of course you didn’t; you already knew them.

      1. Craig,

        Snowcrash aka “Michiel de Boer” is an ANONYMOUS online provocateur and agent of disinformation.

        As you saw he/she/it avoided my litmus test of questions which reveals ones logic and intentions. Now he/she/it has apparently turned it’s sights on you. Stirring the pot as usual.

        You’ll notice this entity came out of nowhere attacking us on 911blogger while blending in as an alleged truther. Of course they keep up appearances here and there commenting on issues supporting the LIHOP/negligence angle. But for the most part this entity, allegedly from the Netherlands and with a perfect grasp of the English language and American phrases has been entirely focused on us and stirring the pot with other high profile truthers.

        Interestingly, here is quote from Victoria Ashley Hoffman on their obsessive “tracking” behavior…

        “These types of tracking-of-every-move-of-researchers-and-logging-of-each-one documents don’t seem like the sort of thing that average people would choose to create on their free time. Some people seem to have 24/7 to devote to tracking every move made by others. Like groupies.”
        http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=46077#46077

        In another instance here is “snowcrash” and their anonymous counterpart “cosmos” stirring the pot with Kevin Ryan causing more strife and division of course centering around the misleading red herring of foreknowledge/negligence…

        http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7309&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

        This is ALL they do. They do nothing for 9/11 truth except disrupt it, divide it and ridicule it. Now you see it crossing over here with him attacking you and stirring the pot.

        And isn’t it convenient that this entity is all the way in the netherlands making it virtually impossible to confront them or arrange for an in person debate? Much like the Australian team of Stutt, Legge, and army intel officer John Bursill. If you notice, Bursill is the only one to go out and debate Craig. Even after he admitted he lost the debate and vowed to not attack or talk about us, in a typical bizarre backwards logic of an operative he went right back to attacking us.

        You must be causing a raucous over there Craig if they’ve tasked Snowcrash to attack you. Keep up the effective work!

    2. Hi Team Snowcrass,

      “Let’s get a few things straight here. First of all, my name is Michiel de Boer and everybody knows this. Therefore, I am not anonymous.”
      http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=45769#45769

      You said that right, “Michiel”? How exactly is that proof you are who you say you are?

      Wouldn’t you agree that you are essentially an ANONYMOUS online entity devoid of any real identity or background? Would you agree that the name “Michiel de Boer” is a common name where u are allegedly from-the Netherlands? Would you agree that we don’t know anything about you other than what you post online?

      Would you agree that if it is accepted that the plane was truly on the north side of the gas station, that anonymous online entities, such as yourself, who have attacked us, attempted to marginalize us, and suppress or minimize the importance of this evidence are likely part of a intelligence infiltration team? Would that be an unreasonable conclusion or assumption to come to based on the fact that the witnesses were so adamant about the north path even after learning the implications?

      And here are the other questions you avoided answering honestly…

      Do you agree or understand that a north side flight plane proves an inside job?

      Do you accept that the witnesses, namely the officers at or next to the Citgo, stood by where they saw the plane even after learning the implications?

      Does it make sense that genuine 9/11 truthers would fight to suppress these witness accounts, especially when some including the officers, would testify to it?

      Were you near the Citgo gas station the morning of the 9/11 attack or would you say the witnesses we interviewed would have a better idea than you to tell us where the plane flew in relation to the gas station?

      Would you agree that you reneged on your promise to a live debate with Craig?

      Would you agree that a live debate would allow the correct party to corner the incorrect party and get them to concede on certain points they have been wrong on? Would you agree that this live debate would have prevented one party from side stepping certain questions or issues?

      1. Dear Mr. Marquis,

        What is with this near verbatim retread posting to SnowCrash? Come on, if you’re going to repost it, at least take the time to make it fresh! It really needs to be edited and cut down significantly. All of the “would you agree” formations have a purpose in repetition, but not when they are mal-formed and mal-framed.

        Don’t get me wrong. I am familiar with SnowCrash’s work elsewhere. It isn’t always pretty, particularly when he goes into attack mode.

        By biggest beef is that you have home court advantage in a couple of other forums. Make use of it, please, because extending your duel into Mr. McKee’s blog is really bad form and not very useful to the audience.

    1. Ok so I was informed of who Laurel Burik is. Correction: she is not Canadian as I had assumed.

      What a surprise. You make assumptions and you fail. This happens all the time. This is why “National Security Alert” is such a joke.

      1. “Snowcrash”,

        No see, I make a mistake(unrelated to our findings of course) and I admit it and make a correction. You make a “mistake” and it’s on purpose.

        “Michiel”, when are you guys going to answer the questions? Why are you avoiding them?

        Why would you attack and undermine witnesses who prove an inside job and stand by what they saw even after learning the implications if you are supposedly a member of the truth movement?

        You know why, and I think people can all see why.

        Why don’t you just come clean? You aren’t even effective anymore. People see through you. Your ruse of being a real person is up. You’ve firmly established you are an anonymous entity with a very dedicated mission to undermine witnesses who prove an inside job and stand by where they saw the plane even after being made aware of the implications while attacking us-the messengers.

  9. Aldo, do you remember the entity from “The Netherlands” (and supposedly his “sister” – turned out to be him) who spammed National Security Alert over on Youtube 24/7 a year or so ago? Spoke perfect English (“both” of them)

    Snowcrash, do you like horses?

    His “sister” handle was “Helicon” and he was called …it will come back to me.

    anyway…did I read that right? Somebody claimed that it was “hard to call” between a 5 year and still going strong entire base of corroborative witness testimony versus a fake FDR (which doesn’t even add up to “impact” and an acknowledged impossible manouevre?

    Hmmm..

    That the conclusion is that a drone cum missile was a more likely culprit?

    One of these?

    Sorry for the sarcasm but..Jesusss.

    1. Recently i have read an account of about 15 people who were whistleblowers died mysteriously just before they were about to give public evidence.about their personal experience.

    2. Yeah slice,

      It is likely the same entity. Probably an American expatriate op or maybe just an American op with a spoofed IP. Who knows and who cares really?

      Just keep hammering away those obvious points I made and “it” will go away.

      1. Aldwin, the only thing you’re “hammering away” at is your already infinitesimal credibility. All I have to do is step aside while you shoot yourself in the foot with long and evermore unhinged and paranoid, yet strangely amusing rants. Nice job convincing Laurel eh? If you ramp up the delusional paranoia any further you’ll do yourself an injury. Try not to bump into any NWO agents on your way to that minuscule flyover support group you’ve got going there.

        Any of you can start a thread at 911oz. I’ll be there just as I have been. Psychotic freaks.

    1. “Michiel”,

      My credibility is well intact. People think I am an asshole. I am ok with that. But I am an asshole who is right. I am ok with calling people out including people like Laurel who is not an op like yourself, but is a dedicated, yet confused and highly impressionable truthseeker/activist IMO.

      Meanwhile, you still have avoided the questions I asked you much like you avoided live debate revealing your true identity and flimsy disinformation laced arguments.

      The evidence is still getting tons of views and positive reviews. We get emails of support nearly everyday. Why aren’t you in Toronto? I know quite a few important 9/11 truth people are attending our event. Why aren’t you? More specifically, what the hell do you even do? What do you do in the Netherlands? What is your contribution to 9/11 truth?

      Why do you fight to suppress witnesses who prove an inside job who stand by what they saw even after being made aware of the implications?!

      Tell us, “Michiel”. Why won’t you answer this question?
      If I am wrong about you being an op, prove it. Until then you are CLEARLY an infiltrator as far as I am concerned.

  10. “Snowcrash” says:

    “Don’t run away like last time though.”

    “Debate”? With you?

    http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1547

    “Michiel de Boer via email 9/23/2009

    Craig, will do. I’m not one to refuse you your ‘fair one’ so to speak. I
    think you both are excellent researchers and you showed balls going out
    there but I certainly don’t accept flyover theory. I am quite certain,
    however, that you’re on to something. Assuming it’ll be recorded though
    (This is to be expected with you guys), I would like some time to prepare.

    I’m recovering (I hope) from some health issues related to acid reflux
    and on top of that I’m in the middle of moving. I also gotta buy a
    headset and install Skype, which, believe it or not, I’ve never used
    before.

    My comments reflect my /interpretation/ of CIT’s position. I can imagine
    you see this differently. Also, I’d forgotten about the fact that when I
    make arguments that attack CIT. You (or Aldo) aren’t there to defend
    yourself. I don’t know what exact events transpired that got you blocked
    from 911blogger, but I see that as unfortunate. Clearly, you should be
    able to defend yourself directly.”

    “You are right. I did agree; so I tell you what, I’ll refrain from CIT-related discussion at all until we talk. I started out attempting to avoid discussing CIT, but I ended up doing it anyway. […] Let’s pick a date. I say November 1. I will not postpone. If you want earlier, I withdraw. If I violate our agreement again, you can publish my e-mail(s) to demonstrate it.”

    The rest of the thread linked to is a really interesting read given all of your posturing and chest thumping..

    Your response to me at 911Oz on this issue was this:

    “I didn’t when we originally agreed to, but I got very ill. When I returned eight months later, I had no interest in debate. Craig attempted to use a promise I made to him as leverage to shut me up. It became a blackmail-type situation, with him threatening to ‘expose me’. So I broke the promise. I’m happy and proud I did so.”

    YOU were the one who made the promises and twisted it into some sort of bizarre “blackmail” theory, when in actuality your wheels fell off! You KNEW that you’d be bent over a barrel.

    Stay behind your screen “Snowcrash”. You’d rather troll over at 911Oz forums with the other organ grinder monkeys and cheerleaders a la JREF than sit face to face with Craig or Aldo. Debating at 911Oz is a waste of time given the disinfo that the moderators let slide over there.

    Grow some.

    1. You keep posting that as if it’s a secret, but it’s not, anonymous, faceless, nameless troll without balls, blabbering about guts from the anonymous safety of your alias. I’ll be happy to say it again: I’m very proud I broke that promise. Nobody at 911oz ever stopped you in any way from posting your flyover buffoonery. There is a special forum. You are making excuses. Pathetic.You’re welcome at the 911oz forum to debate me but you BAILED with your tail between your legs. Flyover is done. You have been successfully marginalized, leaving only YOU and some other desperate flyover relics intermittently doddering about, zig-zagging all over the net with rather tragic outbursts of link-spam ridden,TL;DR proof by intimidation attempts. You really are a true believer, going down with the ship. Have fun slapping each other on the back in your low traffic, support group circle-jerk forum with your fringe, near-extinct, withering no plane crapola.

      1. Dear Mr. SnowCrash,

        You wrote: “You [CIT/Flyover] have been successfully marginalized.”

        Spoken like an accomplished military objective. Marginalization, however, does not equate to being wrong.

        You wrote: “anonymous, faceless, nameless troll without balls.”

        Don’t we all resemble that?

      2. Um, our forum hasn’t accepted membership for the longest time. We occasionally add people who make a strong case. But our forum is a research forum.

        Interestingly it still has more traffic than your “infiltration station”, truefaction.org.

        Why won’t you answer the questions, “Michiel”?

      3. @el Senor Once-

        So if my Sept. 13 assessment below is correct, it would appear that ‘FlyUnder until you Snowcrash’ has “marginalized” himself/herself/itself here at the Truth and Shadows blog.

        Kind of ironic isn’t it? (And perhaps time to re-evaluate his/her/its tactics, no?)

        @OSS-

        so WTF was the deal with “emraad” at 911oz? Was that another of Snowy’s ‘sisters’ or possibly YT/Cosmos hisself (kind of what I deduced at the time)?

        http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=47697&postcount=114

  11. Ah I’m new here, and whilst some of the posts have tones of voice that are a little alarming, I will do my best to see past that. I just want to say what an amazing page you have here, and that I’ll be watching it from this point on. I would love to give opinions and such, but sadly they are just that. I don’t even live in America, and I don’t have the confidence to be able to find the research to back up what I say as I don’t have the qualifications (such as engineering or physics) to separate truth from BS.

    That being said, even a simple person like myself can tell when a government is feeding a line of rubbish to everyone. Which makes me sad in a slightly different way, however that’s a personal thing and probably off topic for here.

    Thanks again you guys, I look forwards to what you post with next.

    1. Kate,
      First of all, I don’t live in America either. I write this blog because I care deeply about the deception of 9/11 and how much damage it has done to the entire world (and continues to do). I’m also not an engineer or an architect or a physicist. But I think all of us can learn what happened by being open to the information that’s already out there. Your opinion is valuable, and the fact that you’re questioning puts you ahead of most people. People of all intelligence levels have swallowed the official story without thinking for themselves. I’m convinced that it’s not about expertise in science or about intelligence, it’s about having a mind that’s open to new ideas. Keep reading and learning about 9/11 and encourage others to do the same.

      1. I will do. I’ve been reading on and off for about four years. Thank you very much for the kind words. I’ve been slowly trying to get people interested in the fact that all isn’t what it seems. There’s a documentary that is just recorded, no politics or bias in, and generally that makes my friends curious enough to dip their toes into what one of them calls the Rabbit Hole of truth. I’ll do my best to keep up with things, thank you again for the awesome site. It relieves me to know we all don’t need to be physicists or structural engineers to look for answers.

  12. Hope I didn’t touch a nerve there Snowballs.

    FYI, I never “bailed out” over at 911Oz. I exposed your poor “research” over and over. Just like I did with your friends.

    I realized that you were a troll the moment you responded to my request for an “SOC witness” with

    “if people witnessed an impact, it must have flown SOC”

    …haha

    How do you argue with that twisted logic?
    How do you argue with the logic of Hereward of 911Oz that CIT supporters are “disinfo” based on his “gut feeling”, when the true disinformationists were exposed. And the facts summarily dismissed or ignored?:

    http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=42641&postcount=50

    http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=42642&postcount=51

    http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=42645&postcount=52

    http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=42646&postcount=53

    (I’ve still to update those posts SC ;))

    I’ve dedicated my time to research for now and won’t be entertaining you, Ronald Weick, Jeff Hill and his minions, Chris Sarns or Brian Good at a site whose policies are decided by people involved in childish spats behind the scenes.

    Do you realize just how out of touch you are with the people you SHOULD be addressing?

    Look at the likes and dislikes figures for National Security Alert:

    Get the hint?

    The “spam” you refer to is the ever growing catalogue of evidence and counterevidence that makes your stance a blatant joke.

    Read the links some time. You might learn something.

      1. Craig, in ALL of his posts did you notice that just once Snowballs actually linked to an attempted (and laughable) “debunk” in response to all of the information laid out for him?

        And he wants to “debate” at 911Oz? Nah, thanks.

        PS I saw the abusive post addressed to you that was allowed and then he still had the cheek to cry “censorship”!

      2. Hereward Fenton at 911oz initially said he was going to ban all CIT supporters because he feels we’re “intentional disruptors,” Then, a New Zealand activist who’s a good friend of his told him that if he did that, she would never speak to him again. So he didn’t, and instead, started a Pentagon sub-forum.

        However, the real reason myself and others are no longer posting there, essentially out of protest, is because on the one hand they have a sub-forum dedicated exclusively to people who support the official story, i.e. the JREFers. However, Hereward made an exception for the notorious Ron “pomeroo” Wieck, well known JREFer and rabid anti-truther. Hereward allowed Ron to post his insults and drivel at CIT supporters in the CIT threads that were outside the “official story” subforum.

        Many of us saw this as the final straw; one slap in the face too many.

        1. It appears that Mr. Snowcrash and I have finally found something we agree on. He voluntarily bowed out of T & S because I was treating him so darned badly, and I gratefully accepted his resignation. To be allowed back here, he’d have to ask nicely. Very nicely. In other words we won’t be hearing from him again.

  13. I don’t know what to make of all the insults to my intelligence and the snide innuendo suggesting I am either an agent or even a sock-puppet sister to Snowcrash, someone I frankly do not see eye to eye with AT ALL. I feel regret that I even posted anything here, a place I thought was free from censorship, a place I thought was open-minded.

    OSS, I have read your comments on P4T and thought you had some (many, actually) valuable comments there, but here, I see you make some really wacky accusations, and you COMPLETELY misconstrued what I wrote. I DID NOT “conclude” that “a drone cum missile was a more likely culprit”. So stop putting words in my mouth.

    The incessant bickering within the truth movement really pisses me off. We don’t need to have every answer, every detail of exactly how it happened. It is MUCH more important to give a broad enough overview to the general public so they can understand that we were lied to; there are a million impossibilities as it is. We have enough damning evidence. So STOP wasting time and get out there and convince the hearts and minds of the general public. Open their eyes. If you simply talk to strangers, you will find many people are already there, albeit somewhat shyly. There are plenty of people out there dying to talk to someone who won’t ridicule them.

    I truly have NOTHING more to say to any of you, except that I wish you were present for the Hearings as I have been, and could appreciate how valuable they are and will continue to be in getting closer to the truth.

    1. I have to say I sympathise with you there -in my opinion you wrote a completely innocuous and polite post stating your opinions and I have to say I cringed when I read the kind of barely concealed annimosity you got in return. The mistake you made I think was not to agree with people like A.Marquis who seems to think everyone has to agree with him and if they don’t they are either knaves of fools- reading his posts it is the only conclusion I can come to anyway. It seems to me looking from the sidelines that practically everyone in the truth movement must be an agent of some kind- everyone seems to be accusing everyone else of being one. If there is this ‘cognitive infiltration’ , it seems to me the only thing that was needed was for someone to write this article that everyone refers to, and… job done.. anyone who disputes what someone else is saying is an agent and vice versa. Half the posts here seem to consist of snide personal attacks and innuendo about who is pretending to be someone else who refused to debate somewhere else. That would be one thing but to see someone being accused of ‘complicity in mass-murder’ when they don’t even know who they are and at the same time the statement ” He is crying censorship because I told him he couldn’t call people liars without backing it up. Imagine.” being made- it’s a poor reflection on the level and standards of debate here.

      1. “A. Wright”,

        I understand you are trying to paint a picture of me, but both you and I know you still haven’t answered the questions I presented to you honestly. You know if you answered them honestly they would validate my reasons for calling people out on their ignorance and illogical positions. You’d know if you answered them honestly they would validate my reasons for calling certain online entities “infiltrators” or “agents of disinformation”.

        Here they are again…

        Do you agree or understand that a north side flight plane proves an inside job? Yes or no?

        Did the witnesses, namely the officers at or next to the Citgo, stood by where they saw the plane even after learning the implications? Yes or no?

        Does it make sense that genuine 9/11 truthers would fight to suppress these witness accounts, especially when some including the officers, would testify to it?

        Were you near the Citgo gas station the morning of the 9/11 attack or would you say the witnesses we interviewed would have a better idea than you to tell us where the plane flew in relation to the gas station?

        Would you agree that if it is accepted that the plane was truly on the north side of the gas station, that anonymous online entities, who have attacked us, attempted to marginalize us, and suppress or minimize the importance of this evidence are likely part of a intelligence infiltration team? Would that be an unreasonable conclusion or assumption to come to based on the fact that the witnesses were so adamant about the north path even after learning the implications?

      2. @A.Marquis
        You seem to want me to give your answers to the questions- I don’t know why you are asking for mine.

        “Do you agree or understand that a north side flight plane proves an inside job? Yes or no?”

        That is an ambiguous question. Do I think it was an inside job? No.
        Do I think the plane flew on the ‘north side’ ? No – it appears to be aerodynamically impossible.
        Do I understand the argument being made to the contrary? Yes- see my previous answer.

        “Did the witnesses, namely the officers at or next to the Citgo, stood by where they saw the plane even after learning the implications? Yes or no?

        I don’t know. I am not aware of people being asked about it so I can’t answer that question. If they do then they have that in common with all the witness as far as I’m aware.

        “Does it make sense that genuine 9/11 truthers would fight to suppress these witness accounts, especially when some including the officers, would testify to it?”

        They can’t suppress the witness accounts, . They can and do criticise your conclusions because they think they are implausible and so reflect badly on the truth movement. I don’t speak for truthers so you should take it up with them but for what it’s worth everyone who disagrees with you can’t be an ‘agent’ – they say the same about you – are you one? You know what a crock that is.

        “Were you near the Citgo gas station the morning of the 9/11 attack or would you say the witnesses we interviewed would have a better idea than you to tell us where the plane flew in relation to the gas station?”

        See my previous answer.

        “Would you agree that if it is accepted that the plane was truly on the north side of the gas station, that anonymous online entities, who have attacked us, attempted to marginalize us, and suppress or minimize the importance of this evidence are likely part of a intelligence infiltration team? Would that be an unreasonable conclusion or assumption to come to based on the fact that the witnesses were so adamant about the north path even after learning the implications?”

        No.
        Yes.

        If you asking me do I think, that you think the people who criticise you have to be ‘agents’ and ‘infiltrators’ then that is what I have been saying- you can’t seem to imagine anything else- you have just repeated it -‘calling people out on their ignorance and illogical conclusions’ and for being ‘infiltrators’ and agents of disinformation’ – knaves and fools. You can’t seem to accept that anyone can look at the same evidence that you look at and come to a different conclusion. It demonstrates an inability to understand the concept of looking at and weighing up evidence. It’s why they have juries, where each person weighs up the evidence for themselves and reaches their own conclusions and doesn’t allow someone else to tell them what to think.
        The ‘picture I’m painting’ of you is a self-portrait , and I don’t think I’m the only one , even just on this forum, who thinks so.

      3. @A.Marquis
        Would that be the Nile…denial…the Nile?
        Damn ,Professor Marquis is marking those exam papers hard this year! It seems I’ve failed Paranoia 101, but at least I picked up a few marks in geography.
        It’s always a sign that someone is loosing an argument when they start using personal, derogatory comments, deliberate misrepresentation of what the other person has said, questioning their honesty – that’s always a good one- all in the hope that the other person will respond in kind and the debate will degenerate into a name-calling slagging match. If you want to debate the issue then you should be willing to debate it.

    2. Laurel,

      As I now understand it you work with Bruno and WACLA.

      I recently spoke with Bruno on the phone and even though we have differences of opinion as to what will wake people up but admire his conviction and commend his efforts. As I understand it you guys still hand out Loose Change 2nd edition. I don’t know if you support that or not. But your attitude is in line with passing out loose change 2.

      The reason I say that is because you are not concerned with accurate information. You are interested in throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. Loose Change has some of THE WORST DEBUNKED conspiracy theory supposition crap out there.

      This is the work of people who don’t care about the answers they’ve been given. You are right we don’t have know every answer to the events of 9/11 but we do need a concise package of our strongest and most conclusive evidence which unequivocally proves an inside job. And the north side flight path and flyover evidence should be included. At the top of the list. And people should know what the hell they are talking about when dealing with 9/11 facts.

      As I understand it you folks also pass out NSA which I appeciate, but if you are passing out LC2 alongside it, you are introducing needless theories and convoluting it with actual hard evidence.

      Anyway, I’m sure I’m talking to a brick wall and I know I already said I wouldn’t bother responding to you but I thought I would give it one more shot.

      Good luck. We’ll need it.

      1. Well A. Wright is going to remain obtuse and not answer honestly. Sounds like they are not even a 9/11 truth advocate.

        When asked if north side flight path proves an inside job they completely avoided answering the question honestly. The obvious answer being a resounding yes. Instead they selectively answer and avoid answering the question honestly by playing a word game. I didn’t ask if they think “it” 9/11, the pentagon attack or the north side flight path *was* an inside job. I didn’t ask for their obviously biased opinion. I asked them to acknowledge a fact which is the basis of me calling people out and calling certain relentless and deceptive anonymous online entities “infiltrators”. A fact that sets the tone for the discussion and forces them to be logical from the onset. There was nothing “ambiguous” about my question. It was a simple yes or no question with an obvious answer. YES.

        Then they go on to say they don’t believe the plane was on the north side and cite the debunked disinformation that actually tries to insult the witnesses we interview by not actually speaking with them but instead creating absolute lies disguised in technical jargon that call them liars, mistaken, hallucinating (at the exact same time about the exact same thing)without actually saying it. “a. Wright” can’t even stand by his veiled accusation against the witnesses with conviction, instead he/she says it “appears to be” aerodynamically impossible. Interesting, an anonymous online entity citing disinformation created by an anonymous online entity.
        No the north side flight path is aerodymically possible and witness compatible as any layman or pilot can tell.
        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=122
        “A. Wright”, does a north side of the gas station flight path prove an inside job? I want you to acknowledge this fact.

        Well just to inform you… The witnesses do stand by where they saw the plane, even after learning the implications. Some would even testify to it. What does that signify to you?

        Yes the witnesses can be suppressed. The Toronto hearings being a prime example. Since you are an apparent anti-truther, you couldnt even answer the questions honestly if your life depended on it. No it doesn’t make sense that genuine truthers would try to suppress these witnesses. There, was that so hard?

        The rest is not even worth addressing because you’d rather be obtuse and not answering the questions logically or honestly.

        If the plane was on the north side and we all know this proves an inside job, then of course it makes sense that there would be govt/intelligence infiltrators trying to suppress, marginalize, and attack us. You couldn’t even answer that honestly and it shows you are not only intellectually dishonest but an actual saboteur of the truth and disinformation promoter.

        And maybe your motivation is a river in Egypt…

    3. I don’t know what you mean by censorship. I understand if you object to what other readers of this blog have written to you but I am the operator of the site, and I am not censoring you. Your comments are welcome.-Craig McKee

  14. @Laurel

    “OSS, I have read your comments on P4T and thought you had some (many, actually) valuable comments there, but here, I see you make some really wacky accusations, and you COMPLETELY misconstrued what I wrote. I DID NOT “conclude” that “a drone cum missile was a more likely culprit”. So stop putting words in my mouth. ”

    Sorry. Laurel, you’ve misread my post regarding two entities (it was actually one person with 2 IDs pretending that the other was his sister) who posted 24/7 at Youtube on CIT’s video “National Security Alert”. It was a tongue in cheek remark to Snowcrash.

    Having reread your post I take back the “drone cum missile” remark. Apologies.

    I wrote in another thread here that the Toronto Hearings SHOULD have been a landmark occasion and instead has been turned into a censorship fest of information, particularly from CIT and P4911T, that has IN NO WAY been touched upon let alone debunked. The same people who engineered this disinfo campaign (and I don’t use that word lightly) are in and about the hearings.
    The same people are pushing easily contained LIHOP theories ahead of even the WTC7 controlled demolition evidence.

    The same people have poisoned the well around the Pentagon issue making it almost unbearable to fathom for some. Why no indignation with the YEARS of A3 Skywarrior and missile theories?

    Why the deafening silence at the shoddy treatment of a 9/11 victim? Will you bring that up with Jon Gold who will surely be there in Toronto?

    They’ve actively censored and told blatant, unretracted, proven lies on their forums (911Blogger), on their blogs and in their podcasts. How do you suppose CIT and P4911T “get the message out”?

    CIT has never had a fair “hearing” themselves from day one. From they stumbled across this witness evidence, they have been attacked, not only by “debunkers”, but by fake government released data including the proven manipulated Citgo footage (10 days after the release of the first interview!), RADES datapoints north of Citgo, the NORAD simulation of an NOC flightpath and the NOC FDR animation. None accepted as evidence of anything by CIT or P4911T by the way (that includes the FDR which you wrongly claimed CIT’s evidence was based upon).

    The DIRECTIONAL DAMAGE, the alleged physical path of destruction through the lightpoles and “exit hole” and the aerodynamic impossibility of the manouevre from the NOC flightpath is what the argument is centred around. The witness testimony and the damage which we can see and measure for ourselves is the only independent way of finding out what happened at the Pentagon. Not a bunch of data held for years in the possession of the very same people all of us as “truthers” are investigating.

    The issue not as complicated as some make out. There are now over 20 confirmed witnesses to the NOC path. CIT presented them, warts and all. End of story.

    “They’re all wrong” doesn’t cut it for me. Sorry.

    I know you don’t value witness testimony but when you can’t find one, just ONE that contradicts them, there must be something in it, no? Logically?

    You seem to be under the impression that the witnesses were looking up a few hundred feet at the aircraft. They weren’t. In many cases the aircraft was about 60-70ft directly above them. Many thought that the aircraft was going to hit their position (have you watched the NSA video?). Some were in positions where they couldn’t have PHYSICALLY seen the aircraft on the official “SOC path”.

    Terry Morin saw it above his head “within the wings” of the Navy Annex. William Lagasse had the Citgo Station to his right where the plane SHOULD have passed. It didn’t. Sean Boger had one of the best views to lineate the flightpath (the heliport). The list goes on.

    Here’s an idea of how “wrong” some of these witnesses were. William Middleton was at the edge of the cemetery to the right of the Navy Annex in the following image. He couldn’t see the official path AT ALL. Sean Boger is marked by the line coming from the Pentagon (Terry Morin was “within the wings of the Annex”, remember):

    They’re not just saying that this witness testimony is “skewed” or “inaccurate” but that they “really” saw the opposite of what they described.

    Enjoy Toronto. Why not pop in to CIT’s event? Barrie Zwicker is there too.

    1. @onesliceshort
      Could I ask you to do something – I’m not sure how to add an image to a post here but you added a video to a previous post – could you get a satellite image of the Pentagon and draw the flightpath of the plane on it, take any of the yellow lines that the witnesses drew and extend it, given that it is a commercial airliner flying at pretty high speed etc.. I don’t think it’s unreasonable request to just draw the flightpath of the plane.

  15. A. Wright wrote :-

    “That is an ambiguous question. Do I think it was an inside job? No.
    Do I think the plane flew on the ‘north side’ ? No – it appears to be aerodynamically impossible.”

    You seriously believe it was 19 hijackers with box cutters? After 10 years of 9/11 Truth? I am speechless.

    What appears to be aerodynamically impossible? That a plane overflew the Navy Annex then overflew the Pentagon? That seems entirely possible and the physical evidence supports it.

    I always start with the taxi driver Lloyd England at the Pentagon – in simple terms you “A. Wright” have to believe his story in order to believe it was not an inside job. If you don’t know his story, then basically he claims the Pentagon plane struck lightpoles one of which flew into his car window and lodged there. That sounds pretty far fetched to me, what about you? My knowledge of physics and momentum would indicate to me that the lightpole would continue on its random way destroying much of the car in the process. However, first let’s thicken the plot.

    In 10 years, not a single witness has been found that saw the lightpole into cab event – don’t take my word for it, investigate it yourself. What’s more, there doesn’t seem to be a witness who actually saw the plane hit a lightpole.

    What you can find is a whole host of witnesses who say the plane flew a different course, over the Navy Annex and just to the north of the Citgo gas station – in other words not a course where it could have struck the lightpoles that were laying on the ground.

    So who do you believe? A cab driver with an impossible tale and no corroborating witnesses or 20+ witnesses who corroborate each other. And you have to pick the cab driver if you really believe it was a 19 hijackers. Feel comfortable with that? Personally I’d feel like a gullible, naive fool if I bought into Lloyd England’s story as it insults my intelligence. What about you?

      1. @A. Wright

        I know KP is a busy guy so I’ll just give you a quote from the CIT interview with Roosevelt Roberts.

        “Roosevelt Roberts: It seemed like [incomprehensible], by the time I got the dock it was already in the parking lot in lane one, and it was so large, you couldn’t miss from seeing it.

        (OSS – the plane he claimed to see “over lane 1” in South Parking = “it”)

        Craig Ranke: Right, but from what direction did it seem like it came from?

        (OSS – talking about the same plane)

        Roosevelt Roberts: It seemed like that it came from uh… it… hold on a second… it seem like it came from uh… south west.. look, the same way it came in or appeared that it came in, almost right where that first plane had uhm… fell into the Pentagon right there, it.. it.. the.. it looked like it came from that direction”

        (OSS – “it” came from the same sort of direction where “the first plane….fell into the Pentagon”)

        Got it? Black and white.

        Thnxbye

      2. A. Wright, that is a predictable and slightly disappointing response – the North of Citgo evidence stands apart from whether the plane flew into or over the building and by itself proves an inside job irrespective of the actions of the plane afterwards. I wonder why you are afraid to address the evidence, please answer some of my questions.

  16. I’m starting to wonder if Narcissistic Personality Disorder (and sundry other pathologies) is a prerequisite for membership at the TrueFactionista forum (or “infiltration station” as Aldo so aptly IMHO put it). With BG and Snowjob as ‘poster children,’ I’m certainly NOT interested in membership (or much else the TrueFactionistas and ‘911blogger’s have to say).

    Honestly, I’ve about had it up to my ass with the self-described ‘credible truth movement’ “Truth Police”- there comes a time where one must swim, row, crawl, or whatever it takes to get out of a quagmire or risk drowning/burial. I hope the TrueFactionistas are happy with Patty and Jimmy B counting their collective ‘loose screws’ into their golden years. All these ‘little Napoleons’ deserve to be kings of their respective tiny ’empires.’ (Hints of the reasons why I quit ‘debating’ 9/11 truth at 9/11oz and elsewhere altogether are nearby).

    Frankly, I don’t think many even give a flying f@*k about truth- 9/11 or otherwise. Watching one of my best friends flag-wave along with the recent media barrage of red, white, & blue 9/11 propaganda this past weekend only confirms this. He does NOT want to even think about the realities and complexities of the geopolitics of the fiction now known as “9/11.”

  17. “You seriously believe it was 19 hijackers with box cutters?”

    I’m not sure about boxcutters, but I did hear there was a lot of mace going around. Not sure how that got on board though. 😦

    1. The only way anyone can continue to believe in the hijacker theory is to ignore both the facts and all common sense. There’s no way pilots with military training relinquish control of their planes to guys with mace or boxcutters. Unless they smuggled some AK-47s on board? We know the cockpit doors never opened on any of the flights, and we know none of the four pilots dialed the four-digit hijack code, 7500.

  18. Mr Boz said

    “Frankly, I don’t think many even give a flying f@*k about truth- 9/11 or otherwise. Watching one of my best friends flag-wave along with the recent media barrage of red, white, & blue 9/11 propaganda this past weekend only confirms this. He does NOT want to even think about the realities and complexities of the geopolitics of the fiction now known as “9/11.”

    I think the trick is to tell people in small doses. Not specifically about 9/11, but about the likes of The Bay of Tonken incident, where the US sent 75,000 kids to their death in Viet Nam (and probably the same number to a life of mental problems and heroin addiction) based on an admitted lie.

    Or about how the USG had prior knowledge of the Pearl Harbour attack which lead to 3000 dead (that number rings a bell). Or how in turn they knew that Japan was on its last legs and were seeking terms of surrender, but went ahead anyway and dropped their brand new toys on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On record. Admitted.

    Talking of brand new toys how about the radiation experiments on their own troops? Injecting radiation into mentally ill patients and prisoners? Orally feeding it to mentally handicapped children? All on record. All proven.

    Or about how the US had been involved in assassinations of leaders of countries who the people actually liked and instigating civil wars in South America, Africa and the Middle East. Proven and admitted.

    Or the “WMD” allegedly held by Saddam Hussein. A proven lie. We know the outcome of that one.

    Or about the MKUltra experiments and testing of biological weapons on their own (unwitting) citizens. How their senior inteligence officers organized satanic cults, child prostitution and drug running to finance their schemes and blackmail politicians. Admitted (to only a small percentage but..) and proven.

    Or how many of the barbaric experiments of said mind control and those who carried them out in concentration camps were given a “by-ball” to go to the US (operation paperclip)? Proven and admitted.

    Or how it has been proven that LHO didn’t kill JFK. No deep dark details, just show the fake autopsy photos and medic interviews.

    There’s so much that these animals have done to us. God knows what we still haven’t uncovered.

    Sorry for the rant Mr Boz (I do have a point somewhere! lol …bear with me)

    My girlfriend isn’t a slouch on “smelling a rat” in world affairs but found it easier to switch off completely from politics and the bullshit soundbites oozing out of the TV, and I asked her to sit down with me once to watch a video about a doctor who had found a (relatively) cheap, four times proven more successful cure for cancer (specifically brain tumours) that didn’t involve pumping the body full of toxins or radiation. Burzinski.

    He’s been trailed through the courts since ’93 and won each time. Aaanyway, bottom line, the pharmaceutical companies were going to lose billions on their chemo and radiation if his treatment were accepted by the FDA. A whole institution of greedy SOBs were going to suffer. They even ran purposely corrupted experiments alleging to be using Burzinskis formula. The hopeful cancer patients all died. All 20 of them. Murdered. No two ways about it.

    It opened her eyes, just a little, on how disgusting and vicious corporations are. Just a chink but it’s a start. She even understands now why my hairs stand on end when I hear this video:

    And why I’m a little heavy on most subjects haha

    Get my drift? Keep her lit!

    OSS

  19. About the article: Craig, excellent article. Thank you for using the term “alleged hijacker.” I cannot stress enough the importance of language. Words such as “attacks,” “ground zero,” and “hijackers” all frame the events as an act of war. Conversely, words such as “crimes,” “crime scene,” and “alleged hijackers” frame the same events as a crime to be solved. The latter better serves those who would have a criminal investigation in lawful courts, subpoenas, charges made, and convictions. As I know each and every one of us deeply wants justice for the crimes of 9/11, let me again commend Craig for using non-OCT language and let me ask all of us to follow his fine example in our own speech and communications.

    For example, just asking a friend, “Where were you during the ATTACKS of 9/11?” immediately conjures up in your friend’s mind the OCT version of 9/11, because you used the word “attacks.” Now, the conversation must logically go to topics such as war, fighting, and violence. Instead, by asking your friend, “Where were you on the day of the 9/11 CRIMES?” conjures up, instead, a non-OCT version of 9/11 in your friend’s mind. Then, discussion can logically follow on to such legal aspects such as “evidence,” “suspects,” and “witnesses” as in any normal criminal investigation. Using non-OCT language is a key tool to steering the discussion in the right direction, right from the start.

    I count at least three other honest 9/11 truthers posting here in this thread, and possibly more. Let us have productive talks and share our best thoughts and evidence, and ignore the disruptions. The very next post will likely be a disruption. Let’s ignore it, shall we? Mr. Marquis, Craig, OSS, and any other honest activist, what say ye?

    1. I like this post and I’ll be changing my vocabulary immediately. I have only recently decided to get involved in this movement, and using words such as “alleged hijackers” and “crimes” will help me immensely in sorting my mindset when going through the tons of information out there.

      I also put it here, that I very much like the “Safe Haven/anti-disruption campaign” post below, and hopefully something can be worked out with that🙂

      1. Thanks, Kate. Not intending to be all-inclusive, here is a short summary of key research:

        http://ae911truth.com
        http://pilotsfor911truth.org
        http://citizeninvestigationteam.com
        http://www.septemberclues.info

        • The architects and engineers have concluded that all 3 WTC
        buildings were controlled demolitions.

        • The pilots have concluded that the alleged airplane maneuvers at
        the WTC and Pentagon are impossible.

        • The CIT has concluded that AA 77 did not strike the Pentagon, as
        alleged.

        • Simon Shack has shown that the images shown on TV on 9/11 of a
        plane crashing into Tower 2 were all faked (like a Hollywood
        movie).

        Dr. Steven E. Jones et al – showed that explosives are present in WTC dust

      2. Dear Ms. Kate,

        Some mighty fine links are presented above (by Mr. 911NewsCentral.com), including the one from Mr. A. Wright to 911myths.com, because the contrast is useful in discerning truth. 9/11 Myths doesn’t debunk much, and actually has more problems in its “don’t think too much” conclusions — go with our simple explanation and avoid headaches. Your govt tax dollars at work.

        One link that was missing is to Dr. Judy Wood’s website. I know, I know. She has been ridiculed and marginalized as being bat-shit crazy. Ridiculed and belittled is not the same as debunked.

        Truth does not mind if you turn up your disinformation sensors to their highest sensitivity levels when you review her work. For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that her work is full of disinformation. Your task, then, becomes to mine the nuggets of truth that make up the foundation upon which the disinformation was built.

        The major clue to keep in mind when reviewing her work is that she presents a wealth of raw evidence that the other theories inadequately address, if they address at all. Most don’t address it. The destruction of vehicles and the pulverization of content are two such examples.

        I consider myself a duped useful idiot who can have his opinions easily changed by evidence, science-based fact, and persuasive argument. The catch is that I’m educated (in engineering) and I think for myself. The energy requirements of the destruction aren’t being addressed, which is why I was a champion of milli-nukes for so long. Dr. Wood’s textbook convinced me of DEW.

        Disclaimer: I have no affiliations with Dr. Wood and receive no gain, financial or otherwise, for championing her work.

        Having said this, her textbook “Where did the Towers Go?” is a must-have for any serious researcher of 9/11 and a worthy addition to anyone’s 9/11 library. It is a quality textbook in a larger format with over 500 color images and correlations to map positions that alone make the tome worth its money, despite the very real possibility that the plain text may be ridiculed and belittled as disinformation. I haven’t found such, and I’m still awaiting evidence from others to prove such. And if we assume that such disinformation will be found, we’ll still want it in our 9/11 libraries to prove to our grandkids how our generation was played.

        I put my money where my mouth is. Because many rational people will not typically invest in something that is labeled kooky, loony, and crazy (albeit such labeling book reviews were offered from the lofty position of not owning it, not having borrowed it, and not having cracked it open), I have been known to purchase copies for others (e.g., prominent members of 9/11 truth) — if given their expressed permission — so that we could literally get on the same page in discussing it. Silence is what I’ve heard.

        Well, not complete silence. David Chandler did not agree to my conditions that he give the book an objective review providing me with the good, the bad, and the ugly. and that he assist getting a copy or lending his copy to Jonathon Cole. Mr. Chandler did put in a couple of dismissive sentences into his recent paper co-authored with Frank Legge, although Dr. Wood and DEW had nothing to do with that paper, and that paper has fundamental and lynchpin issues of its own that discredit it.

  20. I also didn’t want to leave this thread without saying THANK YOU to Mr. Marquis, and saying how much I feel that we are all honored to have him posting here with us today. Mr. Marquis, we all owe you a great debt of gratitude for your hard work researching the crimes at the Pentagon on 9/11.

    Also, I want to emphasize to readers that Mr. Marquis is and should be treated as an honored guest here.

    Readers, I also want to emphasize that those on this thread who are name calling Mr. Marquis are not just angry peasants – as Mr. Marquis has said, they are likely paid bloggers with criminal agendas to obstruct the justice process. They do not have other jobs. Obstructing justice for the 9/11 criminals is their sole occupation and income. They are not like us. It is very important for all honest citizens to understand this critical difference.

    Can anyone here imagine a meeting of say, the Enron board of directors back in 2000 planning their next illegal pension fund raid while honest men and women would heckle them and call them names? Absurd. The criminals at Enron would never tolerate that. They needed their “safe haven” to plan their sickening crimes.

    Similarly, we, the honest people, should not allow the criminals (or their assigns) to infiltrate our groups and disrupt our anti-crime strategies. Yet, we have failed miserably in this category. We see infiltration at almost every public forum where anti-crime evidence and strategy is discusses. There are almost no “safe havens” for public discussion of 9/11 justice without active and intentional disruption.

    What I suggest is that we, as a movement, take a hard stance on infiltration. To that end, I propose a Safe Haven/anti-disruption campaign. While no one knows what is in another man’s heart, one can see another man’s actions quite clearly. Not all who disrupt are infiltrators. And, not all infiltrators disrupt. However, I would offer that eliminating the disruptors would get us well on our way to kicking out the infiltrators at our honest 9/11 justice-seeking websites.

    Several implementations would be possible. One way might be like this:

    • We need a unifying voice to begin the Safe Haven/anti-disruption campaign. Someone well-known, respected, and well-liked in the 9/11 truth movement who would be the public voice and face of the new campaign.
    • There ought to be a simple web page maintained online with a mission statement, contact information, a publicly stated anti-disruption policy, banner downloads, instructions to webmasters, etc.
    • At participating blogs, the Safe Haven banner would be displayed and linked back to the Safe Haven website.
    • At these participating blogs, websites and forums, any user with a clear intent to disrupt would be removed per the Safe Haven anti-disruption policy. (Think: the “anti-bullying” policy at your child’s school.)
    • A banner can be made which can be displayed on websites of participating organizations. Perhaps the banner might say, “This website is a Safe Haven” or some words to that effect.
    • If some groups do not wish to participate, that’s fine. But, they will not stop our enthusiasm for our campaign and creating 9/11 Safe Havens.
    • The Safe Haven idea could be applied generally to blogs, websites, and forums of any nature. The content is really irrelevant to the idea of what a Safe Haven is.

    Such a campaign would have many benefits.

    Consider:

    • Respected and distinguished guests such as Aldo Marquis would not have to fend off online bullies. Instead these important researchers would be free to actually share their knowledge.
    • Webmasters such as Craig McKee would likewise not have to fend off online bullies and be, himself, attacked. Instead, webmasters such as he would be able to concentrate on productive efforts such as blogging.
    • Readers would likewise not be bullied and;
    • In the case of the 9/11 truth movement, real progress might be made in actually working for justice for the crimes of 9/11.

    I humbly offer these suggestions to us who work to hard for 9/11 justice, yet, seem always to be arguing with disruptors. The disruptors have us defending our honor when we should be discussing strategy. They have us on the back foot constantly instead of putting forth our strongest evidence and most important words. They leave us reeling while the bombs continue to drop half a world away and our rights continue to be taken away here at home. They make us apologize while the victims families still ache for closure and first responders and veterans still beg for medical assistance.

    My friends, let us take the bull by the horns. It is time for a Safe Haven campaign.

    Thank you.

  21. @onesliceshort
    In case you didn’t see my post above, since posting a ‘reply’ here isn’t always that easy, could I ask you to do something – I’m not sure how to add an image to a post here but you added a video to a previous post – could you get a satellite image of the Pentagon and draw the flightpath of the plane on it, take any of the yellow lines that the witnesses drew and extend it, given that it is a commercial airliner flying at pretty high speed etc.. Post the image here if you can or provide a link to it. You say it’s a black and white issue so it’s obviously clear to you what Roosevelt Roberts is describing, so you should be able to illustrate it.

    1. Why is it that you guys always expect somebody else to do the leg work while at the same time ignoring valid points that you apparently can’t be arsed to answer?

      A few points.

      1. There is a section of Roosevelt Roberts’ testimony that need to be confirmed. In his interview with Aldo.he clearly states:

      “ROBERTS: 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.”

      Now, I know he mentions “lane 1” but he specifically mentioned the “east loading dock” on the other side of the building. Why? It needs confirmed but you can draw the “continuation line” of the NOC paths drawn by the witnesses.

      Make sense now if this is where he actually was?

      2. Do you admit that he is clearly describing seeing the “second aircraft” in south parking just after the explosion, “where according to the quote I gave? Here it is again:

      “Roosevelt Roberts: It seemed like [incomprehensible], by the time I got the dock it was already in the parking lot in lane one, and it was so large, you couldn’t miss from seeing it.

      (OSS – the plane he claimed to see “over lane 1″ in South Parking = “it”)

      Craig Ranke: Right, but from what direction did it seem like it came from?

      (OSS – talking about the same plane)

      Roosevelt Roberts: It seemed like that it came from uh… it… hold on a second… it seem like it came from uh… south west.. look, the same way it came in or appeared that it came in, almost right where that first plane had uhm… fell into the Pentagon right there, it.. it.. the.. it looked like it came from that direction”

      (OSS – “it” came from the same sort of direction where “the first plane….fell into the Pentagon”)

      Yes or no?

      3. His testimony stands out from the rest THAT WE KNOW OF, in that he is describing seeing n aircraft AFTER the explosion.

      “Roberts: From the time the impact hit until I ran outside…

      (…)

      Roberts: Upon impact, I stepped out of the little booth that I was at. And the distance between that booth and the edge of the dock is like maybe, I don’t know, 7 steps away from there.”

      4. Those “yellow lines” you referred to? Is “impact” possible from those multiple witnessed trajectories? Don’t forget the additional NOC witnesses since that map was drawn.

      5. “People”, as yet to be identified had clearly described something unusual to this guy no?

      Why do I get the feeling all of this leg work will be a waste of time on you Mr Wright?

      1. @onesliceshort
        Getting back to you on that..
        To answer your last question first, I would say the reason you think I won’t be convinced by what you are saying is because I don’t think you find it convincing yourself. Reading what ‘911newscentral’ below says about me trying to put you ‘on the back foot’ makes me think he doesn’t find it convincing either. The point about this interview is that no one should even be referring to or discussing it, it is so confused and confusing – doubly confusing for anyone who thinks he is talking about one plane- that no one could seriously present it as evidence. This is an interview with a witness which is supposed to establish some facts , three of the most important and basic being, where he was, where he saw the plane, and what direction it was flying. When the people who present this as evidence say they are unclear about these basic facts, over 3 years later, then that speaks for itself.
        Could I ask you, if this was an interview with some witness who was supporting the official story would you be indulgently trying to match it up, moving his location to try and make it fit somehow with what he says, and ignoring other parts of it, and saying , yes this was convincing evidence to support the official story. I don’t think so – you would be pouring scorn on it and taking it apart to show how it didn’t make sense.
        Your different points
        1: No it doesn’t make sense that he was at the East loading dock ,since he said he was in south parking and saw the plane in the lane 1 area of south parking. There are a few things he says that are pretty clear and one of them is where he saw the plane, in the lane 1 area of south parking- he says it three times. The map shows where the lane 1 area of south parking is, you can see it written on the ground in Google maps. If someone says they are not even sure where lane 1 is then they are unsure of even the most basic facts about something that they are presenting as evidence.
        2. No, he can’t be describing the plane that has just flown north of the Citco gas station, over the road, and then over the impact point. It can’t get to the lane 1 area of south parking from there in a few seconds. Are you saying the plane was in the lane 1 area of south parking? – you were saying he was at the east loading dock a minute ago and he couldn’t see a plane in south parking lane 1 from there.
        3. The reason this interview was done at all was because Roosevelt Roberts said in his previous interview that ‘ the plane hit the building’ before he saw this plane- this is someone who was watching the TV news about planes hitting the WTC. The first thing that should have been clarified therefore was what he meant when he said ‘the plane hit the building’, but it was just glossed over without being mentioned , with the assumption that he was talking about the plane hitting the Pentagon. The single most important aspect of his evidence not even clarified – when he saw the plane.
        4. You can’t connect any of the yellow lines to the lane 1 area of south parking. None of the yellow lines line up with the line of damage outside and inside the building where all the witnesses say the plane crashed. That suggests that these witnesses who drew these lines are mistaken. Looking at the disparity between what they describe when they are such a short distance away from the plane and each another and at the same time were running and diving for cover it’s not that difficult to imagine how they could happen.
        5. ‘People as yet to identified’ should be identified. I would not be that difficult, but they obviously weren’t convinced enough to mention it afterwards because he had forgotten he had even said it. If practically every witness is supposed to be confused by a big fireball, why can’t a few people be confused by a big fireball? Watch the CIT video of the plane looking from the cemetery , it disappears behind a line of trees and you can’t even see the Pentagon.

    2. It is black and white. I spoke with him after our recorded phone call and explained to him what he saw. The only details that we weren’t able to firm up or clarify was which lane is is truly referring to and the exact direction the plane flew away in. And that was because he got scared and backed out of his interview with us.

      How come you won’t speak with him or any other witnesses?

      How come you won’t admit that a north side flight path plane proves an inside job? Can you tell us why?

      1. Do you know what is bizarre about all of this Aldo? When talking about the towers (specifically WTC 7), critical thinkers KNOW that it was controlled demolition. HOW they technically did it, that’s the $64,000 question, along with the disintegration of towers 1 and 2. Same thing.

        They KNOW that 9/11 couldn’t be anything other than military black ops controlled from within.
        There is a staggering array of information (both truth and planted breadcrumbs) that links Israel, neo-cons, corporations and (insert blank) ____ to that day, but it can all be hand waved away under the blanket of “national security” and innuendo-based nudge and a wink CIA/FBI “counter-terrorism” ops pre-2001. “Incompetence” being the “get out of jail card”.

        When discussing the Pentagon, the so-called “detractors”, like Wright (who/whatever he is) demand the impossible.

        “Me: Here are 20+ witnesses to the aircraft flying on a course which makes the directional damage impossible…

        Detractor: Nope, not good enough. Here’s a couple of links to some of the most blatant disinfo,that may sway or stagger people who have never researched the Pentagon issue and/or refuse to bother their arses to read any of the scores of debunks linked to. I don’t care how many times I post the crap and I don’t care about my “rep”. Why should I? It’s the Pentagon after all, I’m going to keep on posting it…Why not? “Truth leaders” have put their name to it

        Me: Here is the official FDR of “Flight 77”. Look it shows the aircraft to be too high to pull up in time, cause any of the physical damage and shows the aircraft speed at low altitude beyond the limitations of a Boeing 757. Remember, it’s the OFFICIAL data, the discrepancies of which the FBI and NTSB have refused to comment on..

        Detractor: Here’s a link to more debunked nonsense from two Aussies that frequent government loyalist sites and whose biased, flawed literature and advise from NON-aviation “twoofer haters” is cited and used because it suits THEIR agenda. Never mind that an FDR expert tore its authenticity to threads and that it has had its serial number removed or that their are multiple claims as to when and where it was found or what time the data was allegedly extracted.
        NO pilots put their name to their bogus claims but leading “truth movement” figures have endorsed their “integrity” so they must be true no? Even if it isn’t true, so what, it’s only the Pentagon after all. Fair game..

        Me: Can you link me to just ONE OCT path witness?

        Detractor: I’ll link you to more bullshit disinfo and then claim that witness testimony is “unreliable” even if they 100% corroborate. All witness testimony in Arlington that day is null and void. Governments can do whatever the fuck they want now as government controlled, censored and spoon-fed crime scene physical evidence trumps witnesses. ALL witnesses can describe one thing a la JFK, but the government can point to images of (FOIA refused identification of ) plane parts and say “what more do you want”. It’s enough for me.

        Me: What about the towers debris that was illegally shipped out? The lie that FDRs weren’t found in Manhattan? The refusal to identify parts from UA175 and AA11? The pilot skills?

        Detractor: I’ll chop and change my position whenever I want. I’ll refuse to accept NIST at its word but accept the ASCE Report as is. I refuse to accept government controlled data but accept any and all data from NORAD, the FAA and government agencies without question in Washington.

        I just don’t give a fuck. Why should I?”

        Moral of the story. If you haven’t researched an area of 9/11, butt the fuck out. Your opinion is meaningless if you don’t have a clue, refuse to have the decency to sit down and face those who you are accusing or even do a little bit of leg work to make sure you’re not endorsing bullshit.

        This is meant to be the “truth movement” after all.

        1. I totally understand and share your frustration. Especially when you’re dealing with detractors who endless spin the debate in circles, sending on “assignments” to keep us busy and generally bogging the debate down so that no progress is made.

          I do think we need to be careful, though, about telling new people to keep their opinions to themselves. That’s what I was told the first time I posted an opinion on 911blogger, and had I been less stubborn I might have abandoned the cause right there. I agree with you, however, that the intentional disrupters or arrogant “debunkers” who don’t have any evidence to back them up should be told to butt out. And there are enough of those.

    3. @Wright

      I base MY BELIEFS on a flyover occurring on the NOC flightpath being incompatible with “impact”. End of story. It’s based on the directional damage and the aerodynamics involved. It’s based on the fairytale fantasy that a 100 ton aircraft could physically penetrate IN ITS ENTIRETY into the FIRST FLOOR of a reinforced building. That the same 100 ton aircraft pulled up from a very steep descent and allegedly “pulled up” and not leave a blade of grass touched on the lawn, never mind the tons of debris that should have been visible. Or the lack of facade damage from the extremities of the aircraft (the vertical and horizontal stabilizers and wings!)
      As for the “East Loading Dock”, until it is confirmed, it is unfortunately just a POSSIBILITY but it needs to be explained.
      Explained in the sense that Roberts needs to explain why HE said that HE WAS THERE.
      1: No it doesn’t make sense that he was at the East loading dock ,since he said he was in south parking and saw the plane in the lane 1 area of south parking. There are a few things he says that are pretty clear and one of them is where he saw the plane, in the lane 1 area of south parking- he says it three times.

      East Loading Dock IS in South Parking. Good start.

      Roberts also states this:

      “Roosevelt Roberts: 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, why did he even mention the “East Loading Dock”? It’s hardly a slip of the tongue as he had already mentioned the word “south” as in “south parking”. A large portion of his original LOC testimony was heavily editted and spliced. So much so that it jumped from HEARING reports of the first tower being struck to the actual explosion at the Pentagon.
      “If someone says they are not even sure where lane 1 is then they are unsure of even the most basic facts about something that they are presenting as evidence.”
      Who said that? Are you referring to me? If so retract it.
      Remember that I was the one who pointed out the “lane 1” reference. If there’s any contradiction in ANY witness testimony, I’d be the first to point it out. Enough with the weasel words Wright.

      “2. No, he can’t be describing the plane that has just flown north of the Citco gas station, over the road, and then over the impact point. It can’t get to the lane 1 area of south parking from there in a few seconds. Are you saying the plane was in the lane 1 area of south parking? – you were saying he was at the east loading dock a minute ago and he couldn’t see a plane in south parking lane 1 from there.”

      I’ll post that quote again (third time – let’s see if you’ll comment on it this time)
      “Craig Ranke: Now where, where did it seem like it came from?

      Roosevelt Roberts: It seemed like [incomprehensible], by the time I got the dock it was already in the parking lot in lane one (yes, I know he says “lane 1), and it was so large, you couldn’t miss from seeing it.

      Craig Ranke: Right, but from what direction did it seem like it came from?

      Roosevelt Roberts: It seemed like that it came from uh… it… hold on a second… it seem like it came from uh… south west.. look, the same way it came in or appeared that it came in, almost right where that first plane had uhm… fell into the Pentagon right there, it.. it.. the.. it looked like it came from that direction.

      Craig Ranke: So from the same direction as as as the f..

      Aldo Marquis: From the impact side basically, from that direction?

      Roosevelt Roberts: Everyth….right..exactly.”
      Is he or is he not describing the aircraft he saw around south parking as a SECOND plane? That quote is consecutive.
      I’ve already said that the “lane 1” reference is THE stumbling block to tying this testimony together and is a distinct POSSIBILITY for me PERSONALLY but until it’s confirmed it can only remain a POSSIBILITY. Roberts is the one who stated that he was at ELD!
      Let’s see if you “miss” this question.
      Can the damage allegedly caused at the Pentagon be caused from the trajectory witnessed?

      “3. The reason this interview was done at all was because Roosevelt Roberts said in his previous interview that ‘ the plane hit the building’ before he saw this plane- this is someone who was watching the TV news about planes hitting the WTC. The first thing that should have been clarified therefore was what he meant when he said ‘the plane hit the building’, but it was just glossed over without being mentioned , with the assumption that he was talking about the plane hitting the Pentagon. The single most important aspect of his evidence not even clarified – when he saw the plane.”

      Pot calling the kettle black there “Wright”?? Now we enter the weird and wonderful world of bizarro theories.
      He is supposed to have ran out at the EXACT moment that he saw a much repeated clip of the second tower being struck on TV just at the PRECISE moment that “Flight 77” was “1.3 seconds” from “impact”? What are the odds, huh?
      Never mind that he claims that he saw it for “A QUICK FIVE SECONDS”. From lightpoles 1 and 2 until it went out of his view at the corner of the building? That’s a fraction of a second at the OCT speed of 540-580mph. Here’s a hint:

      That nonsense has been debunked here:
      http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1704&view=findpost&p=2465595
      Roberts is also on record as stating
      “ROBERTS: ..UPON IMPACT I stepped out the little, uh, booth that I was in, and the distance between that booth and the edge of that dock is about maybe, I don’t know like — 7 steps from there.
      It doesn’t matter how you word your statement on the “explosion on TV” twilight zone million to one shot coincidence illogical nonsense, it’s still NONSENSE! There were 34 minutes between tower 2 being struck and the explosion at the Pentagon. All redacted from Roberts’ LOC interview from him talking about HEARING reports of tower 1 being struck to the time he ran outside to see that “second plane”. You know, the “second plane” that “appeared” to come from the direction of where the “FIRST ONE FELL INTO THE BUILDING”
      A pathetic point always raised “with a straight face” by people like you. I can just see you “skipping over” REAL points raised.

      “4. You can’t connect any of the yellow lines to the lane 1 area of south parking. None of the yellow lines line up with the line of damage outside and inside the building where all the witnesses say the plane crashed. That suggests that these witnesses who drew these lines are mistaken. Looking at the disparity between what they describe when they are such a short distance away from the plane and each another and at the same time were running and diving for cover it’s not that difficult to imagine how they could happen.”

      See above.
      I take it by that statement you also realize that the “yellow lines” also don’t “line up” with the directional damage? ut you’ve no problem with that?
      Most of those witnesses used the Citgo and the ANC carpark as references to lineate where the plane was. 3 were at the Citgo itself. 5 were at the ANC itself. One was AT THE HELIPORT FACING the plane with both of these landmarks as well as the Navy Annex.

      Hemphill was inside the Navy Annex FACING the Pentagon. Penny Elgas was on the road IN FRONT of the Pentagon. There are other witnesses who claim to have been directly IN FRONT OF THE PENTAGON and claim to have seen the aircraft pass in FRONT OF THEM. NONE of them describe having to look behind them to see the OCT path.
      Are you getting the picture yet Wright?
      I’ll not go into your desperate tactics to “explain” how all of the witnesses are “wrong” Wright. Just name me ONE witness who SUPPORTS the necessary directional damage path. Roll out Lloyd England who DENIES being on the bridge?

      “5. ‘People as yet to identified’ should be identified. I would not be that difficult, but they obviously weren’t convinced enough to mention it afterwards because he had forgotten he had even said it. If practically every witness is supposed to be confused by a big fireball, why can’t a few people be confused by a big fireball? Watch the CIT video of the plane looking from the cemetery , it disappears behind a line of trees and you can’t even see the Pentagon.”

      As I said in another post. Wright demands the impossible. How do you propose these witnesses mentioned by Erik Dihle should be persuaded to come forward and expose their government as the perpetrators of the act? Possible military personnel? It shouldn’t be that difficult? Death? Ridicule? Cognitive dissonance?
      Why mention such a distinct description that stands out from the rest (and dismissed summarily by the interviewers btw) and just so happens to click with what the NOC evidence suggests?
      I haven’t a clue what you’re babbling about in that last sentence. Who was in the cemetery? And what are you getting at about the fireball? Dihle was TOLD by these other witnesses in the cemetery. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they were there when they saw the event.
      The alleged impact occurred on the FIRST FLOOR. How could they mistake that a plane “flew on” if it was on the OCT “low and level” trajectory??
      You mentioned Erik Dihle “forgetting” what he said about other people describing an aircraft drop a bomb and flying on.
      You don’t see how cognitive dissonance could have come into play? Massage the memory to what people were TOLD happened? We don’t have the luxury of viewing all of the evidence of 9/11. Even the 911 calls have been withheld in the area that day. 10 years later and it “shouldn’t be difficult”? I think you’re forgetting the vicious bastards we are dealing with. The whole of the last century’s history was written and manipulated by these people. You’re either purposely blind or in the employment of them – whether you know it or not.

      1. See my comment below regarding formatting tips for the HTML based interface that uses angle brackets instead of square brackets. For those posting to square bracket forums, many of them are close with just a replacing of the square bracket […] with <…>. The one exception is [QUOTE] that is <blockquote>.

        Mr. McKee, it might be worthwhile to edit Mr. OneSliceShort’s posting to make this substitution. Or, Mr. OneSliceShort could repost it with the substitution, and Mr. McKee can retire the old posting.

  22. Readers, case in point. A. Wright appears to me to be a disruptor.

    Look at a group of A. Wright’s posts. Ask yourself, are these comments A) helping, or B) hindering the criminal investigation into the crimes of 9/11?

    I offer that they hinder. And, that’s the point of disruptors, isn’t it? To disrupt. I feel certain that it matters not whether OSS provides the requested information or not. AW will not be satisfied. I strongly suspect that he is not here to learn and share knowledge. He is here to ensure that you and I cannot.

    Readers, it is time for us to take the hard stance on infiltration. We must identify the disruptors. One way to neutralize disruptors is to take away their posting priveliges. Another way is simply to ignore them.

    While the disruptor is attempting to put OSS on the back foot, and we all know he won’t succeed, bombs continue to drop in Afghanistan, no-bid contractors continue to make record profits from war, and unmanned drones bring death across borders into new Arab lands.

    Please heed my words. It is truly time to take a unified stand FOR justice and AGAINST the disruptors who infiltrate our peaceful forums. Thank you.

    1. Dear Mr. 911NewsCentral.com,

      I have written my advice regarding Mr. A. Wright elsewhere. In essence, don’t waste too many keystrokes on him. You wrote (sequence altered by me):

      It is truly time to take a unified stand FOR justice and AGAINST the disruptors who infiltrate our peaceful forums. … Readers, it is time for us to take the hard stance on infiltration. We must identify the disruptors. One way to neutralize disruptors is to take away their posting priveliges. Another way is simply to ignore them.

      The sour taste your jihad leaves in my mouth is that you are condoning detours into flame wars as you root out the disruptors, making more of a disruption in the process. With the exception of the line right out of one of Jesus’s sermons, “turn the other cheek” that you most eloquently wrote as: “Another way is simply to ignore them.”

      It isn’t just “another way”; it is really “the way.”

      In every play, movie, novel, and discussion board, conflict is used as a healthy plot tool to make the production interesting. Sincerely held and honestly defended differences of opinion supported by evidence, fact, and objective and reasoned argument should be our lofty goals.

      Infiltration is going to happen. Has probably already happened. Will continue to happen. If it didn’t happen, it would be a major affront to Mr. McKee that his sincere and honest blogging efforts didn’t merit the assignment of at least one NSA Q-groupie or Q-bot in fulfilling a Dr. Cass Sunstein recommendation to the Presidency regarding infiltrating every blog, chat room, and discussion forum to yada, yada yada.

      Rest assured that Mr. McKee will handle disrespectful and disruptive behavior. But we don’t need to add fuel to it by condoning “Agent ASS-ociating” style flame wars. Don’t get me wrong, because even I will sometimes let fly a “Dear Agent so-and-so” honorific in exasperation to some repetitive or predictable Q-bot tactic. I’m just cautioning all participates to avoid making such detours the entire substance of your posting. In the oh-oh seconds before publishing a posting in such a vein, seriously consider “the way” above of “ignoring them and therefore maybe do not post it. Why?

      Because an insincerely held and dishonestly defended difference of opinion unsupported by evidence, fact, and objective and reasoned argument becomes self-evident to all readers. Less is more, so a very brief congratulatory message making note of some aspect of this goes a long way.

  23. Craig says:

    “I do think we need to be careful, though, about telling new people to keep their opinions to themselves. ”

    Oh yeah. having reread that I could have worded that more clearly. I meant those who have sway within the truth movement and who have thrust themselves into the spotlight when they should have offered themselves as go betweens or simply stated “no comment”.

    It’s like me weighing in on a technical debate on the demolition of the towers without having a clue.

    I saw Graeme McQueen’s interview with an aggressive MSM rag not so long ago, and although I disagree with the guy’s stance on the Pentagon, on the issue of what happened there, he said that it was “very complicated” and preferred not to comment. I don’t know why others don’t or didn’t take the same stance instead of pushing the OCT line and/or endorsing highly dubious sources for the sake of “PR”, ya know?

    I really don’t care about these online entities pushing the disinfo. They have been outed. But the intelligent individuals that have inspired me to keep going and keep digging? To give these shady characters even the slightest air of respectability? There’s something rotten in Denmark.

    We’re on a slippery slope if this is allowed to slide. Thank God for people like Barrie.

  24. Nice place you have here, Craig. It’s a pleasure to read your professionally written, thoughtful commentary. I’m looking forward to reading the rest of your postings about the Toronto 9/11 hearings, like many other people here, I’m sure.

    I don’t do a lot of posting on 9/11 boards and such, and was going to just follow what you and others were discussing, but several times now, in various threads, the conversation has turned towards a subject I have particular interest in; Roosevelt Roberts.

    And I see now yet another CIT detractor, Mr. A. Wright, is trying to employ the tactic that Roosevelt’s statements are so confusing they should be disregarded. I’ll bet he’d like for them to be disregarded. Speaking for myself, the most confusing thing I find about Roosevelt’s CIT interview is why so many people find it hard to understand. It’s a little disjointed, but his overall description of what he saw seems pretty clear.

    The short story is he was working a few steps inside the east loading dock when he heard the explosion on the far side of the building, he ran to the center of the dock (per the 2001 Library of Congress interview – not the east side of the dock) where he saw the plane over the first lane of the east end of the south parking lot, which from his perspective, would have been the closest lane to him (officially lane #36). The plane was low and already banking when he saw it moving fast, so fast in fact, he said the whole thing only took a quick 5 seconds before he lost sight of it. The plane turned to the left, or north, but it didn’t just head north. It couldn’t because, like Roosevelt said, “because you’ve got the mall there”. The Capitol Mall. Restricted air space. No one can fly there. No, once that plane started to the left the pilot had to hold on to the turn and completely bring the plane back around to where what was initially a plane heading east towards DC, was quickly reversed and “facing west” coming back around towards hwy 27 and “coming out”. This maneuver took the plane somewhere to the NE of the pentagon at first, then back across the Potomac (assuming it went out that far and it seems likely it did) towards hwy 27 north of the pentagon building, coming out of the left banking turn, which for a plane “facing west”, would have had it straightening out very possibly heading southwest, passing the pentagon to its north on a course somewhat parallel to the facade of the Mall Entrance side of the building. At least that’s what Roosevelt estimates. He would have lost sight of the plane as it went around the corner of the building on the River Entrance side, adjacent to the east dock.

    So is there anything to back up that interpretation of Roosevelt’s interview? Well, yeah, I think so; basically everything he says in his description of where he saw the plane, where it came from, and where it went.

    OSS said Roosevelt’s statement that he was at the east loading dock needs to be confirmed, and I agree, it would be great if someone could get him to draw on that map like he said he would. But I’m not sure how likely it is that that’s going to occur. However, I think Roosevelt’s declaration that he was at the east dock when he saw the plane is confirmed by the rest of his description of what he saw, and what he deduced about the plane. There are several statements he makes regarding the plane that could have only been observed from the east dock, not the south dock.

    I believe everything Roosevelt describes is consistent with his statement about where he was when he saw the plane. His story only gets convoluted when you try to put him at the south loading dock instead of where he said he was.

    The biggest sticking point in all of this seems to be his statements (he says it 3 times and confirms once when Aldo says it) that he saw the plane “over lane 1”. Also, in response to Aldo, when he asked “Do you remember in which direction it was headed?” he started off describing where the plane came from “Coming from the 27 side 27 heading, uh,…uh east towards DC, coming from that area..”. He goes on to describe, “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.”

    That’s a pretty good description of where the official lane 1 is, all right, but if you look closely at the description, he doesn’t mention “lane 1” when he’s telling Aldo where the plane came from. Although he used the “lane 1” description 3 times, he didn’t use it here. He starts by saying the plane was “coming from the 27 side”, then narrows that down to where “you got off in south parking. You were right there…”. It sounds more like he’s deducing where the plane came from base on where he saw it in the parking lot and the direction it was heading. The idea that his statements about where the plane came from is simple deduction rather than an account of where he actually saw it is confirmed by his later statement that “it seemed like it came from uh… south west.. look, the same way it came in or appeared that it came in, almost right where that first plane had uhm… fell into the building. It looked like it came from that direction.”

    He’s refining his estimate of where the plane came from as the conversation goes on. That last statement would make no sense if he had actually seen the plane at the official lane 1 area. How could an east bound plane over lane 1 get to where the first plane fell into the building, and then him see it “10 seconds tops” later? But if you assume Roosevelt was where he said he was, the east dock, then yeah, the statements all make sense.

    Add to this the following 3 witnesses to the plane’s approach: Noel Sepulveda, Lincoln Libner, and Levi Stevens. All 3 of these witnesses describe seeing the plane come toward the pentagon from the west and the explosion at the wall. And all 3 were at or around the official lane 1 area, yet not one of them mentioned anything about a commercial airliner flying 50 feet over their heads at lane 1 either before or after the explosion. That’s not the sort of thing you don’t notice.

    What else does Roosevelt say? The plane was heading east, towards DC. From the east loading dock Roosevelt would have an unobstructed panoramic view of the DC skyline, from part of the Capitol Mall to the north, to the sky over Regan National to the south. If he had looked out from the edge of the east dock, like he said he did, he would have seen that plane straight in front of him, heading directly into that panoramic picture. Contrast that to what he would have seen from the south dock looking towards the official lane 1. The description, “heading east towards DC” makes a lot more sense from the vantage point of the east dock.

    Next, which direction did he say it turned. He doesn’t directly, but from the conversation it’s pretty clear it turned left, to the north. At one point a little later in the interview he tells Aldo the plane did not go towards the airport. That would be Regan National, which would have been to the south, or a right turn. That’s not conclusive, but it is an indication it did not go right.

    At another point he says “It looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turning around because you’ve got the mall there…” It went towards the mall (Capitol Mall), to the left, then kept turning until it reversed direction to where it was “facing west”. The fact that he was able to see this plane turn to the left, then completely reverse direction in a circling u-turn in that direction, is a clear indication Roosevelt was the east loading dock. A person at the edge of the south dock maybe, maybe could have seen the plane turn to the north if the plane were close enough to the south edge of the building. But there is no way he could have seen the plane completely reverse direction once it was around the far corner of the building.

    Next in that same section Roosevelt says “..and then where I was was south, and the plane from the direction it was heading it was facing west so it went south west away from the pentagon.”

    Roosevelt was “south”. In fact he says that more than once; he was south. South of what? Canada? NYC? He sure was. But he wasn’t talking about Canada or NYC. He doesn’t mention them once. Similarly, he doesn’t mention the south loading dock or south side of the pentagon either. He just said he was south of something, but doesn’t say what. Roosevelt doesn’t sound like he was deliberately trying to confuse anyone, but it would have helped if he had identified what it was he was south of. But in the context of this informal conversation, with him on his cell phone driving around, he can be forgiven if he was a little distracted. That said, the fact he doesn’t identify what he was south of leads to the most logical conclusion that is he was south of the subject of the conversation. At this point, where the plane has just made a u-turn and he was describing which way it was heading away from the pentagon, it’s fairly clear he was saying he was south of the plane.

    That would put the plane north of him, as it came back across. There’s only 1 dock at the pentagon where someone can stand at the edge, look north, and see anything other than the inside loading dock area. Roosevelt had to be at the east dock to see a plane to the north of him that was facing west.

    Anything else? Well, yeah. Four times in the conversation Roosevelt describes the plane as “coming out”. I’m pretty sure he doesn’t mean it looked gay, so what is he talking about. It could be it was coming out of DC, but that doesn’t seem likely, since the whole thing happened so fast. What sounds more likely is he was saying the plane was coming out of the hard banking left turn. Roosevelt would have lost sight of the plane once it went around the river entrance corner of the building, but it would be reasonable to estimate that a plane “facing west” but coming out of the turn as it went out of sight, would straighten out heading southwest, which is, of course, the direction he said he thinks it left the area. And again, a plane somewhere to the north of the pentagon, turning southwest, could realistically be estimated to pass by on a path somewhat parallel to the mall entrance side of the building.

    Again from Roosevelt, “It looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turning around…”. That’s exactly what Roosevelt described. And again, there is no way someone at the south loading dock could have seen this maneuver. Even from the east dock Roosevelt could only estimate it went that way.

    This has dragged out longer than I expected. But everything I’ve described about is based on Roosevelt’s statements, and seem well within the flight capabilities of a B757; it was heading east then turned around. How far east the plane’s inertia carried it, and then how far north in executing the u-turn is unknown. And what happened to the plane after it went around that is also unknown, as far as Roosevelt is concerned. His story ended there.

    On a more speculative note, it doesn’t seem the plane continued to the southwest as Roosevelt described. No one reported seeing a plane coming back over to the west side of the building after the explosion. What would seem a logical course for the pilot would have been to bank off to the north or northwest, and follow the up river exit for plane flying out of the area. It would look like any other plane leaving Regan.

    Anyway, 2 cents

    And again, nice blog, Craig

    1. I agree with you that the Roberts interview is pretty clear. You have clearly given this subject a lot of attention. I’ll try to add further comment once I have had the chance to read what you’ve written a bit more carefully (probably tomorrow). Thanks for your encouraging words.

    2. Hi hadmatter! Good to “see” you again bro.

      “It looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turning around…”.

      That sentence alone shows the direction he was describing. Chris Sarns tried to muddy the waters with some obvious mental masturbation techniques.

      Sarns’ true opinion on the matter was recently revealed at Truth Action (remember, this guy proposes the “NOC impact” contradiction as his pet theory, yet is warmly welcomed at a forum pushing the OCT line).

      http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6976

      “Been there done that and I am tired of being PC so I’m going to say it like it is.

      Where it came from can be argued endlessly, by design, but the inescapable fact that he very clearly said that

      IT FLEW AWAY BACK OVER Hwy 27 TO THE SOUTHWEST

      means he is lying thru his bleeping teeth!!!

      It would have been seen and reported by all the people who saw the plane fly into the pentagon. His story is impossible.

      The C-130 flew away to the north.

      The truth is, the flyaway would have been seen and reported by everyone who saw the plane hit the Pentagon. RR is lying.

      Chris Sarns ”

      There you have it. Roosevelt Roberts is a “liar”.

      The meat on the bones of the East Loading Dock location is outlined here (for those not familiar with the argument):

      http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=40043&postcount=1

      Jeff Hill got through to Roberts’ wife after much harrassment and incessant phonecalls. She had this to say:

      “But I know that’s something that he’s not going to go back and revisit, because I guess whatever statement he gave, and I know that he gave a true statement, and if they want to turn around — then that’s totally up to them, but I know that that’s something he is not going to revisit. So we would appreciate it, because right now we have a lot of things going on with our family, and we would appreciate it if the phone calls would just stop. ”

      One more point hadmatter, Roberts was assigned to security at the heliport from 3pm to 12 midnight. He would have seen the lightpoles on the ground and heard the story about Lloyd’s cab. He would have (as anybody would), contorted his memory to match the “physical damage” and alleged point of entry onto Route 27 at lightpoles 1 and 2.

      What the mudslingers CANNOT “explain” away are the fact that he saw this aircraft AFTER the explosion and that he is definitely referring to it as “another” plane.

    3. Awesome post, hadmatter. And as slice says, it’s good to see you posting again. Your observations are dead on. I too believe it flew north up the river in the normal or close to normal northern departure path out of Reagan.

      I really wish I didn’t drop the bomb on Roosevelt in our second unrecorded conversation before getting all the pertinent details explained. I can assure you though he was adamant it wasn’t the c-130 he saw and he still was thinking the commercial airliner he saw was a second plane. I can assure you that i explained the north side witnesses and that it meant the plane couldnt hit the light poles or the building and we expected there would be someone on the other side of the building/alleged impact area who saw the plane flying away and assumed it was a second plane and he was that person. I explained how the plane that allegedly hit the pentagon was a silver commercial airliner and he saw a silver commercial airliner on the other side flying away seconds after the explosion. I can also assure you and those reading he was going to give us an interview but then backed out citing it was all “moving too fast.” He then clammed up and refused to talk at all obviously out of fear.

      When you get the chance you should join us at the forum again. In fact, i would like to post your comments on Roosevelt over there. If you’d like we can speak on the phone and I can fill you in on more details. PM me if you’d like.

      -Aldo

  25. Formatting Tips:

    Many of you post to other forums that use the square bracket syntax, as in [QUOTE]something noteworthy[/QUOTE]. This blog uses HTML syntax that uses angle brackets syntax, as in <blockquote>something noteworthy from someone else </blockquote>

    You need to bookend things with HTML syntax:
    <blockquote>Howdy</blockquote>
    <i>Dude</i>
    <b>Zippity do dah</b>
    <a href=”quest-for-consensus-toronto-911-hearings-navigate-pentagon-minefield”>some link</a>

    Here’s how the above would appear

    Howdy

    Dude
    Zippity do dah

    some broken link

    The above are the main and possibly only ones that work. But they go a long way towards readability.

  26. OK. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. It all ranges from bad to ugly. It was interesting to actually see and try to lift the book. It’s a HEAVY book. Someone put a lot of money into publishing this full color extravaganza thing. I wonder who. I started reading it, found it totally disgusting, and decided I had better things to do with my time.

    I just posted a new analysis video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvw0_i1rGns) in which a perimeter wall unit is falling ahead of the rest of the debris from the South Tower. As it falls there is a puff of smoke and it accelerates dramatically and changes direction slightly. That’s the kind of evidence-based research I’m interested in. Yet another unambiguous smoking gun proof of explosives. Explain that with space beams.

    –David Chandler, http://www.911speakout.org

    1. Dear Mr. Chandler,

      A 500 page book, albeit with 500 large pictures, and all you can come up with in your good, bad, and ugly book report to supposedly debunk it in its entirety is that you started but didn’t finish it, because you had better things to do with your time?! How well does this excuse fly with you when lobbed by one of your high school students? Thought so.

      Would one of those “better things” be the “totally disgusting” paper that you co-authored with Frank Legge and that contained glaring weaknesses pointed out above in this thread, but also as it turns out years before? How was it that Mr. Legge pulled the wool over your eyes, Mr. Chandler, that you would participate in such a farce? I suppose money does talk, and it is embarrassing what our nation pays you teachers, so I don’t necessarily blame you for compromising your scientific integrity and taking some cheese while you could.

      Regarding your perimeter wall unit falling ahead of the rest of the debris and then emitting a puff of smoke before accelerating dramatically in a change of direction. Wonderful observation, Mr. Chandler. Yes, it is another unambiguous smoking gun proof of explosives.

      And now you want me to explain that with space beams.

      For starters, I have never asserted a mutual exclusive causality to any of the towers destructions. They had back-up plans to their back-up plans to assure the thoroughness of the destruction. What happened within the confines of the steel outer shell was different than what happened to the outer shell itself. My wild-ass speculation is that their planning required the outer shell to remain in tact for milli-seconds longer than the inner destructive aspects both to contain the inner destruction and to shield the observation of its destructive mechanisms from outside observers. Once the insides were dustified, something like nano-thermite could blow the bolts connecting the outer mesh together.

      Of course, your space beams comment reflects how little of Dr. Judy Wood’s book that you read. Maybe you and I can agree one day that elements of her book are disinformation. Your task, though, was to find them and prove them as such. You haven’t. More importantly, your task was to recognize the nuggets of truth in her evidence, preserve them, and assure that whatever theories you promote also address them. This you haven’t done either. (What sort of grade would you give your students for such piddly efforts?)

      Because you are so flippant in your space beams comment and are so eager to see how space beams could potentially account for the observed piece of debris accelerating dramatically in a change of direction, I will indulge you in your little game and set aside for the sake of discussion my belief and its alignment with yours regarding the deployment of explosives. However, I will change your stilted framing from space beams to directed energy weapons (DEW). Why? Because DEW could be planted within the towers. The power-down periods in various weekends leading up to 9/11 could very well have served to install energy diverters that would, when required, re-route building power to DEW devices.

      What happens when an inflated but unknotted balloon is let go? The force of the escaping air pushes the remnants of the balloon dramatically in a change of direction, no? What happens when you microwave excessively some liquid in a sealed tupperware container? Due to the fact that the lid’s seal is the weak part of the container, the internal pressure generated by the transition of the liquid into a gas will cause the lid to pop off dramatically in a change of direction.

      My premise is that most/much of the “smoke” we see in the pulverization of the towers isn’t smoke. It is instead the dustification of content and steam created by the energy directed at content (e.g., concrete, drywall, etc.) The DEW mechanism excited residual water molecules in the content whose sudden and rapid expansion into steam caused the content itself to blow apart, not unlike what happens when food (e.g., refried beans, stew) is excessively microwaved in a kitchen.

      Directed energy is the key phrase.

      Keeping with your challenge that DEW has to explain the observed piece of debris accelerating dramatically in a change of direction, we simply have to speculate that maybe that piece of debris had something (other than explosives, right?) attached to it or in its composition such that when it fell into the electromagnetic or other types of energy fields associated with DEW — whether those fields were direct or accidentally reflected –, the rapid change of state of its composition caused it to launch itself like a released balloon into a change of direction.

      Do I truly believe this for the example in your video? No. Do I disagree with your premise that nano-thermite may have been an accelerant on that piece of debris to turn it into a rocket projectile? No.

      9/11 was an overly thorough and redundant operation. I have never discounted that nano-thermite may have been involved as one of the mechanisms of destruction. The issue has always been: nano-thermite cannot explain all of the features of the destruction and its aftermath.

      Speaking of math, do the math. How long could nano-thermite burn under the rubble? Trick question. A more accurate question is, what quantities of nano-thermite would be required to achieve the recorded duration of the under rubble fires? Make it simple and assume, say, 4 weeks.

      More math. Calculate how much nano-thermite would be required to bring down the towers. Then calculate the energy requirements of pulverization of content. Then extrapolate and determine how much nano-thermite would be required to achieve this and meet that energy requirement of pulverization. Then Occam Razor figure out how many man-trips and effort it would take to wire it all up.

      Your answers to this challenge will prove to you that nano-thermite does not explain all of the towers destruction. Another destructive mechanism and its energy source must be sought.

      Wild-ass speculation on my part. They had milli-nuclear reactors or cold-fusion reactors plugged into the building’s power lines that were diverted to power the DEW devices at two or three levels (including a lower level to clean up after themselves). Both towers had spires or residual structure left standing after floors and walls seemingly collapsed around them, because they supported the DEW devices for a time and the destructive energy was directed away from its support. The measured radiation levels can be attributed to the power sources, as can the hot-spots (e.g., fizzling nuclear material). Whatever they used to power DEW was booby-trapped, say, in a blanket of nano-thermite to burn up the encasement of the power source, which conveniently explains the traces of nano-thermite from places where hot-spots burned. The fields created by both DEW and the energy source can explain much of the anomaloous damage to vehicles.

      Yes, elements of my wild-ass speculation are probably wrong, and I want them corrected. However, they are closer to the truth than your limited thinking and purposeful braking of the 9/11 Truth Movement from exploring the energy requirements (best documented by Dr. Wood). Your dismissive comments and premature parking at nano-thermite are just that, and they lack substance.

      Go back and try again, Mr. Chandler. And this time, read the book first, because your book review from the lofty position of not having read it… well? You and everyone else gets the picture.

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