Breaking the back of the official story: 9/11 Consensus Panel can’t be timid


Barrie Zwicker on the 9/11 Consensus Panel: truth is more important than unity.

By Craig McKee

There’s no going back now.

The recently announced 9/11 Consensus Panel has raised the stakes for the Truth movement. The panel cannot afford to fail because many of the most highly respected members of the Truth movement have lent their reputations to the effort – and none more than panel co-founder David Ray Griffin.

They simply have to get it right. And while a cautious start has been made, with 13 points achieving the required 85% support among the 22 voting members of the panel, this is only the beginning. It has to be. To have any impact at all, this list of points must be added to – and reasonably quickly. Hiding from controversy the way the Toronto 9/11 Hearings did simply will NOT work here.

Three members of the 9/11 Consensus Panel I interviewed recently expressed their hopes for the initiative as well as their concerns about the process.

Author and journalist Barrie Zwicker, retired Marine Corps fighter pilot Shelton Lankford, and retired NASA senior executive Dwain Deets joined the panel largely on the strength of Griffin’s considerable reputation within the movement. Despite having varying degrees of apprehension about the consensus process, all three say they remain hopeful that this effort will produce results that will help the media and the public see how wrong the official story of 9/11 is.

Zwicker says that with only four votes needed to derail any potential consensus point, the selection of panelists is hugely important. He says the process depends on panel members being honest and having no hidden agenda.

“In the case of the Consensus Panel I can’t guarantee that,” he says. “It’s open to manipulation by inauthentic persons.”

He says he is also concerned that important arguments against the 9/11 official story may be left aside in order to achieve “consensus.”

“Do we value unity above truth?” he says. “I choose truth.”

When it comes to the 13 points that have already achieved consensus, Zwicker is more positive but not without reservations. He says the points are “useful” and likely to make anyone who reads them more sceptical of the official story. At the same time, he feels that anyone looking at the list could be misled into thinking that this is the full extent of the case being made.

Zwicker, Lankford, and Deets share a concern that the process being used doesn’t allow for face-to-face discussion among panel members leading to consensus.

“I’m having difficulty with that problem,” Lankford says. “You’ve got to have a free flowing process.”

Deets says he would like to be able to discuss with members why they oppose any given point, although he believes the process will be improved in the weeks ahead.

Lankford says he feels that the panel should not be afraid to tackle contentious questions. He adds that it’s critical that important evidence against the official story not be “marginalized” or watered down so that consensus can be reached.

“The way to deal with controversy is to vigorously debate it,” he says.

Deets agrees: “My hope is that over the next six months to a year there will be more points on the Pentagon,” he says.

He believes the statements that were rejected in the first phase should be worked on more, because objections to a given point can be for very different reasons. He adds that there might be a benefit to including minority views.

Zwicker also says it’s important that the evidence compiled by Citizen Investigation Team – eyewitness accounts that place the large plane that approached the Pentagon on the north side of the Citgo gas station – should be considered. He calls this a “litmus test” for how successful the panel will be.

Panel co-founder Elizabeth Woodworth says it isn’t practical for the panel to meet face to face to discuss the points given that members are from all over the world. But she doesn’t believe this will stop the panel from dismantling of the official story of 9/11 through the creation of a bank of information the media can trust.

Woodworth says the use of the Delphi Method will bring a level of credibility to the panel’s work because this method is used to arrive at consensus in the medical field. She says it is particularly used to elicit expert input on a subject when there isn’t a lot of “measureable data.”

“Our aim is to provide information [to the public and the media] at the same level as it’s provided in medicine,” she says. “Our findings [so far] are not very dramatic or earth shaking but they are credible.

“The people who understand best evidence and the Delphi Method are really excited about it.”

The panel’s web site (consensus911.org) explains that the term “best evidence” is used: “…  in the very narrow sense of the “best evidence” available with regard to any specific claim of the 9/11 official story that the Panel challenges.  It does not mean the strongest evidence against the official story in general.  It is simply the best evidence against each particular claim that the Panel addresses.

“Best evidence”, as used by the 9/11 Consensus Panel, is not evidence in support of alternative theories of what happened on 9/11.”

The success of the Consensus Panel depends not only on its willingness to be aggressive but also on the good faith of the participants making a sincere effort to build the strongest possible case against the official story of 9/11. It will mean not rejecting points outright without a damned good reason.

But if the panel goes too slowly or behaves too timidly, it risks being worse than irrelevant. This isn’t to say that the panel shouldn’t be prudent and meticulous in its assessment of individual points, just that contentious issues cannot be avoided.

We can’t settle for “lowest-common-denominator” evidence. The oft-repeated position that the Truth movement should “focus on the strongest evidence – the towers” has got to go.

172 comments

  1. While I have immeasurable respect for David Griffin, I believe that erecting a full blown consensus
    process is a fools errand.

    Have we forgotten that the same tool was used by Zelikow? It’s why Max Cleland got out!
    The thing is unworkable for decent people. But very useful for a few isolated bad guys……

    Dennis Morrisseau
    West Pawlet, VT
    dmorso1@netzero.net
    802 645 9727

    I would like to hear the full explanation from DRG as to why he thinks we should go this route.

  2. The panelists I interviewed share your fears. The test will be whether or not a strong Pentagon point (showing how no 757 hit) makes the list soon. If not, the panel may became exactly what you’re suggesting. If there’s no meat on the bone by, say, March…

  3. I read it, and immediately felt sympathy for the energy levels required for you to complete it. I couldn’t but helped be reminded of the parallelism between a soap-opera (like “As the World Turns”) and the 9/11 Truth Movement. Great job of keeping us informed of such back-room details.

    1. It seems to me that Barbara Honegger already has modeled for all of us what the Pentagon story actually is……..WHETHER OR NOT ANY AIRCRAFT OR MISSILE DID OR DIDN’T HIT THE BUILDING.

      And that story is the same story as the Towers and Building 7 :

      The Pentagon and these other buildings were BLOWN UP VIA EXPLOSIVES and everything else that was or wasn’t seen by people was JUST COVER.

      And she proves it!

      Dennis Morrisseau W. Pawlet, VT 802 645 9727 dmorso1@netzero.net

      1. Baraba Honegger absolutely does not. You need to review her “work” again and use some critical thinking.

        Can you show me where she “proves” what actually happened at the pentagon?

  4. Also, simple observation of the two buildings exploding and the third collapsing provides 100% conclusive proof of explosives. And so much follows from there.

  5. Mr Balsamo, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 just passed. I took content down at your request. Please reciprocate. I need my name and inaccessible altered content off your site now please. Thank you.

    Paul

      1. The clocks prove it. April Gallup’s testimony proves it.
        The first pictures/videos of the first damage prove it.
        “Nothing” to show us on confiscated videos around the
        building prove it.
        No shoot down off the roof of the building prove it.

        D. Morrisseau [contact info above]

      2. Dennis,

        You mention Honegger’s clocks from the Pentagon and the heliport as if they are significant pieces of evidence. Yet they are shown in perfect condition, and are not photographs at the scene. Rather they are photo ops. And there is no chain of custody. Anyone could have put those clocks before a background for photographing anywhere. You could do those photos at your home or office.

        When the government does this sort of thing we usually laugh at such claims for evidence. Why not for these clocks?

        We in the movement for truth about 9-11 need to have standards when we evaluate any and all evidence, not standards the vary according to whether we happen to like the implications of the evidence.

        Paul

        1. Paul,

          Are we saying that Barbara faked the evidence, or has been duped by fake evidence.?
          Or that she cannot tell the difference between fake and real evidence?

          And of course, there is a lot more evidence that points awfully strongly to explosives
          at the pentagon, is there not?

          –LT Morrisseau, POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT 05775 dmorso1@netzero.net 802 645 9727

          I was court-martialled for refusing to obey orders to Vietnam as an Army officer in 1968.
          But we defeated the court-martial. And I was allowed to resign my commission and exit the military
          “under honorable conditions”………instead of spending many years in Leavenworth.

          So i welcome your critique. But also Barbara’s work and comments.

          Editor’s note: The Paul being addressed in this note is professor Paul Zarembka, who commented earlier on the clocks not the Paul who posts under “911artists.”

      3. Check those clocks again. The very link she provides (stevewarranblogspot) shows clocks at different times, including one at around the official “impact time” of 9:37. Yet, she focuses on the earlier ones.

        Walk around your house and check your clocks. I’ve got 4 of them all at different times, one 4 minutes apart from the others.

        It is not strong evidence in the least. It’s Honegger’s attempt at boosting her credibility as a pentagon researcher. Credibility which she is losing fast.

        You should review more of her findings. She even falsely claimed to have met “THE” cab driver seen in photos referring to some middle Eastern cab driver who picked her up at the airport on a trip to DC. We all know Lloyde England is African American. It was simply a sloppy and hair brained claim, which seems to be the standard with her.

      4. @Veritatem- December 6, 2011 at 12:27 pm

        How many military/DoD-types have you been around? Most if not all of the ones that I have worked with are ‘anal’ to the EXTREME about clocks, watches, and punctuality in general. I’ll wager that the Pentagon would be chock full o’ those types. Or maybe it’s just an officer thing (I’ve worked with and around mostly former and active commissioned military personnel. Sometimes NCO’s and less frequently and more recently DCO’s- of which I would have been one had I signed that USAF paper several years ago).

        Regardless, I don’t personally find the clocks all that conclusive of anything because as you have already pointed out- different clocks usually say different times (if they aren’t connected to an NTP or internet time server like the one I am using right now to type this or my cell phone, which I usually use to set all the other clocks in my nearby ‘world’ from).

        I seem to recall one of the clocks in a photo having broken hands laying inside the bottom of the glass- that clock I definitly find credible for that presumably ‘high-g’ environment (she be busted!). Or maybe I’ve just seen too many broken analog clocks and guages in my lifetime.

        Now the SPECIFIC CAUSES as well as the actual time of that ‘high-g environment’ are certainly open to debate however.

  6. Always look forward to each of your blogs Craig. Nice work.

    Sometimes it’s better to draw up an extensive list of claims and then whittle the details down to the bare bones.

    Say for example, the entire Pentagon witness pool (mostly alleged) was broken down from the repeated cries of “104 witnesses to an impact” (still claimed by certain moderators at 911blogger) to what was actually said, the POVs, the veracity of the testimonies and how many were actually independently interviewed and not quote mined from the media and internet.

    They wouldn’t have to do the nitty gritty as that has been extensively done (and is verifiable).

    They need to cut through the “clutter” and disinfo around the Pentagon attack. Clear the trees to see the wood. Then make a balanced decision based upon what we actually know.

    The NTSB released (alleged) FDR data that showed an altitude way too high to strike the poles or impact.

    Or the fact that in 5 years of bluster and nonsense, not one witness to the official path has been found to counter the ever growing number of NOC witnesses.

    Or the fact that any documentation regarding plane parts, including the serial numberless FDR aren’t available according to the FBI.

    There is much more, but to cut to the chase, what I’m saying is that based on those listed above alone, there is no evidence that any aircraft, much less “FLIGHT 77” hit that building.

    Never mind the rabbit holes planted by individuals to in some way explain how the official narrative can be twisted into a bastardized version of the 9/11 Commission Report and all that comes with it.
    Stutt and his “data”, which i guarantee nobody apart from Rob Balsamo has actually gone through let alone understood (and debunked)

    If some genuinely can’t accept a flyover based on genuine disbelief and/or more likely, total confusion, fine. But the conclusions of what happened at the Pentagon should be based on the evidence we have and the “evidence” the authorities have forwarded. From nothing (basically their word and hearsay) to totally contradictory evidence that is in shreds.

    Until verifiable, independent evidence of any of the official claims are open to scrutiny, the only conclusion can be flyover, whether you “believe” it or not.

    1. [quote]”Stutt and his “data”, which i guarantee nobody apart from Rob Balsamo has actually gone through let alone understood (and debunked).”[/quote]

      Not so, oneslice. I went through Stutt & Legge’s paper and data extensively. Again, DEAFENING SILENCE over at Club Hereward (no surprises there):

      Pentagon: Dr. Frank Legge/Warren Stutt FDR Paper
      http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=9677

  7. Just seeing this latest post about the 9/11 Consensus Panel, in which I’m quoted, and want to say that the post seems to me to be responsible and even cautious and yet with meat on the bones.
    Keep up the good work.

    1. Hello Mr. Zwicker,
      as someone who has looked into the whole controversy surrounding 911 for quite a while, can I say that in my opinion it would be useful for you, and for many other people who have been wrapped up in the Truth movement for so many years ,to take a very long step back from the whole thing and to regain a degree of objectivity and balance.
      You are someone who has written a lot about the media and it’s influence on peoples perceptions and attitudes but I often wonder what has been the effect on people of the constant barrage of 911 truth DVDs, documentaries, Youtube videos, blogs, websites, forums ,24 hours a day , 7 days a week 365 days a year for nearly 10 years, all of them repeating over and over the same message – that 911 was an inside job and the ‘official story’ is a lie etc. That surely is something that you of all people should recognise and maybe even study. If the mainstream media supposedly has this pervasive influence on peoples perceptions of reality then surely the internet can have the same effect, creating it’s own ‘invisible axioms’ with it’s constant reinforcement of a one-sided, and therefore distorted, presentation of the facts and – more importantly -the interpretations of those facts.
      I have to say if you had told me, in 2001, that there would be any sizeable group of people who would give credence to some of the implausible theories put forward by the 911 truth movement over the last number of years, quite frankly I wouldn’t have believed it. It has made me realise how important the rational and balanced assessment of evidence is, .

      1. @Lieutenantm
        By ‘doing some work’ I presume you mean looking at even more 911 truth DVDs, documentaries, Youtube videos, blogs, websites, forums telling me 911 was an inside job until I believe 911 was an inside job- and start to take seriously the ramblings of someone like Barbara Honneger and the implausible conclusions of CIT and Barrie Zwicker. Years of subjecting themselves to one-sided presentations of evidence can leave people unable to distinguish the plausible from the implausible. If that’s what you want to do then go ahead, but I prefer to give myself a chance to be able to make reasonable assessments of the evidence and come to reasonable conclusions.

      2. Dear Mr. LieutenantM,

        You’ll notice that Mr. Wright paints with a mighty big brush when he wants to coat over the 9/11 Truth Movement. Yet he is unable to whip out his fine detail brush to paint lipstick on the OGCT pig in a manner acceptable for any rational person to contemplate seriously bestial relations.

        Enjoy Mr. Wright’s postings for what they are: proof that the Cass Sunstein sponsored NSA Q-Group takes this blog and its contributors seriously.

      3. @ Mr. Wright- December 6, 2011 at 4:05 pm

        Well you certainly seem to have AMPLE time to spend looking at and posting on blogs that are sometimes/often about 9-11 (although not expressly so in title or verbiage). I’m not sure I understand your objection expressed to the good Lt in this context. Methinks you might protest a bit much…

        I did get the distinct impression that you seem to equate your own opinions as fact and “reasonable” yet our opinions are “ramblings” and “implausible.” Yet they each remain mere opinons (although one set of opinions is often more supported and documented than the other with verifiable links), and still you come here weekly or so to belittle those opinions and those persons with whom you disagree so vociferously.

        I have actually come to appreciate the quite rare ‘constants’ in life as I grow older (perhaps el Senor 11 is rubbing off on me)…

      4. @Lieutenantm ,Senor El Once & Mrboz
        I too enjoyed the reference to ‘Cass Sunstein and Q-Group’ etc since if you are suggesting I am supposed to be their representative here on this forum I have bad news for you – they are ignoring you.
        ‘Hey Cass , could you get me a cup of coffee there …milk no sugar’ Damn!!! I gave it away…where’s that erase key…OH NO! I posted it….!!!

    2. Mr. Zwicker, please observe the two statements beneath.

      [QUOTING HOME PAGE CONSENSUS911.ORG 12-05-2011]
      The purpose of the 9/11 Consensus Panel is to provide the world with a clear statement, based on expert independent opinion, of some of the best evidence opposing the official narrative about 9/11.
      [END QUOTE]
      http://www.consensus911.org/

      —-

      [QUOTING WHAT IS BEST EVIDENCE PAGE CONSENSUS911.ORG 12-05-2011]
      The Panel uses the term in the very narrow sense of the “best evidence” available with regard to any specific claim of the 9/11 official story that the Panel challenges. It does not mean the strongest evidence against the official story in general. It is simply the best evidence against each particular claim that the Panel addresses.
      [END QUOTE]
      http://www.consensus911.org/what-is-best-evidence/

      Thank you.

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

      1. What is the purpose of asking Mr. Zwicker to read this? He’s on the panel, so I imagine he has already read it. What is it you want him, and the readers of this blog, to understand?

      2. This is gobbledygook. Any given claim should be included BECAUSE of the strong evidence for that claim. You don’t start with the claim and then look for the best evidence for that claim.

        Unless, of course, there are certain very strong claims you just don’t want to include.

        “The purpose of the 9/11 Consensus Panel is to provide the world with a clear statement, based on expert independent opinion, of some of the best evidence.
        The Panel uses the term in the very narrow sense of the “best evidence” available with regard to any specific claim of the 9/11 official story that the Panel challenges. It does not mean the strongest evidence against the official story in general. It is simply the best evidence against each particular claim that the Panel addresses.”

      3. Mr. McKee, there are a lot of things in this universe that make sense and that I just don’t understand. This could be one of them. However, to me the above two statements together look like what I can best describe now as something like gibberish, double-talk, or doublespeak. I think it’s worthy of attention and comment from Mr. Zwicker and others. Also, as I’m trying to figure out how to respond to your question I see at http://www.consensus911.org/methodology/ that Griffin and Woodworth appear to be the only two formulating consensus points. At http://www.consensus911.org/news/ I see a promotion of Griffin’s latest book. I think these new things that I see now are also worthy of note.

  8. In my earlier comment, I did not mean to say or imply or agree with the part of the report that deplores the inability of panel members to communicate “face to face.” This obviously would be totally impractical except for members who were in the same geographical vicinity. I mean a prohibition on panelists to communicate with each other one-on-one, in emails, or by phone or whatever, or even on a small conference call, does not seem reasonable.

    1. Hello Mr. Zwicker,

      I’m not sure whether you were raised around or have much experience with horses, but you strike me as an individual who possesses an uncommonly high degree of “horse sense.” (I grew up on a ranch in the Rockies somewhere south of yours [as in the GORGEOUS Canadian ones out West in B.C.] and I have enough “horse sense” to prefer [four-stroke] “Yamaha sense-” it is much cheaper to feed and it usually does EXACTLY what I tell it to. That and it nearly ALWAYS stays exactly where I park it, unlike certain hoofed modes of transportation.😉 )

      It is certainly a refreshing change to hear a truth seeker who is not afraid to speak his mind and express those “controversial” or unpopular truths that all too often remain unspoken in the interests of “political correctness” or whatever fashion is ‘en vogue’ that that particular timeframe.

      It somewhat reminds me of the quote/urban legend attributed to Harry S. Truman who is alleged to have said that if you have 99 “yes men” telling you that you are the greatest/smartest guy in the world and one ornery bastard always telling you that you a dumb sonofabitch, then perhaps it is time to consider what EXACTLY that one ornery bastard is trying to tell you. (I often keep this attribution in mind coupled with the fact that Truman was the first man in recorded history who actually used atomic weapons in anger- perhaps Truman took some regrets to his grave with him in that context.)

      Anyway, my point is- the truth OFTEN hurts and many people and/or the public at large would often prefer simply not to hear the truth. Here enters the cognitive dissonance that I believe many of us have seen all too often since that fateful Tuesday in September.

      Keep up the good work (and keep seeing the forest while still remaining capable of looking at individual trees).

  9. I just read this article at indybay.org (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/12/05/18701790.php).

    Please go there and check it out. I don’t know if someone reposted it or what happened, but there appear to be multiple links to spam at the end of the article.

    As I live in San Francisco, I often check out indybay for events and comment. I once used to post many articles myself at indybay– but I became very disenchanted with the site– as I have become with many other news sites– primarily because of its poor support, (and I believe) hindrance of intelligent articles and ideas about 9/11. What generally appears there also tends to be diversionary. (I do like McKee’s articles in general though.)

    I have always believed that Barrie Zwicker is the best and most authentic force in the 9/11 truth movement: he cannot be ignored.

    I am decidedly fatigued by and wary of these regularly trumped up convocations that promise greater focus but seem to actually obfuscate and contain the Truth Movement.

  10. As far as (in the loose sense) consensus goes, I’m curious about these two items:

    Flight manifests: what’s assumed to be the truth now concerning arabic names, etc.?

    Also, what about Silverstein’s insurance – is it still generally assumed that it’s what it appears to be: that he changed with to get more money with the foreknowledge of what would happen?

    Thanks for any help offered.

  11. Interesting to see “truth” advocates continuing to push for speculation to be included in our “truth”!

    My hope is that the consensus panel does not put it’s chin in the breeze for the de-bunkers to knock them out!

    If we follow the scientific method on issues that are controversial we will not go wrong.

    Be reasonable, self critical and cautious. If the data does not exist then the point can not be made period!

    Regards John

    1. Dear Mr. Bursill,

      You are somewhat of a name-brand in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Thank you for coming to this blog. You wrote:

      Interesting to see “truth” advocates continuing to push for speculation to be included in our “truth”!

      Only God can own the “truth”, and it doesn’t need no stinking consensus to be true.

      If the mainstream and consensus faction of the 9/11 Truth Movement has problems with speculation, it is of the nature that not enough plausible speculation has been explored. It has been shutdown, early and often. Others will debate on the merits of CIT. Me? Shoot! I belong to the fringe fraction of 9/11 Truth that defends September Clues and Dr. Judy Wood.

      I am such a duped useful idiot, I leave the door open to be duped back that pixels of planes via video fakery weren’t involved and that directed energy weapons powered by milli-nuclear devices didn’t dustify the towers… Providing something more scientifically sound than “consensus” is deployed in your argument.

      Nano-thermite, while involved (probably to destroy the devices that did the destruction and other odd jobs), cannot account for the massive energy sink of pulverization of content, cannot account for measured anomalous radiation levels, cannot account for 1st Responder health ailments, cannot account for the anomalous vehicle damage outside the radius of falling debris, etc. Hell, it can’t even account for the duration of the underground fires! Thus, the 9/11 Truth Movement must speculate further.

      As for pixels of planes inserted into our media footage, this is but the tip of the iceberg in how the world was Hollywood manipulated. Had those pixels been modeled a bit better with deformation and deceleration crash physics, had those pixels flight paths been consistent across all 44 or so “not-quite-amateur-at-all” videos, had there not been glaring instances of leaked raw and altered footage (e.g., view of plane 2 from local news helicopter close by), maybe we could dispense with the video fakery. But that wasn’t the case.

      Worse, when considering the calculated speed of those pixels at 1/4 mile above sea level where the air is heavy and resistive exceeding the manufacturer’s maximum speed when flown at high altitude and how these factors alone should have made a real plane difficult to control, if it didn’t rip it apart, when considering the military exercises that involved the insertion and deletion of radar blips, when considering how interceptors were sent the opposite direction at half speed (e.g., couldn’t have them discovering no real planes), when considering the “liberal media’s” lockstepping propaganda to shutdown 9/11 Truth as crazy, loony, and insane, when considering faked air-to-ground telephone calls, magic passports, magic bandannas, and other utter bullshit that has been foisted on the world, then pieces of a much larger neo-conning puzzle come into focus. Here again, “consensus” 9/11 truth doesn’t do enough speculation.

      My hope is that the consensus panel does not put its chin in the breeze for the de-bunkers to knock them out!

      Alas, if the consensus panel doesn’t speculate far enough, they’ll have duped useful idiots like myself knocking them out.

      If we follow the scientific method on issues that are controversial we will not go wrong.

      Hear, hear! Let’s apply that scientific method to the utter pulverization of content! Let’s apply it to the duration of under-rubble fires! Let’s apply it to crash physics! Let’s apply it to video fakery, which I truly believe was the least risky, least complicated option as compared to “real planes.”

      Be reasonable, self critical and cautious. If the data does not exist then the point cannot be made period!

      I agree fully, but only under normal circumstances and without meddling agencies whose agenda is to destroy and suppress such data that could then lead us to truthful conclusions.

      Come on! They prevented standard operating procedures on so many levels: errant flight interception protocols, what fire investigations can look for, … They delayed the establishment of a commission for over a year, tried to put a known criminal (Kissinger) in charge, under-funded it, steered it via Zelikow such that even the Commissioners no longer stand behind its conclusions, and covered over blatant examples of data destruction (e.g., FAA tapes, Able Danger).

      So, a charge of what we cannot do and of the points that cannot be made when “the data does not exist” because it was never collected, destroyed, or never analyzed plays exactly into the hands of suppression of truth.

      And for all of my crazy speculation here, by golly data does exist. The issue is that the data points fit into trend lines that various 9/11 steering committees (like 9/11 Blogger) won’t touch with a 10-foot pole with or without science.

      Thus, be reasonable, self critical and cautious, but also be open-minded, thoughtful, and wary of those who would steer us away from God’s truth just because it didn’t seem to fit into a box defined by consensus views.

  12. John,

    Your two-faced hypocrisy never ceases to amaze. It was your clique at 911blogger and truthaction who have used the ANTI-scientific method, particularly when it comes to Pentagon research and aviation research in general, i.e. what kinds of planes hit the towers.

    The “controversy” you speak of is not a natural controversy that arose for a genuine reason. It is a synthetic, manufactured “controversy” from a small but vocal and influential clique of individuals. You guys are no better than Albury Smith or Arthur Schuermann with their anti- WTC CD arguments.

    It was you, for example, who was unable to produce a “south of the citgo” eyewitness during a debate you did with Craig Ranke in 2009, even though you went into the debate feeling quite certain that there were dozens of them. When you tried to offer up Albert Hemphill’s name, Craig very thoroughly explained exactly why the man was not a south path witness at all, but rather, his testimony actually supported the north path. You conceded defeat at the end of the debate and said you wouldn’t bash CIT anymore; after a few months of quietness you went back on the warpath and pretended like the debate never happened.

    Lastly, using a highly flawed “vote” system to howl down one side of an argument, and for your 911blogger moderator friends to then use that artificial consensus in order to justify banning many good, genuine activists from (what once was) the no. 1 9/11 news site is HARDLY what I would call the “scientific method.”

    You don’t seriously think that time will succeed in flushing all this down the memory hole do you?

    Siberian Tiger

    1. Dear Tiger:

      My advice is do not engage these guys at all. That’s what
      they want and what they get paid for.

      Once we’ve I.D.ed them and pegged them, let’s just move on with our
      own conversation.

      Lieutenant M [Dennis Morrisseau PO Box `177 W. Pawlet, VT 05775
      dmorso1@netzero.net 802 645 9727

      1. Yes, but I think it is fullly appropriate and proper that Gregg & Vicky’s 911blogger & TrueFaction truth-attacking cliques reap what they have sown. ‘Blowback’ is a bitch, INNIT?

    2. I predicted this response nearly one year ago today (on 11 Dec 2010- post #10) at 911oz:

      http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=45024&postcount=10

      Let’s look at the 911blogger experience of Naomi, an ‘impartial’ (non-CIT affiliated, of course neither am I for that matter) third party (post #124)

      “I’ve been censored at 911blogger for simply linking to these timely and relevant threads at 911oz.

      They deleted my original comment and the comments thereafter asking why it was deleted.

      Now for the first time I am in the 911blogger queue and have to await approval for my comment to appear.

      My concerns about 911blogger censorship are more than justified.”- naomi

      http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=42970&postcount=124

      http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=42966&postcount=122

      http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=38830&postcount=153

      I could probably dig that big ZIPfile out of my archives that documented the 911blogger purge(s) if anyone really needs it- it has since expired on the 2nd server.

      1. Dear Mr. 911Artists and his discussion partners,

        Consider this notice that such alias-ASS-ociating games will not be tolerated here! It serves no purpose except as Google fodder to mess with job-hunting background checks.

        The one exception is when an alias-hopping-ASS-ociate does so to juke the numbers significantly with respect to support or disagreement of a given theme under a given thread (and sometimes between threads). Should such an event present itself, the difference between equating alter-ego super heroes Batman to Spider-man is quite different from equating Batman to Bruce Wayne or Spider-man to Peter Parker.

        Ben Franklin has filled books with the published writings of pen-names that he wrote under. Thus, he demonstrated the integrity of standing behind (eventually) the words we write whatever the alias. Alas, such openness at the wrong time or a time not of our choosing could have meant a high cost, possibly even his life. An early echo of that sentiment was in getting the shit kicked out of him, losing his employment, and souring family love at his older brother’s newspaper and printing press after Ben confessed to being “Silence Dogood”, a middle-aged widow who wrote popular letters to the editor.

    1. Yes, I wrote to Indy Bay and asked them to remove them. I was also able to confirm that my article (posted last Friday) had be reposted with the spam added. Thanks for pointing it out.

  13. This is a ridiculous process which is skewed by what is presented as *evidence* in the first place…and a panel which is biased in the second. You can’t vote for what is fact…

    Fact is.

  14. I think it is obvious to most people aware of the Pentagon/shanksville evidence from CIT and PFT, that there is a concerted effort to manipulate minds. We have to start looking at the possibility that we have been infiltrated by the very people you were confident in trusting.

    There is 0 logic in omitting the CIT/PFT evidence. It only serves those who were behind 9/11.

    DRG, Woodworth and others act as if these north side witnesses CIT collected and the data/topography problems PFT analyzed do not exist except as a subject of controversy.

    This is laziness, insecurity and ego driven, or flat out undercover intelligence subterfuge with an agenda or allegiance to something.

    Bursill, as pointed out, lost the debate to Ranke… badly… and promised not to attack CIT. Yet, in typical bizarre behavior, which only can be attributed to being an infiltrator bent on saturating the movement with disinformation, he went right back to attacking CIT after all the concessions he made in the debate.

    So it’s not surprising to learn that he is/”was” an Operations/Intelligence Sargent with the Australian Army. Add to that, the fact that Australia is a close ally to the US, the CIA is reported to have bases there, and the team that consists of not only Bursill, but Legge, and Stutt.

    Legge, as we know, has been attacking and lying about CIT and with the help of he mysteriously 9/11 truth “agnostic”, Warren Stutt has been able to try and use the falsely decoded last 4 seconds of the already problematic and govt supplied. Of course, we must remember that Stutt never contacted the NTSB or L3 communications (mfg of FDR) to let them know about this alleged bug he allegedly found. Nor did he correct or address any of the issues pointed out by PFT. Instead, he disappeared and left his disinformation piece lingering online to cast doubt and cause confusion in new supporters of CIT/PFT. What we likely have here is an Australian intelligence team working on behalf of the CIA. As pointed out before, a team from Australia is a lot harder to peg down on the phone or in person, and it certainly gives the impression that this is not the work of American intelligence infiltrators because… well… they are not American.

    Then of course, we have entities like “A. Wright” showing colors as “anti-9/11 truth” then masquerading as a truther concerned about “best evidence”. This is another ploy, to of course marginalize CIT/PFT.

    You have to continually ask yourself, why would alleged truthers fight so hard to suppress witnesses who stood by where they saw the plane in relation to the gas station even after learning that where they saw the plane proves an inside job?

    1. @Veritatem
      Where have I ‘masqueraded’ as a truther , here or anywhere else? I think I have been open and above board about my opinions about the 911 truth movement. This talk about ‘entities’ is pretty tiresome I have to say , as if you can’t even imagine that an ordinary person could possibly disagree with the conclusions of CIT for example. You sound almost like Aldo Marquis……

      1. Well Mr. Wright,

        FWIW I never once thought you were a “truther.” (In fact I was starting to suspect you were actully a ‘bot’ script or something along those lines). Feel better now? 🙂

  15. @mrboz

    Sorry, I missed your comment. Well I’m not sure about how tedious these military people were when it came to coordinating the setting of clocks. But it appears some of the clocks are personal, store bought ones and not pentagon slave clocks.

    It really doesn’t matter if you think about it because as I mentioned earlier, they all stopped at different times including around the alleged “impact” time.

    Plus, the obvious problem with her “9:30-9:32 explosion” is that no one was alerted to these supposed bombs going off. Ofcs. Lagasse and Brooks didn’t leave the gas station did they? If they did they would have missed the north side of the gas station flyby and gigantic fireball they obviously witnessed at 9:37-9:38.

    Then you have to consider her key witness that she cites is April Gallop-and her stopped watch. She says her watched stopped at “just after 9:30″ and “9:32″ but she also has to crawl out of the alleged “impact” hole area which would’ve had to have been made at 9:37-9:38 by that huge explosion/fireball. This would be a secondary explosion to April and this is just not consistent with her account.

    I would chalk it up to clocks/watches running at different times and Barbara Honneger exploiting it for her own purposes. There was one violent event.

  16. Veritatum, nobody is suppressing witnesses. Some of us, noting CIT’s lousy ethics, poor political sense, and their tendency, when requested to substantiate their claims, to respond with irrational aggression instead of logically-ordered and fact-based arguments, have been working with quite some success to suppress CIT.

    1. Brian,

      Reading your response to Veritatem, please provide us a logically-ordered and fact-based argument against CIT witness evidence. Chandler and Legge didn’t, and I cannot find one of merit.

      Thank you. (In case you doubt me, this is a serious request on my part: I’d truly like to see one.)

      1. Mr. Zarembka,
        you say you would like to see a logical arguement against CIT and to me the ironic thing is that they provide it themselves over and over again. It surely doesn’t require any major intelligence to see how flawed their evidence assessment is – it should be a dead giveaway, for one thing, when you see one group of people talking about something being ‘undeniable’, ‘proven’ ,’historical fact’ etc. and a whole load of other people not convinced at all , in fact convinced their conclusions are totally wrong. That kind of disparity in peoples’s conclusions is indicative of some serious problem, and seeing the kind of explanations that are advanced to explain why others don’t share their certainty, which are basically of the ‘people really think we are right but are pretending they don’t variety’, is just another indicator of it.

  17. Dr. Zarembka, I have no time, or need, to argue against the witness evidence, which is very interesting–or it would be interesting if the whole field of Pentagon research hadn’t been clouded by a toxic fog of irrationality and dishonesty.

    Like all witnesses, the Pentagon witnesses are either a) lying, b) wrong, or c) right. I’m not going to accuse witnesses lying unless I can prove it, and CIT would have done well to follow the same practice. Since other witnesses describe a southern flight path consistent with the light pole path, either the NoC witnesses are wrong or the SoC witnesses are wrong (or lying). CIT insists (with no proof) that the SoC witnesses are lying, and often uses tortured specifications (such as “in a position to see the Citgo gas station”) as an excuse to discard perfectly good witnesses such as Elgas and Morin and McGraw.

    In cases a) and b) CIT is wasting their time and ours on an enterprise that could have been avoided if they had simply exercised proper skepticism. But it’s worse than that, because the irrational arguments they employ to reject these cases discredits the truth movement–and their unethical behavior in surreptitious videotaping of cooperating witnesses and in demonizing witnesses they find inconvenient is extremely damaging not just to the reputation but even to the integrity of the truth movement. The movement’s tolerance for this kind of behavior makes potential whistleblowers afraid to approach us because it sends the message loud and clear–if you say something we don’t like, we will make movies that make you look bad.

    But let’s assume that the NoC witnesses are right. Let’s ignore (as CIT does) the fact that they have ample personal motivation to lie to a couple of conspiracy theorists from California. If the NoC witnesses are right, then the light poles were faked, and the ASCE report was a reverse-engineered sham, and something is very rotten in Denmark. Very important stuff. In this case, CIT’s behavior is even more egregious–because instead of sticking to a strong case for “inside job” they insist on marrying the compelling data to loony-tunes fantasies about cab drivers and priests who are really secret agents, a witness who can’t seem to remember if he was on the south side of the building or the east side, and who claims the plane made an impossible 180-degree turn, and a hypothetical flyover op with enormous opportunities for detection that accomplishes exactly nothing except providing an opportunity for running-shoe detectives to become movie stars. All this b.s. heaped on the witnesses’ potentially important testimony only serves to discredit it and distract from it. Doesn’t the fact that the witnesses have issued no objections to their statements being used in this way seem peculiar to you? It’s peculiar in case c and case b. It’s expected in case a, because then the b.s. is “mission accomplished”.

    A flyover op makes no sense. The perps had no control over who might decide to set a video camera running in one of hundreds of high-rise windows in apartments, hotels, and offices surrounding the Pentagon–Deb Anlauf, for instance–just on the chance that something interesting might happen. The flyover plane would have to fly very near to public outdoor spaces–freeways at rush hour, the golf course on the island, the marina, the airport, the plane-spotters’ park at Gravelly Point. The flyover plane would have to fly right over the Pentagon courtyard–and all those windows. Risk of detection was very great. And what would it accomplish that flying an airplane into the Pentagon would not?

    Ever since I showed them that DCA runway 15 is not long enough for 757s, CIT refuses to address the issue of where the flyaway plane went. I have addressed it. Wind was coming from the SE that morning, so DCA traffic was coming in from the SE, departing to the NW. Any eastern flight path would have been against the traffic, so east is out. The flyaway plane could not fly NE across the river. That would be right over a golf course, right alongside a much-traveled freeway bridge, and right over the planespotters’ park. The plane could not turn north because that would set off alerts as it approached the Capitol Mall no-fly-zone. There is only one possible escape route for a flyaway aircraft (three if you count the possibility of a landing strip underneath the Pentagon, or some kind of stargate). The plane must turn upriver and join the departing traffic stream from DCA. The formulae for bank angle, turning radius, G-forces and airspeed are pretty simple–even Rob Balsamo can do them with a little bit of supervision. It’s been a couple of years since I’ve done the calculation, Suffice it to say that even if the plane climbed steeply with no power to slow it down, the turn would be spectacular–and highly conspicuous to everyone on the freeway, at the marina, in the park, at the golf course, to pilots, to workers at DCA, to the ATCs, to people drawn to those hundreds of windows overlooking the Pentagon. It would also have been highly conspicuous to the NoC witnesses themselves. All of these witnesses would have been very familiar with the normal behavior of aircraft in the DCA region, and all of them would have recognized in this screaming 5-G turn behavior that is highly anomalous.

  18. Sorry, wind was coming from the NE on 9/11. It’s been a long time since I’ve thought about these issues. DCA air traffic was, as I said, coming in from the SE and departing upriver to the NW. Airplanes fly into the wind when taking off.

  19. More disinformation from known infiltrator and provocateur, “Brian Good”.

    Google his name along with Carol Brouillet, William Rodriguez, Kevin Barrett, and AE911 truth and you will find plenty on his activities. It’s no wonder he spends so time trying deceive and confuse people.

    There are NO SoC witnesses. This is simply a ploy by “Brian Good” to fool naive readers who haven’t researched the matter.

    He couldn’t list one. There are none because they do not exist.

    People have addressed his many disinfo bullet points before and of course, as a true disinformation promoter, he simply continues on with his assignment.

    I will respond to his post and rehash the same answers he’s been given many times before.

    If I were a disinformation agent, I would spread innuendo and lies everywhere and avoid real live debate as well.

    1. So, Veritatum–is it disinformation to say that airplanes take off into the wind? To say that the wind was from the NW on 9/11? To say that DCA 15 is not long enough for 757s? To say that a flyover aircraft would have to fly over the Pentagon courtyard? To say that the airspeed/bank angle/G-Force calculations are rather simple for anyone competent in 8th grade algebra? To say that outdoor areas like the marina, the golf course, the freeway, and the planespotters’ park provided many locations where witnesses to a flyaway 757 might be found?

      Terry Morin is a SoC witness. If you look at his line of sight from his location by the Navy Annex, you’ll see that he can not see the Citgo. Therefore if he can see the plane at all it’s South of Citgo. Lloyde England and Penny Elgas and Father McGraw are also SoC witnesses. If they saw the plane where they said they did, it was SoC–because as CIT has pointed out, an S-curve flight path flying NoC and then through the lightpoles is impossible. You can claim these witnesses are mistaken, but when you claim they don’t exist you are simply denying reality.

      If you google my name along with Carol Brouillet, William Rodriguez, and Kevin Barrett you will find a lot of lies propagated by people who–like yourself and the liars at ScrewLooseChange–can not defend their claims rationally, but only give the appearance of doing so by changing the subject and lying about me.

    2. Dear Mr. Veritatem,

      Under normal circumstances, I would applaud your initiative:

      I will respond to his post and rehash the same answers he’s been given many times before.

      But given (a) “There are NO SoC witnesses. This is simply a ploy by “Brian Good” to fool naive readers who haven’t researched the matter. He couldn’t list one.”

      Given (b) Your response would be a rehash given many times before…

      Given (c) We are talking about Mr. Good who was active here with his games before your arrival…

      Then it doesn’t make much sense to detour this thread into the re-hashing arena, also a disinformation ploy.

      If you’ve got a rabbit-hole link for curious naive readers to follow, great. Post it and save yourself some keystrokes.

      Also for future reference, please do not bring up “Carol Brouillet, William Rodriguez, Kevin Barrett” with regards to Mr. Good and what Google can produce. It has been echo-chamber reproduced so many times with non-flattering and unsubstantiated charges (of the job-hunting crippling kind), the truth is buried in some forum many pages into the Google search results and deep in forums hard to get to. The controversy has been trumped up, hyped, and spun.

      Having unwillingly researched it myself and having seen it brought up at least twice in these forums, I no longer consider it a subject worthy of garnering our attention… yet again.

  20. Re: The blog article,

    Having read the article, I’d like to followup on a couple of points attributed to me. Craig correctly captured what I had said, but when I see it written, I see the need to clarify.

    Where I am included in the common concern that the process doesn’t allow for face-to-face discussion among panel members leading to consensus, it would be more correct to say I would enjoy having face-to-face discussions. However, I know that having face-to-face discussions means that it would no longer be the Delphi Method. It isn’t particularly enjoyable being a panel member within the Delphi Method, but I think the attributes of Delphi are sufficient to have it be the rules of the game.

    When I said I would “like to discuss with members why they oppose any given point,” I didn’t mean ‘discuss’ in the conventional sense. I meant reading a brief explanation from the opposing person that did not give away the identity of the panel member. I then would like to be able to respond in writing, but without revealing my identity. This withholding of identity is a fundamental part of the Delphi Method.

    Dwain

    1. Thanks for those clarifications, Dwain.
      One point, however. The document supplied to the 9/11 telecon group by Elizabeth Woodworth explaining the Delphi Method did call for face-to-face discussions in the second phase of the process (after participants had initially reacted to points presented to them). So the process being used by the Consensus Panel actually deviates from that for the very reasons Elizabeth cited (the physical impossibility of all members being in one place at one time). So it is possible to advocate a discussion phase without calling for a departure from the Delphi Method (as I understand it).

      1. Dear Mr. McKee:

        My letter to the telecon group, entitled “The 9/11 Consensus Panel: What is it and How Does it Work?” did not mention discussion in the second round. It did say that we are using “a simplified Delphi technique;” which is also stated on the website. The telecon letter cited a British Medical Journal description of the Delphi Method:

        * Round 1: Either the relevant individuals are invited
        to provide opinions on a specific matter, based on their
        knowledge and experience, or the team undertaking
        the Delphi expresses opinions on a specific matter and
        selects suitable experts to participate in subsequent
        questionnaire rounds;
        * These opinions are grouped together under a
        limited number of headings and statements drafted for
        circulation to all participants on a questionnaire;
        * Round 2: Participants rank their agreement with
        each statement in the questionnaire;
        * The rankings are summarised and included in a
        repeat version of the questionnaire;
        * Round 3: Participants rerank their agreement with
        each statement in the questionnaire, with the opportunity
        to change their score in view of the group’s
        response;
        * The rerankings are summarised and assessed for
        degree of consensus: if an acceptable degree of
        consensus is obtained the process may cease, with final
        results fed back to participants; if not, the third round
        is repeated.
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2550437/pdf/bmj00604-0040.pdf

        Our very early idea in mentioning discussion in the second step was that in cases where Points may have received low rankings, discussion might have resulted in higher rankings. However, low rankings have not been much of a problem, and the logistics of discussion with a group that is spread throughout the world’s time zones, perhaps on a conference call, are difficult.

        More importantly, since that early time we have realized that because Panelists are generally required to remain blind to one another during the ranking process, any discussion by email would be likely to lead to confusion about when Panelists should be in contact and when they should not, so to avoid such confusion we are not pursuing intra-Panel discussion at any point in the process.

        We realize, as Mr. Deets has said, that this disciplined and rather isolated process is not particularly enjoyable for the Panelists, but it does produce a result that is immune to outside pressure — in the same way that the secret ballot does in elections.

        Elizabeth Woodworth
        Coordinator and Co-Founder
        9/11 Consensus Panel
        consensus911.org

        1. Elizabeth,
          I will double check which document describing the Delphi Method mentioned discussion in the second round. My apologies for stating in error that it was the document you provided. You may recall, however that I asked you about the absence of second-round discussion in our interview, which prompted you to point out that face-to-face discussion would not be practical with members spread across the world.

      2. Ms. Woodworth, I found this video after reading your post above:

        At 8:00 you went on a litany of professional organizations but you failed to mention the one you created. It looks like some people are attempting to personally financially profit from Actors and Artists for 9-11 Truth. Are you?

        My previous question (it was not answered) to Ms. Woodworth on this site:

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/new-911-panel-consensus-about-the-truth-or-the-truth-about-consensus/#comment-2344
        [QUOTING MYSELF FROM NOVEMBER 24, 2011 AT 1:00 AM]
        Ms. Woodworth, you have been referred to as David Ray Griffin’s assistant. What exactly have you done to assist him and was it done for no pay as appears to be the case with Tod Fletcher? http://www.consensus911.org/ states very boldly that you and Griffin created it but why doesn’t http://www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.com/ do so as well? Is this email that was published from your organization accurate?

        http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6891

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

        P.S. My previous post on this blog and regarding Mr. Fletcher:
        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/griffin-challenged-for-ignoring-evidence-%E2%80%98weak-logic%E2%80%99-on-911-calls/#comment-2196
        [END QUOTE]

      1. Dear Mr. Morrisseau,

        You seem to have a bent on publicly outing on-line alter-egos. This has is own moral and karmic consequences. In your hunt, please well consider the different levels of outing and to morally endeavor to use the appropriate one.

        From a previous posting of mine:

        [T]he difference between equating alter-ego super heroes Batman to Spider-man is quite different from equating Batman to Bruce Wayne or Spider-man to Peter Parker.

        You wrote:

        I always sign and give contact information whenever I write anything.

        Great for you and your situation that you feel so confident in your words. Good for you that you were astute enough to use a Post Office mailbox and not your physical street address, that someone can MapQuest or Google and get more than the GPS coordinates on… for the black helicopters, of course, or the Predator drone strikes. Woe to those of us without the wherewithal to pay for the luxury of a post office box and must use their home address.

        In my bat-shit crazy conspiracy research, I’ve learned that the PTB have the ability to track your cellphone by triangulating cell tower response signals, if your built-in GPS didn’t give you away. Also, they have the technology to turn on your cellphone’s microphone. I therefore hope that your openness in providing your contact information doesn’t paint a big target on whatever part of your anatomy holsters your cellphone.

        You wrote:

        I cannot agree that there is ever a reasonable basis for allowing anonymous comments.

        Did you miss my summary of a Ben Franklin story?

        Ben Franklin has filled books with the published writings of pen-names that he wrote under. Thus, he demonstrated the integrity of standing behind (eventually) the words we write whatever the alias. Alas, such openness at the wrong time or a time not of our choosing could have meant a high cost, possibly even his life. An early echo of that sentiment was in getting the shit kicked out of him, losing his employment, and souring family love at his older brother’s newspaper and printing press after Ben confessed to being “Silence Dogood”, a middle-aged widow who wrote popular letters to the editor.

        Did you never read this quote?

        A coward is a hero with a wife, kids, and a mortgage.
        ~ Marvin Kitman (b. 1929), author and media critic

        Mr. Morrisseau, I hope that my ramblings here have made plain several “reasonable bases for allowing anonymous comments” that you could agree on, aside from there also being a historical precedence.

        If there is any doubt in your mind about what is morally and ethically responsible in “ID’ing (e.g., publicly outing) and bagging” the agents of disinformation, then there ought to be. Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.

  21. To Brian Good:

    Dr. Zarembka, I have no time, or need, to argue against the witness evidence,

    Well you seemed to have a need to make a long post in this case. And you certainly had the time. In fact, you always seem to make your time available for CIT.

    which is very interesting–or it would be interesting if the whole field of Pentagon research hadn’t been clouded by a toxic fog of irrationality and dishonesty.

    Indeed. Fog is an appropriate word. That’s exactly what your type sets out to create. A toxic fog of irrationality and dishonesty, not to mention confusion and doubt. But tell us, why is the witness evidence “interesting”?

    Like all witnesses, the Pentagon witnesses are either a) lying, b) wrong, or c) right. I’m not going to accuse witnesses lying unless I can prove it, and CIT would have done well to follow the same practice.

    Yet in this very post you made, you insinuate that they ALL have motivation for “lying” to CIT. And as you have said before that they have played a joke on CIT. This is absurd because CIT was very clever in simply telling witnesses they were debunking conspiracy theories about missiles and small drones and simply wanted their honest account of what they saw and where they saw the large airliner sized plane, specifically in relation to which side of the gas station, from their approximate location. As far as the witnesses knew, they were speaking with people who fully believed the official account who were looking for the official account.

    The reason why the witnesses are c) right, is because they were corroborated by each other, in individual interviews, and were standing in positions that surrounded the Citgo or were on the Citgo property itself, and thought they were supporting the official story at the time of the interview.

    Since other witnesses describe a southern flight path consistent with the light pole path,

    Another absolute lie. No witnesses describe “a southern flight path consistent with the light pole path”. No one ever asked a witness which side of the gas station the plane was on. It all started when Lagasse unknowingly gave the detail of being on the “starboard side” of the plane while refueling. This was noted by Pentagon theorists/researchers and obviously Aldo Marquis picked up on it and knew it was something that needed to be refuted or confirmed when they went there. They found the Citgo employee and he confirmed it. And so on and so on, and as they kept going back they kept getting confirmation.

    There are no ‘southern flight path witnesses’. Others have tried the desperate and vague I-395 angle. But BOTH flight paths have the plane “south” of 395 at some point further back and both flight paths have it north of I-395 as it approaches the Pentagon. Where on 395 were they? You don’t contact any witnesses and rely on people to not analyze the witness accounts, locations and POV’s. It’s all just out of context quotes with no reference to witness location.

    either the NoC witnesses are wrong

    They are not, they have been corroborated.

    or the SoC witnesses are wrong (or lying).

    There are no SoC witnesses.

    CIT insists (with no proof) that the SoC witnesses are lying, and often uses tortured specifications (such as “in a position to see the Citgo gas station”) as an excuse to discard perfectly good witnesses such as Elgas and Morin and McGraw.

    More Blatant lies:
    Elgas is a north side of the gas station flight path witness.
    Morin as we know from CIT put the plane over the Navy Annex, ie north path.
    McGraw’s account is dubious and obviously his claim is that it was over him and then to his right-the Pentagon side of the highway. It would obviously be in view for less than a second to less than a second according to the official speed of 530 mph or 780 feet per second. How in the heck do you suppose he is a south side witness?

    In cases a) and b) CIT is wasting their time and ours on an enterprise that could have been avoided if they had simply exercised proper skepticism. But it’s worse than that, because the irrational arguments they employ to reject these cases discredits the truth movement–and their unethical behavior in surreptitious videotaping of cooperating witnesses and in demonizing witnesses they find inconvenient is extremely damaging not just to the reputation but even to the integrity of the truth movement. The movement’s tolerance for this kind of behavior makes potential whistleblowers afraid to approach us because it sends the message loud and clear–if you say something we don’t like, we will make movies that make you look bad.

    Another lie. Where did they “surreptitiously” videotape anyone? They all signed releases. They all agreed CIT represented them fairly. Demonizing of who? Who is inconvenient? You can’t name one. You can’t be specific. Because the more specific you get, the more specific I get and then the truth comes out. This is just grandstanding from a known and identified online and in person provocateur and agent of disinformation.

    But let’s assume that the NoC witnesses are right. Let’s ignore (as CIT does) the fact that they have ample personal motivation to lie to a couple of conspiracy theorists from California.

    Wait a minute didn’t you just say: “I’m not going to accuse witnesses (of) lying unless I can prove it,” So you don’t accuse witnesses of lying, you just imply it. Is that about right? Ok, so you called it a “fact” that they have ample motivation to lie. Let’s hear what makes it a fact.

    What’s interesting is you tell Dr. Zarembka and the readers to ignore an implication you already made publicly. Stunning work there, Hal Turner!

    If the NoC witnesses are right, then the light poles were faked, and the ASCE report was a reverse-engineered sham, and something is very rotten in Denmark. Very important stuff.

    That quote is one for the books. So why do you insist on going everywhere and casting doubt, deception and confusion everywhere it is discussed?

    So after making a remark like that, would it be fair to say you would want to see an investigation into the north of the Citgo claim since it is “very important stuff” that would prove “the light poles were faked, and the ASCE report was a reverse-engineered sham, and something is very rotten in Denmark.”?

    In this case, CIT’s behavior is even more egregious–

    So you feel it is better to focus your efforts on drawing everyone’s attention to CIT’s “behavior” than to focus on information that is “”very important stuff” that would prove “the light poles were faked, and the ASCE report was a reverse-engineered sham, and something is very rotten in Denmark.”? Is that right?

    because instead of sticking to a strong case for “inside job”

    Ok, so you think the north side flight path described by all these witnesses at different vantage points is a “strong case for an ‘inside job'”. That point is noted and definitely a quote for the books. But you feel it is more important to focus on and get everyone to focus on CIT’s behavior, right?

    they insist on marrying the compelling data to loony-tunes fantasies about cab drivers

    He is directly implicated by the NoC witnesses. You just said the north side flight path is “strong case for an ‘inside job'” and “very important stuff” that would prove “the light poles were faked, and the ASCE report was a reverse-engineered sham, and something is very rotten in Denmark.”? Well, if “the light poles were faked” like you, “Brian Good”, just said, then that means the cab driver is lying and he, and/or others, created the pole-entry-like, but poorly simulated damage to his cab.

    and priests who are really secret agents,

    Well he was DoJ and he is connected to Opus Dei which is connected to political intrigue. His account and behavior is suspicious. He didn’t even bother showing to a funeral at ANC he was scheduled to preside over. He claims he got out within 45 seconds and crossed the guardrail to the lawn which is when he was finally seen in photographs by Mark Faram. Except Mark Faram did not get down there until 10 minutes after the event and where he photographed him is on the NORTH end of the highway, nowhere near the official flight path.

    Regardless, even if CIT is wrong it doesn’t change that he is not an SoC witness and does not conflict with or refute the NoC flight path evidence.

    a witness who can’t seem to remember if he was on the south side of the building or the east side,

    He remembered just fine. But of course, you would take full advantage of the EDITED/DOCTORED LoC interview to sow your doubt and confusion. http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1560
    He was very clear. He was on the East Loading Dock which is in South Parking lot.

    and who claims the plane made an impossible 180-degree turn,

    Impossible? Planes fly and planes turn. You have the data from this plane’s flight to determine it was impossible? It was banking and climbing out and went to the Mall Entrance side of the Pentagon. Nothing impossible about it.

    and a hypothetical flyover op with enormous opportunities for detection that accomplishes exactly nothing except providing an opportunity for running-shoe detectives to become movie stars.

    Well it happened and went undetected for a long time. The plane obviously flew on the north side of the gas station and it took 5 years to be discovered and even it is being assaulted by being mired in nonsense like this. They know confusion and fear is a great tool to account for those who “detected” what happened. You argument from personal incredulity is not counter evidence.

    All this b.s. heaped on the witnesses’ potentially important testimony only serves to discredit it and distract from it.

    So why do you heap all this bs on this “potentially important testimony”? Laymen, pilots, aviation professionals all logically agree a north side flight path and pull up ascent=flyover. So how come you don’t focus on activism related to the north side flight path since you have a learning deficiency with the obvious?

    Doesn’t the fact that the witnesses have issued no objections to their statements being used in this way seem peculiar to you? It’s peculiar in case c and case b. It’s expected in case a, because then the b.s. is “mission accomplished”.

    So which is it? Of course, the goal of an infiltrator and provocateur would be to cast doubt and sow confusion so that would explain the back and forth with your pseudo indecision.

    There is nothing peculiar. They went on the record and let the cat out of the bag about something they had no idea was fatal to the official story. They saw it, they described it for CIT, what is there to object? How is it being used objectionably?

    So first it is “very important stuff” and a “strong case for an inside job”, but now you are trying to convince readers/truthers that their accounts were used in an “objectionable” way. Ok got it.

    A flyover op makes no sense.

    It does if you want to target a specific area of the Pentagon and control the damage. It does if the plane you are remote piloting is not an American Airlines 757, namely tail # N644AA aka Flight 77.

    Executing a slow spiral descent when you could have went left and dove into the Pentagon from the top and when you have no idea if you will be intercepted, to then come to treetop level altitude and hope you are lined up with the Pentagon, and then have to miss buildings, a communications tower, and a vdot camera mast next to the 5 light poles you’re about to fly through, hoping you don’t break up before your target makes no sense.

    Regardless, the north side flight path AND pull up proves it happened and whatever sense it makes only makes sense to the perps.

    The perps had no control over who might decide to set a video camera running in one of hundreds of high-rise windows in apartments, hotels, and offices surrounding the Pentagon–Deb Anlauf, for instance–just on the chance that something interesting might happen. The flyover plane would have to fly very near to public outdoor spaces–freeways at rush hour, the golf course on the island, the marina, the airport, the plane-spotters’ park at Gravelly Point. The flyover plane would have to fly right over the Pentagon courtyard–and all those windows. Risk of detection was very great. And what would it accomplish that flying an airplane into the Pentagon would not?

    Because we all know how many amateur photogs caught the supposed impact right? (roll eyes)

    The absence of evidence is not evidence. CIT presents evidence. If we were talking about some guys coming up with a theory and just talking about it online, then you’d have grounds to speculate.

    Besides, they obviously weren’t worried about tourist cameras when they flew the plane on the north side of the gas station.

    My guess is between the planes hitting buildings in NYC, confusion setting in through talks of a second plane, Reagan National’s commercial flight path’s close proximity to the Pentagon, confusion and fear from witnesses, witnesses not being able to get to a reporter before the propaganda sets in, people in the hotels being out and about or glued to their tv’s in their rooms due to the towers, people who have apartments being at work, people in south parking lot already being at work (which they were).

    And again, they didn’t just “fly an airplane into the Pentagon”. That plane performed a very difficult flight path toward that building. If they did just want to “fly a plane into the building” the path they chose is an impossible one and an illogical one due to the obstacles and the decline in topography. So don’t you dare try and make it seem like a simple “flying 757 + crash=same results”

    Again a quote from CIT detractor and official story supporter who was even cited by Miles Kara:


    After having been there myself, I came to the realization that the people who use the Pentagon security videos to prove that Flight 77 leveled off over the lawn, are sadly mistaken. There is no way in Hades that that airplane approached the Pentagon level. Impossible!
    -Boone870

    Even anti 9/11 truth pseudoskeptics know the official flight path and video is impossible due to the obstacles and decline in topography.

    Ever since I showed them that DCA runway 15 is not long enough for 757s, CIT refuses to address the issue of where the flyaway plane went. I have addressed it. Wind was coming from the SE that morning, so DCA traffic was coming in from the SE, departing to the NW. Any eastern flight path would have been against the traffic, so east is out. The flyaway plane could not fly NE across the river. That would be right over a golf course, right alongside a much-traveled freeway bridge, and right over the planespotters’ park. The plane could not turn north because that would set off alerts as it approached the Capitol Mall no-fly-zone. There is only one possible escape route for a flyaway aircraft (three if you count the possibility of a landing strip underneath the Pentagon, or some kind of stargate). The plane must turn upriver and join the departing traffic stream from DCA. The formulae for bank angle, turning radius, G-forces and airspeed are pretty simple–even Rob Balsamo can do them with a little bit of supervision. It’s been a couple of years since I’ve done the calculation, Suffice it to say that even if the plane climbed steeply with no power to slow it down, the turn would be spectacular–and highly conspicuous to everyone on the freeway, at the marina, in the park, at the golf course, to pilots, to workers at DCA, to the ATCs, to people drawn to those hundreds of windows overlooking the Pentagon. It would also have been highly conspicuous to the NoC witnesses themselves. All of these witnesses would have been very familiar with the normal behavior of aircraft in the DCA region, and all of them would have recognized in this screaming 5-G turn behavior that is highly anomalous.

    More strawman disinformation. CIT doesn’t promote a landing at Reagan. More of you throwing everything at the wall in order to confuse and cast doubt. What’s worse, is earlier you cite Roosevelt Roberts, CIT’s flyaway witness and a “180 degree turn” which obviously would not take it to Reagan. The mall entrance side of the Pentagon, where Roosevelt Roberts deduced/saw it fly, is in the opposite direction of his repetitive disinformation strawman location of Runway 15.

  22. Veritatum, I took 15 minutes to pound out a hasty reply to Dr. Zarembka. I don’t have time or need to argue against the witness evidence–and I didn’t. I pointed out that if the witness evidence is 100% correct and truthful, then CIT’s irrational positions and unethical and politically inept behavior is all the more damaging to the cause of the truth movement.

    I wrote quite clearly why the NoC witness evidence is interesting: because if it’s correct, the lightpole evidence was faked, the ASCE BPAT report was a reverse-engineered sham, and there’s strong evidence of an inside job.

    I don’t insinuate that the NoC witnesses have strong motivations for lying. I stated quite clearly that they have strong motivations for lying. CIT’s refusal to recognize that is part of their irrationality. I didn’t accuse them of lying. I don’t know if they told the truth or not. The fact is, they had ample reasons to lie.

    You have no way of knowing what the witnesses knew about CIT, and your belief that CIT “fooled” them is naive in the extreme. In a clubby workplace environment like the Pentagon and several years after the fact, your wish to consider the witnesses independent of each other is also naive.

    Terry Morin, Penny Elgas, Father McGraw, and Lloyde England described a flight path consistent with a SoC flight path. Your claims to the contrary are just silly. CIT has shown that a NoC plane can not fly through the light poles. I don’t need to interview anybody. I can read their testimony on the internet.

    CIT surreptitiously videoed LLoyde England with a video camera on the floor of the back seat of the car. I guess you never watched the NSA video. CIT demonized Father McGraw as a member of Opus Dei, and Lloyde England as a spook and a “demon”. Aldo called Madlyn Zakhem “the lady with the jewish last name, Israeli accent while displaying a crucifix around her neck.” Nice.

    I don’t cast doubt about the witness testimony. CIT does–with their loony tunes fantasies, their impossible stories, their irrational conclusions based on unjustified assumptions. The case could be made that CIT is the wrecking crew sent to destroy the inconvenient testimony of their own witnesses.
    Yes, I think the NoC testimony should be investigated. But CIT’s nonsense is preventing, not facilitating, such an investigation.

    I’m sorry you guys lack the intellectual capacity for contingent thinking. “If it’s sunny, I’ll go to the park; if it rains, I’ll go to the library” somehow seems to confuse you.

    Wow, ten minutes after the event, Father McGraw had moved away from the flight path. Gee, how suspicious can you get? Wow, that practically makes him the Guy Banister of 9/11, huh? <>

    If you don’t know it’s impossible for a 757 to make a 180 degree turn in the time frame Roosevelt Roberts described, you’d better find out.

    It would be very peculiar for guys who stuck their necks out by telling inconvenient truths dangerous to the official story to make no objection when those truths were corrupted by a couple of incompetents to support an impossible freak-show story.

    You don’t get it that the NoC flight path, if it was true, had to be a mistake–even sabotage by someone trying to expose the plot. It makes no sense to take light pole damage to the south and then fly the plane where the light poles are not. Absence of evidence can certainly be evidence, as in the case of the famous dog that didn’t bark.

    CIT no longer promotes a landing at DCA because I showed that runway 15 was impractical at only 5200 feet. And even then Balsamo disputed it. Now CIT refuses to talk about where a flyaway plane went. The fly-under theory proposed by jimdstein3100 makes much more sense than the fly-over theory, for the many reasons I have cited.

  23. “Mr Boz” referred to me above from December 2010 as “Naomi, ‘impartial’ (non-CIT affiliated)”.

    Since January 2011, I am no longer impartial and fully support the excellent work of the Citizens Investigation Team.

    I am truly disgused at the tactics and censorship displayed against CIT and their supporters by this very well known group of detractors. However, I am even more appalled at the lack of evidence and logic continually presented by the anti-CIT clique.

    I agree 100% with this comment by “Siberian Tiger” to John Bursill:

    “The “controversy” you speak of is not a natural controversy that arose for a genuine reason. It is a synthetic, MANUFACTURED “controversy” from a SMALL BUT VOCAL INFLUENTIAL clique of individuals.”

    Influential? The Toronto Hearings and Consensus Panel are evidence of that.

    This clique should be named, shamed and outed from the 9/11 Truth Movement immediately – despite their “credibility capital”. HOW ABOUT A CONSENSUS ON THAT?

    “Siberian Tiger” – great question to John Bursill:

    “You don’t seriously think that time will succeed in flushing all this down the memory hole do you?”

    One of my personal favourites is:

    “Don’t you realise that this is all on permanent record for everyone to read forever?”

    Naomi, Australia

    1. Here is the dispositive point re the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11—there are a great many, very good other points that also refute the official story—but this is my favorite:

      When an approximately 100 ton aircraft hits anything at speed, what you find afterward is
      always approximately 100 tons of very fucked up aircraft, broken and scattered around a little.
      IT DOES NOT VAPORIZE. IT DOES NOT DISAPPEAR. MOST PIECES REMAINING WILL BEAR I.D. NUMBERS STAMPED INTO THE METAL THAT WILL POSITIVELY IDENTIFY THE AIRCRAFT.

      My second favorite is DRG’s point that films of what hit the Pentagon certainly do exist and were all confiscated by the FBI. If these showed the suspect aircraft hitting the building they would have been shown to us about 8 million times by now……

      3rd is that the aircraft itself WILL NOT DO THE MANEUVER OR TRAVEL AT THE RECORDED BY RADAR SPEED at low altitudes……The big Boeing would have broken apart in the air. I know pilots that fly them.

      4th, of course, no untrained and inexpert pilot of ANY aircraft could have done such a maneuver
      at all.

      Dennis Morrisseau
      2841 VT Rt 153……….my physical address….bombs away!
      W. Pawlet, VT 05775
      802 645 9727
      dmorso1@netzero.net
      2LTMorrisseau.com [Lieutenant Morrisseau’s Rebellion]

      1. Dennis, most (both in number and in mass) of what we see in the pictures is aluminum confetti. For instance, this picture taken by Keith Wheelhouse:

        Some mechanical parts of the aircraft will have ID numbers.

        Your assumption that if “films of what hit the Pentagon . . . . showed the suspect aircraft hitting the building they would have been shown to us about 8 million times by now” is not reasonable. As Messrs. Cole and Chandler point out in their essay “Overwhelming Evidence of Insider Complicity on 9/11” http://911blogger.com/news/2011-01-01/joint-statement-pentagon-david-chandler-and-jon-cole

        “The population at large attributes to the military the right to keep secrets…. It is not reasonable that the military should be allowed to extend this privilege [of wartime screcy] to the cover-up of evidence of a monstrous crime, but the fact is, they can get away with it. The population is not willing to second guess military prerogative in matters like this. Therefore despite the absolutely blatant cover-up of the facts of 9/11 at the Pentagon, there is no public outrage, and there is no reasonable possibility that the public can be aroused on this issue.”

  24. Naomi, if you would care to cite an example of an evidence-free and illogical argument by the “anti-CIT clique” that might aid discussion.

    I am quite proud of my work, simple though it was. After CIT refused to answer my question about whether DCA runway 15 was routinely used by 757s, I checked out its length (5200 feet) and I checked out the length of runways used by 757s (much longer). I checked the roster of planes at DCA and found that 757s did not use runway 15. I thus found that a 757 landing on runway 15 would have (IMHO) a chance of winding up in the river, might have exhibited squealing brakes and smoking tires, and even if it didn’t, would have been very conspicuous to planespotters, pilots, airport employees, amateur aviators, and of course the Air Traffic Controllers.

    After disqualifying runway 15 as a haven for flight 77, I then examined the flight capabilities of the aircraft and the universe of possible flyaway flight paths. I invited and challenged CIT and its supporters to participate with me in this endeavor, but they didn’t seem to have the stomach for it. Perhaps the bank angle/airspeed/G-force/turn ratio formulae were too confusing for them, though any bright 10th grader should be able to handle the requisite arctans and stuff.

    Roosevelt Roberts’s flight path, which involved a complete 180 degree turn in a few seconds so the plane flew back to the SW from whence it came, was obviously not within the capabilities of the aircraft. So what was left was a turn to the E or SE; continuing straight to the NE across DC, a turn to the N–or a radical turn to the NE up the river.

    Knowing that airport traffic is directed so that departing aircraft and arriving aircraft fly into the wind, contacted the DC airport to ask about the wind direction the morning of 9/11. They told me it was such that traffic was coming into DCA from the SE and departing to the NE, up the river. I thus decided that a turn to the E or the SE was impractical for flyaway, because this wrong-way traffic would have been very conspicuous to Traffic Controllers, pilots, amateur aviators, airport employees, and alert citizens familiar with airport traffic patterns.

    The straight-ahead NE flyaway was also impractical because the plane would fly very near a marina (lots of outdoor people) right over the planespotters’ park, right alongside a multi-lane freeway bridge at rush hour, and right over a golf course. People who habituate the area would be familiar with the normal flight patterns of normal aircraft, and for this airliner to fly right across the main flight path of the DCA airport would attract attention.

    The turn to the N was impractical because the entire Capitol Mall/White House area was a no-fly-zone.

    Thus the only option for escape was a radical turn to the NE to fly upriver in the departing traffic stream from DCA. I invite/challenge CIT to do the calculations. As I recall, if you slow the plane down by turning the engines down and ascending without power, then with an extreme beam-ends bank angle it might be possible. Of course this maneuver would be highly conspicuous to planespotters, marina employees, marina occupants, golfers, people at Arlington, the NoC witnesses, people on the freeway, airport employees, Traffic Controllers, other pilots, amateur aviators, dog walkers, and people in hundreds of windows, attracted by the sound of the explosion at the Pentagon.

    I thus invited CIT to canvass among these classes of potential witnesses to try to locate someone who saw this spectacular turn. It seems they didn’t have the stomach for it, because as far as I know they never even tried.

    1. Dear Mr. Good, you wrote:

      I checked out [Runway 15’s] length (5200 feet) and I checked out the length of runways used by 757s (much longer). I checked the roster of planes at DCA and found that 757s did not use runway 15. I thus found that a 757 landing on runway 15 would have (IMHO) a chance of winding up in the river, might have exhibited squealing brakes and smoking tires, and even if it didn’t, would have been very conspicuous to planespotters, pilots, airport employees, amateur aviators, and of course the Air Traffic Controllers.

      Everything you write is good and well. I can certainly buy the premise that the airport authorities deemed runway 15 too short to routinely handle fully-loaded 757’s safely and comfortably. It wouldn’t take much extra glide time of a hesitant pilot to delay touchdown on the runway to a point leaving insufficient comfortable stopping distance such that all outcomes you mention might be likelysquealing brakes and smoking tires and a chance of winding up in the river.

      Ah yes, but 9/11 was different. The (CIT/Pilots4Truth) 757-223 plane in question already performed (if memory serves me) a 7000 foot 270 degree descending spiral to fly within 100 or so vertical feet of the Pentagon. The experienced pilot demonstrated some chops with that feat alone!

      Questions persist regarding the 9/11 passengers/cargo, but the OCT seems to say the 757 had a capacity of 200 but only had 59 occupants plus hijackers. Thus, if we assume these figures, the plane was not fully loaded. Boeing tells us:

      “Even with full passenger payload, the 757-200 can operate from runways as short as … about 5,500 feet.”

      Combine these factors:
      – A very good pilot.
      – Less than 50% passenger payload.
      – The plane’s low altitude at the Pentagon.

      It is not so far fetched that the low-flying 757 could touch down at the very end of runway 15 and use its full 5200 feet (80′ short of a mile) to safely slow down and stop without squealing brakes and smoking tires.

      As for your comment: [it] would have been very conspicuous to planespotters, pilots, airport employees, amateur aviators, and of course the Air Traffic Controllers (ATC).

      You over-estimate the observation skills of all these (except Air Traffic Controllers), particularly if the skilled pilot with a lightly loaded plane were able to land without your speculated giveaway signs (e.g., smoking tires, smoking tires, final stop in river.)

      Permit a slight detour into radar, where Wikipedia says:

      Conventional radar and pulse compression radar use time domain signal processing that is effectively blind any time the antenna is aimed near weather and the earth’s surface. That is because pointing the radar at the ground and into weather produces a reflection from each raindrop, leaf, wave, and pebble. Those reflections overwhelm human operators and computing systems. The only way to prevent that problem for these kinds of radar is to not point the radar at the ground. This creates a zone of weakness near and below the horizon that is used to hide from the radar.

      The Pentagon 757 had it transponder off. If it was at about 100 feet at the Pentagon, it was already within that zone of weakness that would hide it from the airport’s radar.

      The fact that one FAA supervisor (I don’t remember the airport or FAA location) destroyed 9/11 tapes and distributed their remains in different trash cans is a hint regarding how other FAA and ATC “observations” can be held in check. Thus, it is conceivable that an innocent request from above and trickled down to ATC could keep runway 15 clear of other aircraft for a narrow sliver of time for the Pentagon 757 to land without great fanfare or notice from ATC.

      Let’s ignore for a moment any ATC involvement in the multiple military games of the day, whereby part of the exercise was to insert/delete radar blips. The timing on the following two quotes should be a clue regarding what additional distractions might have been imposed on ATC such that they wouldn’t notice or remember at the end of the day an “extra 757” landing on runway 15 just before “all hell broke loose in the control room.”

      Wikiepedia says:

      “The aircraft crashed into the western side of the Pentagon at 09:37 EDT.”

      USA Today says:

      “Minutes after another jet smashes into the Pentagon at 9:38 a.m., the managers issue an unprecedented order to the nation’s air traffic controllers: Empty the skies; Land every flight; Fast.”

      The point being, the ATC were assigned an unprecedented task at about the exact moment that a possible 757 was landing and slowing down on the short runway 15, a perfect “all hell breaking lose” distraction.

      I love this fluff piece:

      “But due to Ben Sliney, the Federal Aviation Administration’s National Operations Manager on duty that fateful morning, possible harm, at least by the thinking at the time, was averted. Sliney made the gutsy — and completely unprecedented — call to ground every single commercial airplane in the country. What makes the call — which, without direct order from the President and the bureaucracy above him, was his and his alone to make — all the more gutsy is that Sept. 11th, 2001, was Ben Sliney’s first day on the job as an FAA National Operations Manager.”

      Here are some things I find remarkable about this. Why did he start his new job on Tuesday? First of the month or a Monday (when not a holiday) are more traditional starting days.

      Others can back me up on the details of the following factoid, but it was the first day on the job for one or two others in the “interception” chain of command. Included in that was some officer who was filling in for the first time for his superiors who had other engagements that came up to take them conveniently out of the loop, thereby introducing a factor of “inexperience and in over his head for his first day” scapegoat.

      In conclusion, Mr. Good, I applaud your research into runway 15, but you too conveniently rule it out as part of the CIT puzzle due to its length being 500′ short of Boeing’s recommendations for a fully-loaded 757, when the actual plane was lightly-loaded and at the hands of a demonstrated skilled pilot.

  25. Mr. Once, you are simply trying the same dodge that Rob Balsamo did when I raised the issue over 2 years ago at OpEd News. I did not say that it was impossible for a 757 to land there.

    “Can it land there?” is a red herring. The point is that 757s did not use runway 15. Thus if one did, it would attract a lot of attention. The planespotters at Gravely Point would all be taking pictures, recording the tailnuimber, recording the time. Airport employees, ATCs, pilots, and anyone familiar with aviation issues would be saying “WTF! A 757 is going to land on runway 15!” Even observant citizens, like me, driving past on the freeway, would notice. San Francisco Int’l (SFO) has two runways, 1R and 1L, that
    would doubtless permit a 747 to fly over the 16-or-so lanes of traffic on the Bayshore Freeway and the frontage roads and land. But in many decades of driving up that Freeway I have never seen a 747 fly in that way, and even though I am not a pilot, I would notice if one did.

    And you think a 757 operating without landing clearance could use runway 15, crossing over the main runway and putting any landing or taking off planes at risk, and the ATCs would be so busy polishing their nails or playing video games that they wouldn’t notice? And then it has to taxi to the terminal, crossing two other runways to do so, and it has to request permission to do this or has to do it without permission, again endangering any planes taking off or landing. And again the ATCs don’t notice, none of the other pilots notice, none of the DCA groundspeople notice?

    And then, once you’ve got your 757 safely across the runway, where do you put this thing? You can’t just quietly slip out a back gate and taxi away.

    The whole scenario is daft. Which is why CIT has abandoned it and now they deny that they ever advocated it–though they did.

    And unfortunately, though I have done their work for them to narrow down the possible escape paths to one, apparently they don’t have to guts to go out and try to track down witnesses to this amazing death-defying high-g once-in-a-lifetime turn.

    1. Dear Mr. Good, you wrote:

      You are simply trying the same dodge that Rob Balsamo did when I raised the issue over 2 years ago at OpEd News.

      Any similarities between my response and that of Mr. Balsamo from over 2 years ago at OpEd News (that I do not recall reading) would stem from both of us recognizing that a 757 could land on runway 15, despite its length being 500′ shorter than recommended by Boeing for a fully loaded plane (because the Pentagon plane wasn’t fully loaded, was already very low in altitude, and had a proven exceptional [auto] pilot.)

      That is not a dodge but a fact. You continue with the dodge:

      I did not say that it was impossible for a 757 to land there.

      Thus, in a back-handed manner, you concede that it was physically possible for a lightly loaded 757 already at low altitude and at the hands of an exceptionally skilled [auto] pilot to land on runway 15.

      True, you did not say it was impossible, but you did use language like “[I disqualified] runway 15 as a haven for flight 77.” For what dodgy reasons?

      Runway 15’s length. As proven and back-handed admitted by you, not a disqualifying factor.

      757’s did not typically use Runway 15. Agreed, but 9/11 was a day full of exceptions.

      Pilots. What would they note out of the ordinary sitting at a gate or even sitting on the tarmac waiting for take-off? How much can they really see outside their plane? What would they notice from the air waiting to land? What would they care given the hoopla already in motion that resulted in the grounding of all aircraft on the minute or within a minute of the 757 landing where it doesn’t typically?

      Airport employees. [sarcasm]Yeah, right[/sarcasm]. The ones out and about in the fresh air are more concerned about the taxiing aircraft and the ones they have to load/unload, fuel, service, etc. than noting a 757 came down on an unusual runway.

      Amateur aviators. [sarcasm]Yeah, right[/sarcasm]. Where is their vantage point? Probably at a gate that can’t even see (all of) the runways as they wait to board their flights. This is just you padding the list.

      Plane spotters at Gravely Point. If these were such a potent force with their picture taking, tail number recording, time recording, schedule double-checking, etc. for the hoopla that a 757 landing on an untypical runway would create, then kindly cough them up, Mr. Good, as well as all of their photographs, tail numer recording, and time notation for all of the subsequent aircraft that landed at DCA on 9/11 in an unusual manner. Surely if these plane spotters were a force of influential double-checking record-keeping, they’d have DCA schedules, they’d be monitoring radio signals, if not the news, and they’d know that what was happening was unusual, so they would have documented it for history. Prove with names and official statements that such plane spotters were on duty. Cough up the usual (and/or unusual) airport activity on Tuesday 9/11 they recorded. Verify that a 757 on runway 15 would stand-out. Otherwise, this becomes a dodgy category of observer that you completely blow out of proportion in a red herring.

      Air Traffic Controllers. Now you might be on to something. I could certainly agree that they would probably notice an aircraft landing on runway 15 without their permission. However, that with or without permission question is something to mull over. How many ATCs would be required to give permission (or to stall other aircraft)? Probably only one. Could that person be unwittingly in on the conspiracy? Maybe they were already part of the several military exercises. The story of the FAA supervisor (somewhere) taking some of their 9/11 tapes, destroying them in front of ATC subordinates in a “story clarifying (CYA) meeting,” and then distributing the tape fragments across several trash cans is an indication of at least one person at the FAA with an ass to cover. However slight, however compartmentalized, it tells of involvement in the conspiracy.

      You wrote:

      And you think a 757 operating without landing clearance could use runway 15, crossing over the main runway and putting any landing or taking off planes at risk, and the ATCs would be so busy polishing their nails or playing video games that they wouldn’t notice? And then it has to taxi to the terminal, crossing two other runways to do so, and it has to request permission to do this or has to do it without permission, again endangering any planes taking off or landing. And again the ATCs don’t notice, none of the other pilots notice, none of the DCA grounds people notice?

      Nope, that is not what I think. That is the dodge of you putting words in my mouth.

      I think (and speculate) that it would plausible for a single supervisor to tell the ATC’s to keep runway 15 clear (as well as any intersecting runways) for a narrow window of time for the transponderless and below-the-radar flying plane to land.

      As for your assumed nail-polishing and video-game-playing ATC’s? Seems to me some of them were already a bit slack-jawed to see the radar blip disappear near the Pentagon, whereby they afterward mentioned they assumed it had crashed, because they were already aware of the hijack dramas and alleged crashes in NY. Thus, in their shock, they probably weren’t thinking that it was still in the air and seconds away from landing on runway 15.

      Due to the discrepancies in the exact-to-the-quarter-minute timelines (that were officially amended at least three times), I honestly don’t know when the grounding order came with respect to an arriving 757. Could it have been slightly before or exactly when the 757 landed? Regardless, their (alleged by you) nail-polishing and video-game-playing were immediately interrupted with the unprecedented order to land all aircraft. And that includes coordinating the taxiing and parking of aircraft that it wasn’t normally expecting.

      On the topic of what landed and its tail numbers, we need to rewind. Doubt enters into the equation at several points along the long, transponderless, and un-intercepted 757 flight. Did the reputed plane even take off? Did it truly fly the entire alleged path? How did the military’s games and insertion/deletion of radar blips play into this? Would this have aided in swapping the reported plane with one that had different tail numbers and whatnot that would not have been suspicious when they requested taxiing and parking instructions from the control tower?

      You asked regarding my speculation:

      And again the ATCs don’t notice, none of the other pilots notice, none of the DCA groundspeople notice?

      It isn’t a question of none of the above noticing. It is a question of all of a sudden an overwhelming number of things to notice and contend with. Planes are grounded. Planes can’t leave gates. Unexpected planes are brought down there. Where to park them. Where to unload them. Distract, distract, distract.

      As always, Mr. Good, you overplay your hand and flag for astute readers where to search for 9/11 truth. Thank you.

  26. Craig,

    Is it that you don’t know when Brian Good is lying or is it that you know he is lying and want him exposed? Is that why you allow him to post blatant disinformation

    He never forced CIT to abandon anything let alone a belief they never held. He doesn’t source it and it never happened.

    Terry Morin is a north side witness. He places the plane over the navy Annex. He said it “cleared the 8th wing” and would have “ran into the air force memorial” if it were built. This is not the official south of columbia pike, south of vdot tower, south of citgo path. Period. End of story.

    Madlene Zackhem flat out lied about the flight path. Now whether her motive was to make her account more traumatic for victim compensation or whether she is Mossad, proudly displaying a crucifix to throw people off it doesn’t negate the fact that she was uncooperative, didn’t want to go on camera, didn’t want to draw a flight path line and what she describes does not match the NoC witnesses/flight path OR the official SoC south of VDOT antenna data path and that she can’t see either due to the trees on the lawn in front of the VDOT. Lets not forget her sister works as a computer specialist for the US Information Agency, her brother in law also has a navy email address. Her nephew got a lengthy write up in Washington Post as a “september marine” and the field he wanted to get into was of course, intelligence. So there remains a possibility there is more to Zackhem than meets the eye. She would have been a crucial fake witness to the SoC if she hadn’t been interviewed and exposed so badly.

    The rest is just more of his authoritative sounding, pseudo-disagreement, pseudo-controversy, and blatant lies and disinformation.

    You think we just say this because we are crazy or can’t argue against him. No it’s because his claims have been addressed and corrected but he continues over and over and over again. He made these same claims on 911oz. He made them on 911blogger. He can’t make them on truthaction, because his identity of truebeleaguer protects him from activity of Brian Good. Truthaction is a psy op forum where they are trying to ease everyone from MIHOP evidence, and lure and demoralize people out of the truth movement or into 9/11 truth light ie negligence and LIHOP.

    I am sure it won’t matter he will continue to lie and subvert, until someone, and I am sure it may be soon, travels to Northern California, finds him, and corners him on camera.

    1. Veritatum, I notice that you did not address my substantive points (that a runway 15 escape is out of the question, that there’s only one possible flyaway flight path, and this would have involved a spectacular high-g turn visible to dozens of outdoor witnesses–including the NoC witnesses). Instead you prefer to deploy falsehoods and silly ad hominems–unprovable and irrelevant claims about anonymous identities and other web forums.

      Terry Morin is a South-of-Citgo witness. His line of sight was blocked by the Naval Annex building so he could not see the Citgo station. And yet he says he watched the plane fly down the hill until it disappeared behind trees. He could only see this if it was South of the Citgo. This is simple logic and geometry. Your claim that he’s a North of Citgo witness is absurd.

      Your discussion of Ms. Zakhem only demonstrates my point about the lousy ethics and poor political sense of CIT supporters. If Roberts, Morin, Lagasse, or your other witnesses had military email addresses you would consider this to bolster their credibility. But if Ms. Zakhem’s brother has a military email this is a detriment. Besides, the assumptions you make about her ethnicity are enough–in your mind–to damn her. Your bigotry is showing.

      What exactly did I lie about? The “We’ve already addressed these arguments” claim is just meaningless bluster. Craig used that line when he fled from our initial debate in July of 2009. If you’ve already addressed the arguments, then it should be easy to recap what you said and address them again. How come Mr. Deets was caught flat-footed on the Jesse Ventura program by the question “Where did the plane go?” How come you can’t answer the same question? How come years later CIT wants to rest on their North-of-Citgo laurels and won’t lift a finger to locate vital East-of-Pentagon witnesses and prove their case?

      At 911oz I quite successfully asserted some of these points–humiliating Craig Ranke and Rob Balsamo with 12 holes in CIT’s story and 23 questions they were afraid to answer. Messrs. Ranke and Balsamo have fled from debate from me every time I’ve encountered them–3 times in Balsamo’s case and at least 5 times in Ranke’s.

      CIT certainly did claim that runway 15 was the escape path. In my first debate with Mr. Ranke in June/July of 2009, he referred me to a video from Pilots for Truth that asserted just that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b9kbiN8SfE&feature=gv And CIT supporters through the years have continued to make that claim.

    2. Dear Mr. Veritatem,

      [I don’t speak for Mr. McKee.]

      Don’t call Mr. Good a liar. Prove him as such. Point out the disinformation. Avoid the name calling.

      If the NSA Q-Group exists, has the mandate to infiltrate online forums, and desires to distance various presidential administrations (and insiders) from involvement in 9/11 (and other bad things), then Mr. Good’s clever postings are representative of a member of their varsity team, no?

      Yes, I know it can be tedious to go for another spin on Mr. Good’s disinformation merry-go-round after such spinning in other venues induced you to puke your guts out while running his dubious points into the ground. If it is a complete re-hash, provide the links.

      However, recognize that this is a different venue with a different audience where extracting salient points would be informative. Two other things to consider. The destination website of those supporting links could be taken down/out for any number of reasons in the future. And even if they survive and are available for inspection, they probably have their own rambling problems that only a few will wade through to reach a conclusion.

      I’ll repeat the injunction not to call Mr. Good any names. Instead, turn the other cheek and love him for fulfilling his God-given role as a disinformation agent with an impressive track record all over the internet. Harken, for whenever he posts, he opens the door of opportunity for someone to post a response with truth, that the latter-day readers and database archeologists will know.

      In fact, in his own special way as a “semaphore for 9/11 Truth,” Mr. Good’s frantic “wave-off’s” from certain topics (e.g., runway 15) really become “land-here’s” and “research-this.” We should really be very grateful. Many times in my 9/11 and global politics studies, I did not seriously consider certain avenues of research as I was lulled by the “loony, crazy, insane” labeling as valid,… until I noticed the lock-stepping frantic “wave-off” patterns and the (weak) arguments used to justify “not going there.” If the NSA Q-Group (and other disinformation spreading agencies) has any true America patriots and supporters of the Constitution, sometimes they help us immensely by leaking truths in their ridiculous posturing and overplayed wave-off’s. For this reason, it can be important to play the game, ride the merry-go-round again, and re-discover truth.

    3. Veritatum,

      I don’t think I have ever agreed with or supported anything Brian Good has said about the Pentagon, and I doubt I ever will. When he posts, his claims are generally very well rebutted by other regular contributors, including you. If I had to investigate every alleged fact that he writes, I wouldn’t have time to write or research in other areas. I’d rather not have Mr. Good setting my agenda for me.

      Having said that, I would not knowingly allow someone to lie regularly without putting a stop to it. But I would have to know they were lies as opposed to statements that are just wrong.

  27. And as to cornering me on camera, CIT has been making that empty threat for years. In May 2010 I fully expected CIT to attend the “Deep Politics” conference in Santa Cruz–because CIT’s biggest fans Peter Dale Scott, David Ray Griffin, and Richard Gage were all there. I was very disappointed when they didn’t show up, so the next month I challenged Mr. Ranke to come to the Conspiracy Con in Santa Clara for a frank exchange of views. He didn’t show up. He didn’t come to the 2011 Conspiracy Con either. The fact that CIT supporters must travel to the Bay Area to confront me is quite telling. There’s not one CIT supporter in the Bay Area? Apparently there are no CIT supporters in the DC area either–none to do the Adidas work and canvas the parks and the golf courses and the marinas for those ever-elusive East-of-Pentagon witnesses.

    1. Craig canvassed all those places he mentioned. This has been addressed ad nauseam. But that is the point I guess, to make people nauseous from all the back and forth.

      And el once, as Craig just said, Good has been thoroughly refuted. Do some research. Unless you are just some npt disinfobot here to stir the pot, associate your support of CIT w/ npt. now, you are here defending Brian Good and giving his wanton disinformation credence without acknowledging that it has been thoroughly refuted and didn’t have any sourced substance to begin with.

      The fruits of your labor show your true intentions.

      If CIT presents “a strong case for an inside job”(his words), why does “Brian Good” spend his time trying to distract people from that fact with blatant lies rather than do something about it as an alleged 9/11 truth activist?

      1. What does does it mean to say Craig “canvassed all those places”? He didn’t show up. After taunting me with claims that they were going to ambush me at conferences with video cameras and make a fool out of me, CIT never even showed up!

      2. Dear Mr. Veritatem, you wrote:

        el once, as Craig just said, Good has been thoroughly refuted. Do some research. Unless you are just some npt disinfobot here to stir the pot, associate your support of CIT w/ npt. now, you are here defending Brian Good and giving his wanton disinformation credence without acknowledging that it has been thoroughly refuted and didn’t have any sourced substance to begin with.

        Let’s see if I can bend you into shape from your warped football mentality and its inability to praise the talent in players from the other side. Play in the game of X improves more going against stronger opponents rather than weaker ones. Mr. Good is a strong debater.

        Much to your chagrin, Brian Good does make interesting and clever points. It is sometimes hard to see exactly where he is leading us down the garden path or when the rose colored glasses get placed on our noses. You take the easy way out saying (paraphrased) “Mr. Good has been refuted elsewhere, thus what he writes here must be also already refuted, so we can ban him, post-haste.” To this point and your “do some research” injunction: Games played last week does not make this week’s game a foregone conclusion.

        Why say you that I defend Mr. Good? Because I ordered you not to call him names? Silly me. More silly you. Name calling debases the caller and the environment that permits such more than it does the intended target. So if it seemed as if I was defending Mr. Good, recognize also how it was also more on your behalf and that of Mr. McKee’s blog.

        As for your “npt disinfobot” nit?

        Wah!

        Spank me harder.

        “NPT” equals “No Planes Theory,” right? Is not one of the damning implications of CIT that “no plane” (UA77) crashed into the Pentagon? Let’s ignore the staging of downed light poles and focus on the aspect that says a real plane flew over the building at ~100 feet timed with a missile launch from a construction trailer supposedly housing a generator. Thus, a major component of its success would be the ability of PYSOPS in the media to immediately spin this to be a real plane crash, whereby eye-witnesses to a plane flying and later to smoke billowing from the Pentagon would cognitively associate the two as cause-and-effect.

        Why stop there? Why not get the public to believe a yarn about heroes on UA93 that allegedly dove into Shankville turf? Where’s the wreckage, the bodies, the luggage, the seats, etc.? Certainly, this is NPT as well.

        Two out of four planes are really NP: not even pixels on a computer.

        I assume that your distain for NPT refers mostly the towers and to the pixels of aircraft you’ve seen on the telly. Maybe this is where you need to do some research. I’ve wanted to be proven wrong on my NPT beliefs at WTC for a long time, without success. The counter arguments to NPT are weak and non-comprehensive. Like Shanksville and the Pentagon, they can’t even produce a serial numbered part from the WTC to uniquely identify the plane via its maintenance records.

        And the videos themselves? If real planes hit the towers, why is there so much evidence of video fakery and video anomalies? I particularly liked the miraculous zoom-in (4 times from 6 miles away) that resulted in the much debated “nose-in, nose-out” clip. What impressed me most was the reverse-play zoom-out that suddenly doesn’t show an aircraft where we can easily calculate it would be. I like how the tail of the aircraft moves into the towers at the same speed it moves through thin air. I like the 4 different versions of a helicopter’s footage: #1 with no plane; #2 with an orb; #3 with the background masked out to be sky and a different plane trajectory; and (late) #4 with a plane replacing the org.

        If there were real planes, why the need for any video manipulation at all?

        Turn this around. Under what conditions would fake planes be superior? When you control the media and have Hollywood-inspired software running of fast computers at your disposal, when you have witnesses planted and prepped, when you have authoritative govt story-tellers waiting in the wings to say what it was and what it wasn’t, fake planes (or faking plane crashes) are massively superior on all levels of the operation.

        Here’s an example. Americans (wrongly) pride themselves on the integrity of its leaders and how they wouldn’t deliberately kill their own citizens. How then do you suppose the planners of this operation got secret approval from various leaders, bodies, agencies, and institutions prior to 9/11 and then after 9/11 to keep the lid on it? The sales pitch probably went like this:

        “No animals were hurt during the making of this film.” No passengers were hurt during the making of this ruse. All were either witness-relocation candidates or simVictims, except the hijacker who were non-American CIA assets and lose ends necessitating patsy terminations. The delay between the faked jet impacts and the towers’ decimation was meant to be sufficient for office workers to be able to escape. Again, witness-relocation candidates or simVictims helped flesh out the WTC victims’ list. Any loss of life to real victims was unfortunate and collateral. {Unspoken afterthoughts: The one exception are those at the Pentagon in the Office of Naval Intelligence and searching for the lost $2.3 trillion. We want those Mo’Fo’s taken out to send a loud-and-clear internal memo: Don’t fuck with us! Don’t question us! Don’t investigate us! Don’t follow the money! And here’s some Anthrax to let you know “we can get you.” Vote our way! War is good for business and the economy!}

        You write:

        The fruits of your labor show your true intentions.

        I should hope so.

  28. Veritatum, your empty claims are self-discrediting. I’ve been refuted where? Oh right, on the internet. An anonymous internet poster says so, and it must be true.Do your own research.

    CIT doesn’t present “a strong case for inside job”. CIT in fact destroys a strong case for inside job by larding it with all kinds of irrational, unnecessary, impossible, and discrediting nonsense. As I said, it’s reasonable to consider the possibility that CIT is the wrecking crew sent in to discredit the important testimony of the NoC witnesses. And they’ve done a great job if it.

  29. ” Mr. Good is a strong debater.”

    Seriously señor??

    I’ve gone to lengths to show where he is and has been, defending the OCT flightpath and the NOC flightpath but adding the disinfo “NOC impact” vomit under different names.

    It’s easy to appear “strong” in a debate where the conversation is void of logic, facts and proof.
    It’s even easier when you’re burning both ends of the candle, slipping in and out of totally contradictory stances whenever the going gets tough or to suit each individual argument.

    1. He on the one hand claims that the NOC evidence is “valid” and on the other insinuates that they ALL may be “lying”

    2. He on the one hand claims that the NOC evidence is “strong”, yet claims that CIT “ignored” alleged “SOC witnesses,” whose testimonies actually point to being NOC.

    3. He is on record as claiming that he and Chris Sarns planned to agree that the NOC evidence stands, but that they would “argue” that the aircraft still “impacted”

    4. He also argues that the “SOC path” is equally valid.

    He has all bases covered depending on what the argument is.

    You like wordsmithery. Good is a wordsmith. But he doesn’t deal with facts.
    If your idea of a “strong debater” is a manipulative, lying disinfo merchant whose only goal is to obfuscate a serious issue then, yes, you’ve got a point.

    @Craig

    If the whole purpose of allowing this idiot to post here without moderation, given Good’s track record (which you obviously know from experience at 911Oz), is to draw more pointless trollspam from an attention craving psychopath like Good, crapping all over valid evidence, you’re on to something here.

    Meanwhile researchers and those who have the balls to strive for truth over some psyop instigated PR exercise for the sole purpose of weakening and destroying “9/11 Truth” will have to waste their time clearing up after Good, just in case onlookers and lurkers actually fall for his bullshit.

    How dare this spambot be allowed to post on the same thread as Barrie Zwicker and Paul Zarembka.

    With respect (but thoroughly pissed off and confused)

    OSS

    1. Mr. OneSliceShort quoted me back with:

      ”Mr. Good is a strong debater.”
      Seriously señor??

      Seriously, Mr. OneSliceShort. Nevermind the “90 Shilling” micro-brew I just drank.

      And you probably owe Mr. Good a round of thanks for providing the opening for you to introduce your four points of his flip-flopping play and how it reflects badly on him, and even proves the labels we all would like to deploy against him. For such a response from you, I give you my praise as well, because now neither Mr. McKee nor me (“Hey, that rhymes!”) will have to soil our keyboards in handling the matter.

      Meanwhile, I’ll be thanking the very same Mr. Good for nudging me into looking into runway 15 myself to discover… Lo and behold! The CIT plane, a lightly loaded 757, at the hands of a talented pilot on a cloudless day could easily land on runway 15!

      Being a strong debater in my mind doesn’t mean that the points Mr. Good defends are necessarily valid, although some indeed are. To me it means that his arguments are clever and articulate, and it is a challenge to find where the twist in his position exists that makes it flip OCT instead of 9/11 truther. And discovering the twist is like tapping a keg, a wealth of truth comes gushing out of the rabbit hole entrance that he tried to bury like a cat with its scat and a litter box.

      I gotta say, for me in my last skirmish with him, how apropo that his don’t land here on Runway 15 semaphore wave-off’s just duped this useful idiot into landing on another bat-shit crazy theory regarding Runway 15 as the true “get out of Dodge” escape plan, timed exactly almost to the minute to when the first-day-on-the-job FAA big whig issues the unprecedented command to land all 4000+ aircraft flying over the skies of America. Brilliant! Hide that 757 in plain sight amidst all the ensuing airport confusion. (No evidence exists as to the tail numbers of the true plane that “CIT flew” over the Pentagon, but never-the-less, I’m sure 30 minutes in a DCA hangar could make it read anything.)

      I thank you in advance for tackling further Mr. Good in this thread.

      Oh, the wonderful opportunities he opens for defenders of truth! Mr. Good is truly a blessing to all of us 9/11 Truth Seekers, because he leaks so eloquently the weak OCT areas in his back-handed “9/11 Semaphore for Truth” sort of a way. Hugs and kisses, Mr. Good!

    2. Onesliceshort,

      I take it that your position is that I should ban Mr. Good because of the behaviour you describe?

      It is incorrect to say that his comments are unmoderated. It is correct to say that I don’t investigate each claim he makes in exhaustive detail before approving his comments. Do I have to look closely at his “runway 15” claims in order to let him post them? That would be ideal, but I’d rather not have him setting the agenda for me. This would be a major time suck
      .
      It is difficult to assess whether someone is lying or deliberately being misleading at all times – or if they are just horribly wrong. Perhaps I err on the side of tolerance, but that comes from seeing how easily people are banned on other 9/11 forums. But I may reach the conclusion that someone is deliberately leading the discussion in circles, and then I would ban them (as I did with Albury).

      In the meantime, maybe not engaging him would be the most effective approach.

  30. OSS, I’m guessing that the reason you perceive contradictions where there are none is that you formulate the issue in terms of competing theories, and you don’t understand that I prefer to examine the facts and their implications free of the weight of theories. I see no point in advancing a theory when the facts have yet to be established. You, on the other hand, have no need to advance facts when you are satisfied with your theory, and you have no interest in the subtleties of epistemology.

    I never said the NOC evidence is “valid”, and I don’t “insinuate” that all the NOC witnesses may be lying. I assert as an undeniable fact that they may be lying, they have ample reason to lie, and you have no way of knowing if they are or are not.

    There is much reasonable doubt about the correctness of the NOC witnesses. Credible witnesses say the plane hit the light poles, we have the broken light poles themselves, we have the ASCE report, we have CIT’s claim that a NOC aircraft can not hit the building–and not one credible witness places the plane east of the Pentagon. I certainly would not hang anybody based on the NOC witnesses’ testimony, and I am dismayed and embarrassed by CIT’s lynch mob mentality.

    CIT’s claims that SOC witnesses are actually NOC witnesses are contrary to the facts. Terry Morin, as I showed, can not see the Citgo from his location. Therefore the fact that he sees the plane fly down the hill at all shows that he sees it SOC. CIT’s denial of reality and geometry on the point is embarrassing.

    Chris Sarns and I never coordinated a strategy. Independently we arrived at the perception that we did not know if the NOC witnesses were correct or not, we could not discard them, we recognized that flyover is not a supported hypothesis but only a wishful assumption, and we did not find compelling CIT’s evidence-free claims that a NOC aircraft could not hit the building. CIT imagines that the standing NOC light poles represent an impossible barrier, and they exaggerate the impediment by ignoring the wings’ dihedral and unreasonably assuming that the engines must clear the light poles. If you draw a diagram you can see that the plane can actually approach from the NOC path much closer to the ground than CIT claims. They also unreasonably demand that a NOC impact plane conform to the low-and-level approach shown in the released video frames.

    You have claimed that I lie. That is a serious charge, especially when leveled against a real person with a real name–as opposed to the likes of you, who hide behind the right to an opinion of a jokey pseudonym. Since you have shown yourself to be incompetent at simple logic and since your reading comprehension is poor and since you seem to lack the patience or aptitude for nuanced thinking, I’m sure your claim is simply based on a misperception on your part. Kindly provide specifics so that we can clear up your misunderstanding.

    If Barrie Zwicker and Dr. Zarembka have some substantive points, I would be delighted to discuss them. So far my experience with both of them is that they tend to dodge the issues through the use of red herring questions.

    1. Dear Mr. Good, you wrote:

      I assert as an undeniable fact that they may be lying, they have ample reason to lie, and you have no way of knowing if they are or are not.

      Turn about is fair play. I assert as an undeniable fact that SOC witnesses may be lying. Most are part of the MIC or its media branch, so they have ample reason to lie to promote the agenda.

      And given the level of cognitive dissonance set into motion on the public, no one has any way of knowing who was lying or not, such was the depth of the hook planted into our cheeks to reel us into the “America Under Attack” ruse.

      There is much reasonable doubt about the correctness of the NOC witnesses. Credible witnesses say the plane hit the light poles, we have the broken light poles themselves, we have the ASCE report, we have CIT’s claim that a NOC aircraft can not hit the building–and not one credible witness places the plane east of the Pentagon.

      Cognitive cause-and-effect. Broken light poles are on the ground. Maybe you should look into the amount of effort required to stage them; I don’t see it as a showstopping problem. Lots of people were ear- and eye-witnesses to a low flying plane. The Pentagon explosion acts like punctuation to terminate the cognitive cause-and-effect of a flying plane with broken light poles and the damage to the building, while the telly sings the chorus: “our own planes were used against us like missiles, America at war!”

      The ASCE report? Should be held up like the various NIST reports and the EPA’s NYC air quality proclamations as excellent examples of politics tampering with science to manipulate the public’s perceptions with fiction.

      As for your lame real-name argument, I suspect your using yours like bait. You troll forums like this sowing the seeds of 9/11 truth doubt (and never adequately defending the OCT such that it could be swallowed hook, line, and sinker), while at the same time inflaming online ire against you personally.

      Why? Because it would serve the OCT cause if an alleged violence-tolerant fringe of the 9/11 Truth Movement (e.g., a mind controlled stooge) would tamper with you real-time in real life. Just like PETA and other environmental groups before, just like OWS and other movements, it’s the same playbook but a different playing field in how the opposition is painted in the media to the public as uncivil, unstable, unworthy, etc. to get it discredited. Not that I wish such tampering upon you, quite the contrary! I bring it up, so that others can avoid the obvious trap that is being set around you via your supposed real name.

      If your real name and the words you write had any true worth, you would be doing a Ben Franklin by collecting them all and publishing them on your website or blog. Don’t you stand behind your words? You have enough of them. Think of the problems you avoid in getting banned again and again, or seeing your postings removed. Not so if you own the playing field and the football.

      P.S. I’ll probably be off-line for most of the weekend. Others are welcome to explore Mr. Good’s posting for the twists and turns in his analysis that need straightening.

      1. Señor, of course the SOC witnesses may be lying, but you have not provided a plausible motivation for them doing so. Those of us in the media reform movement are fully aware that the media have in place policies to squelch certain lines of inquiry and that they frequently relay official pronouncements uncritically and quite credulously. Your level of paranoia–imagining that the media affirmatively place witnesses to lie about events–is far beyond what responsible researchers would consider reasonable.

        I have looked into the effort required to stage the light poles. CIT, whose claims that the light poles were staged make it their responsibility to explain how they were staged, refuses to explain it. Their facile claim that the poles could be planted in the dark the night before are quite unreasonable. The poles in the cloverleaf would be visible to drivers departing the night shift and arriving for day shift at both the 8:00 and 9:00 rush hours. The notion that nobody would notice is as silly as the notion that nobody would notice an unscheduled 757 landing on runway 15.

        I stand behind my words. Not being an attention-seeker, I seek to promote my truths but have no need to promote my on-line persona. I would like to collect my work on a website, but I’ve been too busy to get to it.

        1. Brian,

          It doesn’t really matter whether the light poles were visible or not. Nobody would give them a second thought even if they did see them. If the NOC witnesses weren’t mistaken or lying, then the poles could not have been hit. And the bizarre Lloyde England story clinches it. No one saw a light pole go through his windshield. Nor did anyone see him pull it out with the help of a silent stranger.
          The light poles were obviously staged. We’d have had chunks of wing all over the road if the plane hat really hit five poles at that speed.

          And lying witnesses don’t have to come from the media. If I were trying to pull off a covert op like this, I’d make sure I flooded the area with appropriate “witnesses” who would echo the official version.

      2. Dear Mr. Good, you wrote:

        Señor, of course the SOC witnesses may be lying, but you have not provided a plausible motivation for them doing so.

        How many SOC witnesses:

        – Had their employment in some shape or form associated with the Military Industrial Complex [MIC]?

        – Had their employment associated with the media?

        – Had their testimony tampered with, because they watched the stilted media reporting of the day that proclaimed before the dust of the towers had even settled or the fires of the Pentagon extinguished (a) who was the devious master-mind responsible [Osama], (b) what caused the destruction [airplanes], and (c) what didn’t [insiders using controlled demolition and a controlled media, “No PYSOPS to see here, folks, move along now!”]?

        The MIC is geared for war, and what better motivation than (the ruse of) the “foreign enemy” taking it to us and slapping us across the face first, thereby eye-for-an-eye morally justify hitting them back?

        The media is filled with ignorant but eager pawns desiring their five minutes of fame. This doesn’t apply to just the on-screen talent. Traumatized victims on newscasts attracts rubber-neck crash-victim accident-gawkers who makes the networks money on advertizements, while the story of the traumatized victims (later) gets written, sold, and turned into a made-for-telly movie.

        It is probably safe to say, that if your employment had you anywhere in the vicinity of the Pentagon or particularly at the Pentagon during the incident of 9/11, you would feel in some manner, shape, or form somewhat of traumatized victim, because the attack could have sacrificed y-o-u ! And despite any (e.g., Christian) religious education, you might just take the attack very deeply personally and therefore desire exacting, overwhelming, military revenge on … oh, yeah… the cave-dwelling master mind and his band of Islamic fundamentalist, as explained to me on the telly. “Don’t call me ignorant that I can’t connect the dots with the telly’s simplified trend line.”

        Let us not forget the internal memos that they sent around during this period, ordering the military personnel essentially not to talk to the (independent) media about their personal experiences on 9/11 and any doubts, suspicions, or anomalous evidence/observation they might have. I’m talking through my ass on that one, because I don’t recall reading any leaked memos of this nature; I make the unfounded assumption. However, one could certain perceive as an unwritten internal memo regarding which way the wind was blowing and who was in charge both the Anthrax attacks on a news media personality and two members of Congress as well as the targeted offices of the Office of Naval Intelligence who were investigating $2.3 trillion dollars in unaccounted for Pentagon transactions.

        Thus, several forms of duped useful idiot motivation may have been imposed on witnesses, a masterful mass mind control operation. And what success? Despite the named patsy/attackers being mostly from an allied country, we attack a poor country who had the misfortune of not agreeing with the Unicol negotiations of the previous year and of cutting poppy product. And about a year later and built on a dubious 9/11=Saddam=9/11 foundation, we attack a second poor country who had the misfortune of wanting to sell their massive oil reserves using the Euro instead of the dollar as well as other pitfalls from being a puppet of CIA and USA machinations.

        Mr. Good wrote:

        I stand behind my words. Not being an attention-seeker, I seek to promote my truths but have no need to promote my on-line persona. I would like to collect my work on a website, but I’ve been too busy to get to it.

        Let me be the first to say that I will be an eager reader of your website. You probably do not want to disappoint loyal fans such as me by not being able to reproduce all of your wonderful prior words on your website, because you did not collect them from the various blogs and websites where you played before those very cyber-playgrounds suffered a database update or were otherwise taken off-line, off the internet, or tossed into the bit-bucket of the ethernet. From experience, I know this is within the realm of possibility. Thus, maybe you should stop “being too busy” with other things and instead make collecting and publishing your prior work a priority. What better way “to promote [your] truths” than in giving us a mechanism to see them all in one place even after the LEDs burnout on the machine hosting original source playground.

    1. OSS, you make empty claims–just like a Bushbot or debunker. The last two links show that I speak the truth. I don’t know what the first link says. I wouldn’t go to that site because I had two computers go down in one day when I followed Aldo’s links, and I don’t want to give CIT my IP address.

      1. Woa! Stop the presses!

        Mr. McKee, do we have your permission to go off-topic for a posting or two?

        Mr. Good, you wrote:

        I wouldn’t go to that site because I had two computers go down in one day when I followed Aldo’s links, and I don’t want to give CIT my IP address.

        Let us remember the distinction between “owning a website” (e.g., URL) that hosts malicious code from “offering up a link” (e.g., URL) to such before we ignore the other implications against Aldo from your statement, because as but one example, even “owning a blog” like this one and being attributed to (e.g., “owned by”) Mr. McKee still subjects him to code offered by WordPress and other IT service providers that are out of his hands.

        Mr. Good, would you please be so kind as to elaborate? Please offer some technical details, like the exact symptoms experienced by each computer on their way down, because some agent snagged your IP address. What abilities do you think agents have and can use against you with your IP address in hand? What have you seen them do to you? How have you been cyber-messed with all the way through to you keystrokes? What protective measures do you take?

  31. Mr. McKee (I’m sorry about an ambiguous reference to “Craig” in an earlier post at 12/15 1:40 pm. That was of course to Craig “Nike” Ranke and his habit of fleeing from debate.)

    Your belief that you can look into the minds of hypothetical witnesses you don’t know and determine that they would not give broken light poles a second thought it not justified. If I saw one broken light pole I would assume a car knocked it down–unless I noticed that it was broken 25 feet in the air as well. If I saw three broken light poles I would know something was very amiss. Very likely I would stop the car and get out and examine them. The “incurious and stupid witness” argument is a staple of CIT supporters, who apply it also to the freeway drivers who must fail to notice a 757 flying into DCA 15, and even applied by Senor Once to the ATCs he believes would not notice a 757 crossing their main traffic runway.

    When an airplane flies over the road at 30 feet and crashes into a building, why would you expect people to be monitoring light poles? Yes, maybe LLoyde England broke his own windshield and made up the story about the light pole because he wanted to be on TV. I don’t think so, because the damage to the dashboard, the front seat, and the back seat are all consistent with his claims. But maybe he made it up. So what? Even if he did, that has no bearing on whether the plane hit the lightpoles or not. If a 767 wing can go through a WTC wall of 14″ box columns built of 3/8″ steel plate, I don’t see why you’d think a 757 wing couldn’t go through an aluminum light pole.

    If I were trying to pull off a covert op like this, rather than complicate the issue by flooding the area with liars who might slip up, I’d make keep it simple and stick to an op that needs no lies. Fly the plane in on a radio beacon. No muss no fuss. No liars to get drunk on the 4th of July and announce to a whole block party that they helped cover up the murder of innocent citizens.

  32. I read it all! Really a treat to get info from disinfo.
    I’ll be back to see the next episode, for sure.

    After landing, is it more likely for the 757 to be
    pulled into a hanger and repainted/renumbered,
    refueled and flown away or disassembled?
    Would a take-off, be as risky as a landing?

    1. Dear Mr. BigAl,

      As you will recall, commercial flights were grounded for two or three days (sorry for my inaccuracy). In preparation for the resumption of commercial flights, empty commercial planes were allowed to fly the day before public flight resumption in order to be staged properly at the correct airports to start the new day’s business.

      Speaking through my hat, a freshly painted tail number and then shoved amidst a whole slew of other parked aircraft that didn’t belong there would probably be sufficient to hide the aircraft in plain sight. Nobody would be looking for it, because it crashed, right? The request for take-off in order to shuttle the aircraft to another airport would be one of many and largely unnoticed.

      Mistakes were made on two of the aircraft (I forget which) in terms of being listed in service for a long period of time after 9/11. By itself, it means nothing except shoddy bookkeeping. Inside of a bigger picture, it may have been a half-hearted attempt not to lose an asset, just like the put options were a half-hearted attempt to gain on the misfortune they had insider/advanced knowledge about. The risk became too great to collect or keep it around.

      Once the aircraft had left DCA, its final state? They probably realized that to keep the plane in tact (regardless of where in the world) would forever be a smoking gun to the ruse, due to those pesky serial numbered parts. Theoretically, they needed to strip some of the parts, mangle and burn them, and sneak them into the Pentagon, anyway. So, my guess is that the plane was destroyed.

  33. Wow, BigAl, this conspiracy just gets more and more complicated, doesn’t it? So the plane flies over the Pentagon, it flies over the freeway at low altitude on a flight path that is never used by 757s, it crosses the main runway potentially endangering taking off or landing planes, it then taxis back across the main runway. Then this mysterious unscheduled traffic-crossing plane is quietly pulled into a hangar that’s sealed off so nobody can see it while it’s repainted or wrecked? And who would create such a loony plan and why?

    1. Brian,
      Tell me your take on Operation Northwoods and why it isn’t highly relevant to discussions about 9/11. I wrote three consecutive posts on it last year that demonstrate clearly how the plane switch scenario would have worked. Read these three articles and then get back to me.

      https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/can%E2%80%99t-believe-u-s-would-unleash-terror-on-its-own-citizens-they-already-tried/

      https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/military-wasn%E2%80%99t-worried-%E2%80%98campaign-of-terror%E2%80%99-secret-would-come-out/

      https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/u-s-military%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98plane-switch%E2%80%99-deception-perfectly-anticipated-911/

      1. I never said Operation Northwoods wasn’t relevant. Operation Northwoods was certainly relevant to my personal awakening in 2004. was But plane-switching over the open ocean is certainly a different proposition from planeswitching over the USA. Certainly the military may have a variety of electronic means for adding false blips or perhaps even removing real blips from civilian radar systems, but I think you’d need to provide more details than I’ve heard to support a plane-switching scenario.

        1. Brian,

          Once again, I don’t think I have to construct a theory about exactly how a plane switch could have happened. The point is that the idea has been proposed by the country’s military leadership. They thought it was both justifiable and feasible in 1962, so there’s no reason to think they wouldn’t favour it in 2001.

          What does Operation Northwoods tell you about the idea of a massive deception being pulled off without the public understanding what really happened? If you’re suggesting that a plane switch couldn’t have been pulled off, please explain exactly why.

    2. Dear Mr. Good,

      “A flight path… never used by 757’s” is an example of you trying too hard. Never say never. Trying too hard is also your speculation that the plane would be wrecked in a hangar there.

      Here’s a tweak to the speculation about the loony plan.

      What if a plane X were fudged to look like plane Y with respect to the tail numbers before the operation started? Some light-adhesive with the new numbers (Y) overlaid on the original numbers (X). Then like a painter removing masking tape and plastic at the end of house-painting job, the trip to the hanger removes/strips the overlaid numbers (Y) in five minutes and restores the original numbers (X): no repainting required. Hid in plane site.

      You assume the plane would have had no permission to land, thus the red-herring about “crossing the main runway potentially endangering taking off or landing planes.”

  34. Craig,

    So much to say and so little time. May I suggest a way of dealing with the “should I ban people or not” question.

    Step one: Challenge the assertions/statements made by the blogger.
    Step two: Give the blogger an opportunity to respond to the challenges.
    Step three: If the blogger fails to counter the challenges and fails to support his/her assertions/statements after a reasonable time then he/she is considered to have been debunked on that point.
    Step four: If a blogger continues to repeat debunked material he/she is then considered a suspected troll and is given a warning to withdraw his/her debunked statements and stop repeating them.
    Step five: If after warning the person to correct the record he/she has not done so and continues to promote the same debunked material you should ban them. At that point they are only detracting from your blog.

    With this method in place you allow the blogger ample opportunity to correct the record and/or argue his/her case before any action is taken. In essence this system allows trolls and disinformationists to hang themselves since they are given the oppotunity to make their case and only if they fail to do so AND refuse to correct the record are they banned. It is a fair way to approach the issue and will quickly eliminate the bad eggs.

    By the way in my opinion Brian Good has been thoroughly debunked multiple times on the same claims he is making here. He continues to promote debunked material over and over again. Once a person demonstrates that they are not debating in good faith (no pun intended) they need to be stopped from disrupting the discussion. They only need to be debunked ONE TIME using this method. In fact if OSS can point to a blog for example where Brian Good has been debunked you can skip step one above and insist that Brian respond to the challenge already on record elsewhere. Move through the steps and people like Brian will be gone very quickly and your blog will be healthier for it.

    One note: I detest censorship in all it’s forms however using this method to weed out trolls and disruptors is not censorship. A genuine truther will correct the record once his/her error is exposed. A troll or disinformationists will not correct the record and that is how you identify them.

    1. ruffdam, kindly provide an example where you believe I’ve been debunked. Go ahead, give it your best shot. Without empty claims, CIT wouldn’t have any claims at all.

      1. Sure Brian I will be happy to provide an example. Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMvxd8HV54w&feature=context&context=C3bf29b5UDOEgsToPDskLuH0Y_hR6a-0zxmhrkYVbE where you post under the name punxsutawneybarney you said the following on page 4 of the comments:

        “There’s nowhere for a flyover plane to go. Wherever it goes it’s off the usual flight paths and extremely conspicuous.”

        I posting as centrino105 responded:

        “You said “There’s nowhere for a flyover plane to go.” which on it’s face is ridiculous and obviously wrong. How about if the plane went over the pentagon? Or towards the nearby Reagan airport? Or away from the nearby airport along the usual departure path? It is false to state that CIT won’t discuss the question since they do discuss it in great detail. So in your first post here you have made a ridiculous and irresponsible statement and a blatantly false statement.”

        You responded with:

        “So in your world dozens of people saw a plane flying toward the Pentagon from the west, but only two people saw it flying away from it, east, even though it had to do a screaming 3.5 G 270 degree turn to head back up the river. And the ATCs never saw it, no other pilots saw it, the planespotters at Gravely Point never saw it, nobody at the marina saw it, and nobody on the freeway saw it.
        And you wonder why people think truthers are crazy?”

        To which I replied:

        “Who is to say if people saw a flyover or not? 2 people did see a flyover and many more may have seen it and have not been interviewed. Still more may have seen it and assumed it was a plane taking off from Reagan. Your statements about people setting up tripods and about requirements of “High-G 270 degree turn” are sheer nonsense. CIT discusses this issue and so have I so quit trying to falsely portray them as avoiding the question because they aren’t and I am not.”

        So you have made several claims here which I challenged and you subsequently failed to support with evidence. You also failed to counter my challenge. Instead of addressing the points I made you just carried on making more false statements and accusations. You failed to withdraw your debunked statements such as:

        “There’s nowhere for a flyover plane to go. Wherever it goes it’s off the usual flight paths and extremely conspicuous.”

        And:totally unsupported statements such as:

        “it had to do a screaming 3.5 G 270 degree turn to head back up the river.”

        You have failed to correct the record on this obviously absurd statement and failed to correct the record on the totally unsupported claim in the second case. Therefore you are not debating in good faith and that entire exchange demonstrates that fact very clearly. Anyone who wishes to can read the entire exchange (all 5 pages) and see your tactics at work.

        On another youtube thread you claimed Craig Ranke lied 5 times in 5 sentences and I challenged you to illustrate the five lies and explain why they are lies and you failed to expose even 1 lie. You just went right on ignoring my challenge of your false accusation and continued making more false statements. That is how you operate Brian you just continually make false statements and ignore the challenges to those statements. You do not debate at all, you just throw a whole lot of poop at the wall and hope some of it sticks to someone.

        I would go through the above recommended steps and then ban you for failing to correct the record on your incorrect assumptions and for failing to withdraw your false statements. You are clearly a troll and I will not engage you any further.

      2. @Ruffadam
        I have asked other people to provide an image, or a link to an image, of a flightpath of a plane that flew over the Pentagon. It would provide a lot more clarity than people just describing it in words. Roosevelt Roberts is supposed to be a witness to this plane and where it flew etc. so it should not be difficult to provide an image showing it, extended from any of these witness flightpaths.

      3. Brian,

        I don’t see why plane switching would be that much harder over land. The ON documents describe clearly how the real plane would be head to a nearby military base while the drone aircraft would take over the course. I’d say this is more than relevant; it’s proof that high level figures would be willing to kill Americans and blame their enemies to justify overthrowing a foreign government.

      1. Dear Mr. McKee,

        Mr. RuffAdam wrote:

        Step three: If the blogger fails to counter the challenges and fails to support his/her assertions/statements after a reasonable time then he/she is considered to have been debunked on that point.
        Step four: If a blogger continues to repeat debunked material he/she is then considered a suspected troll and is given a warning to withdraw his/her debunked statements and stop repeating them.

        I take issue with the highlighted words above.

        If the blogger fails to counter specific points in the challenge, the points remain open but leaning away from the blogger. If the blogger fails to counter the challenge but is otherwise active in the thread or blog, the merits of the challenge need to be weighed before any victory is claimed. This is important to prevent wild-researching-goose-chases and busy work. Nobody wants to see (one example): “You didn’t rise to my challenge about UFOs in your soap on a rope doing mind-control in the shower, so victory is mine! Bwahahaha!”

        If specific points and the challenge in general have merit, victory will be determined on the merits of each side.

        It is dangerous to say debunked on that point and debunked material too early.

        My concerns stem from my championing of bat-shit crazy theories like no planes and DEW. I believe I can rationally, reasonably, and with science support these views, but there are times [like the remainder of this week] when I won’t be online and there are other times when a challenge of an ad hominem type nature [whether or not other valid points are made] when such is best ignored.

        1. Senor El Once,

          I understand what you mean; one person’s debunked is not another person’s. I interpreted Adam’s comments to mean that when it becomes clear that someone is disingenuously repeating statements that have failed to hold up in the past, then they should be treated accordingly. But it’s still a judgment call, in this case mine.

          It comes down to sincerity, I think. If someone is being mischievous or dishonest in their debating tactics then they deserve to be banned. The trick is to separate those people from others who are trying to make the best argument they can.

          As you know, I’ve been very hesitant to ban people – so far, just Albury and snowcrash, although the latter case appeared to be mutual. In the first case it had become clear that this person was purposely sending the discussion in circles. In the second, this person was just trying to start fights with vicious ad hominem attacks. There are many forums that seem to thrive on his venom and the thick-headed chirps of agreement from others of the same persuasion. They can have him and them.

          I would definitely not ban someone because they offered up an unpopular theory like no planes, etc. (sorry, unpopular is the best word I could think of – it’s not a judgment) Theories and suggestions don’t have to be proved before they can be heard. But if someone makes a statement that isn’t supported by the facts, then they should account for why they continue to make the statement.

          I appreciate all the helpful suggestions you’ve made in the past about handling those who would disrupt honest debate. I also appreciate Adam’s logical framework for rooting out disruptors. I won’t apply a rigid formula to determine what has or has not been “debunked.”

          I agree with you that this could be problematic. But I’ll try to stay on top of discussions to ensure that productive exchanges are not impeded and that discussions are not being hijacked. I welcome continued input from regular contributors as to whether those objectives are being realized.

  35. Since other witnesses describe a southern flight path consistent with the light pole path, either the NoC witnesses are wrong or the SoC witnesses are wrong (or lying).

    Brian Good

    Okay, 80 odd posts later and this hasn’t been challenged? And some people wonder why I get annoyed with this troll (or should simply “ignore” him)

    Who are these “SOC witnesses” Good?

    I expect some moderation on this one point. Adam’s outline of what should be the bare minimum of placing parameters on this “debate” so it doesn’t become a trollfest would be appreciated.

    Happy Christmas!

    1. Onesliceshort,

      I responded to Adam that I think his suggested approach to potential trolling is fair and reasonable.
      As for the question you’ve asked, I also think it is reasonable to expect Brian to come up with names. Certainly we know who the NOC witnesses are.

      Brian, how about it? And to follow up our brief exchange on Operation Northwoods, I’d like to know specifically why the details of this operation don’t show it to be a clear forerunner to 9/11. To me it has all the ingredients. The suggestion that it would be harder to pull off over land just doesn’t cut it.

    2. I second the challenge for Brian to name SOC witnesses. If he cannot name some/any then he should correct the record and state clearly that there are no SOC witnesses he was able to find. That is the least that should be expected of a legitimate “truther” is to tell the truth.

      1. Adam, I asked Naomi to show when I’ve been debunked and she vanished in a puff of smoke. I asked you to show where I’ve been debunked and you cite stuff from punxsutwaneybarney. Looks like I’ve never been debunked.

        As I recall “Nike” Ranke lied 11 times in 12 sentences when I finally shamed him into responding to the “10 Holes in CIT’s Story” post. I don’t remember for sure. Maybe it was
        12 lies in 11 sentences.

        Sounds like punx is talking about a different incident.

    3. OSS, for you to pretend you don’t know who are SoC witnesses is silly. You know perfectly well they’re Morin, McGraw, and Elgas for starters.

      1. First off, I want to know what your definition of the “SOC flightpath” actually is.

        For the record, according to the directional damage and FDR heading, this is the OCT path:

        Correct?

        And do you believe that Warren Stutt’s alleged data is valid?

        @Craig

        Sorry if it seemed like I was browbeating you regarding moderation but I think that it would be a useful experiment keeping in tone with the blog’s title, ya know? Just to actually see what constitutes a real debate or “consensus” on this subject and how it can be narrowed down to the fine points, come to a logical conclusion or framework within which to work so that it doesn’t deteriorate into a trollfest.

    1. Let’s see the ‘back story’ behind “BrianGood’s” “12 lies”-

      http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=33944&postcount=66
      http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=33900&postcount=248

      Or was it “BrianGood’s” [self-imagined] “stipulations?”
      http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=33976&postcount=69
      http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=33975&postcount=258

      Or is “BrianGood” just blathering and bleating like a “petgoat” about “10 holes” again (or was it armpits or Rob’s balls or “toxic Pegasus poop” or what exactly)? It’s difficult to keep track of “BrianGood’s” rantings and ramblings (and honestly a COMPLETE and UTTER waste of the readers time from my years of experience with “BrianGood” and its various online aliases).

  36. @OSS, what is this semantic quibbling? It’s obvious what a SoC flightpath is. It’s any flightpath that takes the plane south of the Citgo, as opposed to CIT’s flightpath, which is north of the Citgo?

    I don’t know anything about Wayne Stutts or his data, and nobody has ever given me any reason to think I should.

    @Craig, the reason a plane-switch would be hard to pull off over land is because the US airspace is blanketed by radar coverage.

    Part of what would make plane-switching in Northwoods possible is the lack of radar coverage over the ocean in 1962.

    1. Given that Flight 77 was out of radar contact for most of its alleged flight, this seems like a very surmountable problem for the perps. The air traffic controllers who picked 77 up again and followed it through its alleged 330-degree spiral descent thought they were following a fighter plane, not a commercial airliner. A plane switch would not have been that difficult.

        1. How does saying it was out of contact make me an official story supporter? Obviously, I’m talking about what was reported by air traffic controllers who said they lost contact with the alleged flight; I’m not saying that the actual perpetrators of 9/11 – acting in secret – lost contact with the plane.

          For confirmation of the loss of contact: http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=aa77

          Here are a couple of excerpts: 8:51 a.m. The Indianapolis Center air traffic controller in charge of Flight 77 watched the plane go off course and head southwest before its data disappeared from his radar screen. He looks for primary radar signals along the aircraft’s projected flight path as well as in the airspace where it had started to turn, but cannot find it.

          9:02 a.m. McDonnell now says he has tried contacting Flight 77 but did not get a reply back. The controller then tells him: “We, uh, we lost track control of the guy. He’s in coast track but we haven’t, we don’t [know] where his target is and we can’t get a hold of him. Um, you guys tried him and no response?” McDonnell confirms, “No response.” The controller continues: “Yeah, we have no radar contact and, uh, no communications with him. So if you guys could try again.” McDonnell replies, “We’re doing it.”

      1. The most important thing about that loop they thought was being made by a fighter plane was it was witnessed OVER the skies of DC, east of the Potomac. This is the opposite of the NTSB loop which was SW of the Pentagon and Reagan National. More evidence both the alleged black box data and radar data is fraudulent and fabricated.

        It wasn’t a fighter. We now know it was of course an unmanned, remote guided, non-AA, commercial airliner sized drone that pulled up and flew over and away from the Pentagon blending in as if it was departing traffic from Reagan.

  37. A lot of poop thrown at the wall yet again but no SOC witnesses have been produced hmmm interesting. Ask yourself Craig Has Brian actually addressed the challenges? I think he has not. Evasion and obfuscation is what I see.

    1. He did mention three names: Morin, McGraw, and Elgas. That would require a response, I would think.

      But I still have not had an adequate answer from him for why Operation Northwoods isn’t a clear forerunner to 9/11.

      1. Yeah he mentioned 3 names and provided zero evidence that they support a SOC flight path. This is typical of Brian, he makes plenty of unsupported statements. He claims Craig Ranke lied a whole bunch of times but provides no evidence to support his claim. when he is challenged he just slips and slides around the challenge never actually addressing it. I will tell you this Craig if you asked me to give you examples of NOC witnesses I would link you to multiple videos of the witnesses describing exactly that in their own words. If you asked me to back up my claim of squibbs in the WTC I would provide both video and expert analysis. Trolls who just blurt out statements as though they are true can’t back up their BS with anything so they try to change the subject, distract you from the issue, attack the messenger, or use whatever disinformation technique is nessessary to avoid actually being exposed as a liar. You will NEVER pin down someone like Brian and get him to directly answer a challenge in a straight forward way and provide supporting evidence for his claims. He can’t because he is a liar and a troll. Go ahead and try to pin him down on these alleged SOC witnesses and see what happens. I have wasted far too much of my time already on trolls like Brian. I really don’t care if he is a paid operative or not because based on what he is doing he may as well be a paid operative. He derailed this thread, mission accomplished.

    2. @Ruffadam
      It would be very helpful if someone could clarify the path taken by a plane flying away from the Pentagon. Given that there is an eyewitness who saw it, it should be easy enough to draw a flightpath for it. Do you know if anyone has drawn one or could you post it here?

      1. @A. Wright, I posted one at 911oz based on the testimony of Roosevelt Roberts, who said he saw a plane flying away to the SW, back across highway 27. He said he saw that within seconds of the noise from the explosion at the W wall of the Pentagon. IIRC it comes to about 7 seconds after. The calculations for aircraft speed, turn radius, bank angle, and G-force are really rather simple if you can remember what an arctan is. Suffice it to say that it’s impossible for a 757 to make a 180 degree turn in 7 seconds.

        By a process of elimination I have shown that the only possible escape route for the flyover plane was to make a spectacular high-G turn from NE to NW upriver, a turn visible to hundreds on a crowded freeway, at a marina, at a golf course, at a plane-spotters’ park, to the ATC’s, and to any pilots flying into the airport.

  38. You originally said…

    Since other witnesses describe a southern flight path consistent with the light pole path, either the NoC witnesses are wrong or the SoC witnesses are wrong (or lying).

    Brian Good

    There is only one “SOC path” consistent with the “lightpole damage”.

    Any flightpath…south of Citgo” will not cause the directional damage.

    In fact, any flightpath even slightly north of the OCT path would require two major banks to line up with the damage from lightpoles 1 and 2 to the facade. One of those banks would be a major left bank which is neither witness compatible, contained in any alleged data nor compatible with the lightpole damage.

    Again, this is the OCT path, loosely labelled “SOC path”:

    Correct?

    1. @OSS, we’ve already been over all this at 911oz. You guys are perfectly happy with curving flight paths when it’s NoC, but when it’s SoC planes can only fly in straight lines and do herky jerky 10G pullups.

      @ruffadam, if you’re not aware of the testimony of Morin, Elgas, and McGraw perhaps you should familiarize yourself with it before venturing an opinion on what happened at the Pentagon.
      I don’t have time to school you on this stuff right now. How many people showed up for CIT’s shindig in Toronto? The game is not worth the candle. Gage, Scott, and Griffin pulled back from CIT. Mission accomplished. Deets got himself on TV and made a fool of himself when he was asked “Where did the plane go?”

      If I had time I could search through the archives at 911oz for you where I’ve already been over all this stuff ad nauseum.

      Take a look at these links and these threads and you might learn something.
      http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=36485#post36485

      http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=36432

      The threads are “10 Holes in CIT’s Story” and “I predicted that Ranke would lie about the emails”.

      If you want to call me a liar you’d better show where I lied. You’re old enough to know better than that.

      1. Brian,

        I think you’re own link shows how wrong you are. These are NOT lies. Just because you don’t agree with something doesn’t make it a lie. That was pointed out to you on 911oz.

        I think we’ve heard enough of your accusations that Craig Ranke lied multiple times. This approach would lead anyone to suspect your motives.
        If you “don’t have time to school” someone on the basis for one of your claims, you shouldn’t make the claim to start with. You questioned me on Flight 77 being out of radar contact and I provided my source.

        You claim you are a truther but you seem to spend most of your time arguing with other truthers. I would like to know exactly in which areas you think the official story of 9/11 is false and where it is not. All I hear is how you think others are wrong but you don’t provide any answers of your own.

        P.S. I removed your last comment because it seems like a gratuitous shot that has no place in this stream. And you provided no source for your claim.

  39. @OSS, we’ve already been over all this at 911oz. You guys are perfectly happy with curving flight paths when it’s NoC, but when it’s SoC planes can only fly in straight lines and do herky jerky 10G pullups.

    Brian Good

    We’re not at 911Oz.

    There is only one “SOC path” that lines up with the directional damage. The NOC paths were drawn and described by witnesses on the scene (they’re not “CIT’s NOC paths”). The 10.14gs were worked out from the speed, height, descent rate and pull up to line up with the damage according to the alleged data.

    How can you claim that certain people are “SOC witnesses” when you can’t even define what the “SOC path/directional damage/FDR Heading path actually is? Everybody from the OCT itself, duhbunkers, detractors and supporters of the NOC evidence know why the “SOC path” is “straight”. Although on other forums they play dumb when they’re actually put on the spot to actually say it. You know why.

    The directional damage path is a “straight line” because the alleged lightpole damage and aerodynamics demand it. Every single detractor has thrown their weight behind Warren Stutt’s disinfo (apart from you apparently) and this obviously demands it too. But you knew that, huh?

    http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1228

    These ridiculous paths you drew at 911Oz claiming that Morin described:


    They’ve been completely debunked here:

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20147&st=160

    The bank angles necessary admitted to here:

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20147&view=findpost&p=10786953

    How can the lightpoles and damage have been caused when the aircraft would have had to execute this manouvre?

    Cut the crap Good.

    You’ve already claimed the following

    Since other witnesses describe a southern flight path consistent with the light pole path, either the NoC witnesses are wrong or the SoC witnesses are wrong (or lying).

    Brian Good

    and

    It’s obvious what a SoC flightpath is It’s any flightpath that takes the plane south of the Citgo, as opposed to CIT’s flightpath, which is north of the Citgo?

    Brian Good

    Which is it?

  40. Now, as for the claim that Morin, McGraw and Elgas are “SOC witnesses”

    McGraw:

    I had no awareness of the incoming plane until it was above our cars..

    Stephen McGraw

    How can he be an “SOC witness” if he didn’t even see the approach?

    Elgas:


    and the lane and direction she was driving versus the OCT path

    I heard a rumble, looked out my driver side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there – very low in the air,to the side of (and not much above) the Citgo Gas Station that I never knew was there.

    Penny Elgas

    More here:

    http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1704&st=0&#entry2465311

    Morin:

    For me, this guy’s testimony is pivotal in burying the OCT path. That’s why his testimony is consistently attacked and cherrypicked at by duhbunkers. This is why detractors have branched out into different categories to cover all of the bases. And why Good won’t pin his colours to the OCT path on paper.

    He was interviewed by Craig Ranke here:

    MORIN: When the plane went right over the top of me I was within ten feet of the edge of the wing (of the Annex)

    CRAIG : So you were kinda in between them? (the wings of the Annex)

    (…)

    MORIN: I was inside..flew over the top of me.

    (…)

    CRAIG: What are the chances the plane flew on the south side, south of columbia Pike?

    MORIN: No frickin way, it flew over the top of me.

    (…)

    CRAIG: Were you outside the edge

    MORIN: No, I was inside..flew over the top of me

    “Over the top” of him.

    Morin: I mean there used to be an eighth wing there..

    Craig: Okay

    Morin: Now there’s the US Air Force Memorial. If the Air force Memorial had been built, the airplane would have ran into it

    and

    Craig: You’re 100% certain that it was the top of the Navy Annex?

    Morin: He is on the edge of the Navy Annex, not completely over. Okay?

    Craig: But, the plane itself would be on the North Side of Columbia Pike at that point?

    Morin: Yeah, yeah, I mean this is Columbia Pike, okay? There’s a fence right here. I’m inside the fence, okay? He went right over the top of me.

    . Craig: So you’re saying that the entire plane, including the right wing is..

    Morin: Does the right wing hang out a little bit? I mean there’s only..how much

    Craig: No, I’m saying how much to the North side of Columbia Pike..maybe it was over the Navy Annex but there’s no way it was to the North of Columbia Pike. There’s no way the plane itself or the right wing was North of Columbia Pike?

    Morin: Nope.

    Given all of the above (there is more), which direction, never mind path is Morin describing?

    1. Not only that oneslice, but remember the ANC guys who were looking at it approach head on had it veering from the left to the middle to the north corner of the navy annex. It is clear they connect the slow-banking-then-gun-it north side flight path that Morin witnessed over him ie over the navy annex.

  41. OSS, you’re proving my point. None of your NoC flight curves are straight lines. But when you want to put your thumb on the scale on the SoC side, all of a sudden planes can only fly in straight lines.

    Elgas and McGraw are SoC witnesses because they said they were near the light poles and they place the plane there. Are you trying to claim that a 757 can fly north of the Citgo, then swoop south to satisfy Elgas, and McGraw? It can’t! Therefore, they are SoC witnesses. Since Morin claims he saw the plane fly down the hill, and since he could only see the plane if it was SoC, Morin is a SoC witness.

    @Craig, your source says that Indianapolis lost radar contact with flight 77, but then regained it 8 minutes later. Indianapolis was hardly the only radar station in a position to track the plane. Your claim that this shows that “Flight 77 was out of radar contact for most of its alleged flight” is not justified.

    1. Brian,

      There was lots of confusion about what happened to Flight 77 long after that eight minutes had passed. At 9:20-9:21, the FAA’s Indianapolis Center began to doubt their previous view that 77 had crashed. They discussed it with the Herndon, Virginia centre, and this led to other centres being told that 77 was lost. At 9:21 Herndon informs Dulles’s Terminal Radar Approach Control that the FAA has lost 77 and is trying to locate it. Clearly, no one is following the flight on radar at this point, which is already more than half an hour into the flight.

      The alleged reappearance of 77 was when it was travelling east at more than 500 miles per hour. It was only “later determined” to have been 77 by the FAA. The blip they picked up was not known to be 77 while it was airborne. Dulles ATC thought the blip was a military plane because of the way it manoeuvred; they didn’t know it was 77 (this doesn’t mean I’m agreeing that it was, just that it was later claimed to have been 77 by the FAA).

      As the plane (whatever it was) approached Washington it was still unidentified, according to FAA Deputy Administrator Monte Belger. The transponder was still off and they had no way of identifying the plane. Any information about the autopilot being disengaged came from the Flight Data Recorder, which appears to many to be faked. If the FDR is genuine, it shows the plane flying too high to hit the Pentagon.

      1. Craig, wouldn’t any plane flying at 500 mph with no transponder have to be a hijacked airliner? And given that transponderless flight was already the demonstrated modus operendi for the twin towers, shouldn’t that have been a red flag for NORAD?

        1. Brian,

          Clearly a plane flying without a transponder should raise red flags at any speed. That doesn’t mean it was Flight 77, however. It could have been a plane intended to appear to be Flight 77. And the fact that the plane was able to (if you believe the official story) fly all the way back to the Pentagon from Ohio without red flags being raised suggests exactly what most of us are saying – that Flight 77, hijacked or otherwise, did not hit the Pentagon. I don’t even understand the purpose of your comment. What are you saying actually happened? What is the point of this debate?

          You’ve been asked some questions in recent comments that you haven’t answered. First, onesliceshort asked some questions that are very pertinent to your claims, and I think you should address those before going on to other topics. I asked a question as well, to which I would like an answer:

          “You claim you are a truther but you seem to spend most of your time arguing with other truthers. I would like to know exactly in which areas you think the official story of 9/11 is false and where it is not.”
          Let’s get it on the table. What’s the big picture for you? Until I understand this, I won’t see the point in arguing over details.

  42. OSS, you’re proving my point. None of your NoC flight curves are straight lines. But when you want to put your thumb on the scale on the SoC side, all of a sudden planes can only fly in straight lines.

    They’re not “my NOC flight curves”. They were drawn by the witnesses.

    Stop repeating this claim.

    The OCT flightpath is a straight line.

    Do I have to repeat the reasons again?

    Craig, if you don’t mind, I’d like you to push Brian Good into answering the posts he has ignored before moving on to his other claims about McGraw, Morin and Elgas.

    1. Does he agree that “any flightpath south of Citgo”, north of the OCT path that doesn’t follow the directional damage path will require two banking manouevres (72º) outlined in my previous posts?

    Discussed in detail here?

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20147&st=160

    2. Does he agree that “any flightpath south of Citgo”, north of the OCT path that requires these two banking manouevres (72º) will not lead to the lightpole damage and subsequent damage thereafter?

    3. Are there any witnesses to support this second steep left banking manouevre to line up with the directional damage path? I know of many witnesses that disprove this scenario. Can he name one?
    One that describes this:

    Cheers

    @Veritatem

    Exactly. The multitude of witnesses within the basin, after the Annex corroborate the flightpath over and over. Look at Prather’s description:

    The following map drawn by Darius Prather marks the spot where he claims most of the ANC guys were.

    So I looked over my shoulder, as I looked over, I noticed the, um, airplane (nice size plane) was coming in. And it was like— It may have been about no more than three feet about the Navy Annex, when it was coming across from that. And from my understanding, I heard that the airplane was heading down from Columbia Pike. Used that route. When the plane was coming across the, uh, the Navy Annex, it was actually like in between where the monument… the US Air Force Memorial? It’s like in between that and where you see like the little tower thing that’s stickin’ up from the other side there. It was only about three feet above that.

    The “tower thing”:

    The “tower thing” is actually above the very same Annex wing Morin placed himself. I’ve marked the tower, where Prather was and North of Citgo:

    And that’s just one. There are far more.

    1. Brian,

      OSS is correct in what he’s saying. It does seem that you are deliberately “misunderstanding” his points. Is he also right that I’ve been much too patient with you?

      I still don’t get your overall position (assuming there is one). A few days ago I asked you a clear question in a comment that you have not responded to or acknowledged. I would like to see a clear and complete answer to the following before you address anything else on this blog.

      I wrote: “You claim you are a truther but you seem to spend most of your time arguing with other truthers. I would like to know exactly in which areas you think the official story of 9/11 is false and where it is not. All I hear is how you think others are wrong but you don’t provide any answers of your own.”

      Anxiously awaiting your answer. Don’t disappoint me.

      1. Pardon an interloper for adding my tuppence worth, but …

        Wouldn’t it be pertinent, or incumbent even, for Administration officials to provide flight recording evidence (the black boxes) and/or evidence of human remains from the alleged plane to vindicate their official version of events? If the ‘officials’ can’t provide any evidence of their version of events then one might assume that all other debate is extraneous.

  43. OSS, you continue to indulge in your pet false dichotomy. If the official story is wrong in any way, then there must have been a flyover.

    I have no idea where the plane flew. Until flyover is acknowledged by Pentagon researchers to have been impossible, I’ve got no reason to care.

    1. Noted that for the third time you refuse to answer a simple question and now you ignore the physics/aerodynamics of your “any flightpath south of Citgo” spin.

      The official “SOC/directional damage path” is this one:

      It’s this one because the government, their loyalists claim it through highly dubious “data” and now the fake Pentagon “researchers” have thrown their weight behind Stutt/Legge’s paper. It’s this one because the directional damage, aerodynamics and the complete lack of witnesses to the necessary final manouevres for any other path that isn’t shown in that image. End of story.

      Nobody’s interested in your pet conspiracy theories Good.

      Now you claim that the witnesses you mentioned, Elgas and McGraw were “near the lightpoles”? How so? Did they see the lightpoles being “struck”? No.

      McGraw

      I didn’t actually see the lightpole going over..I believe I later saw the evidence of the pole having been knocked over…I think I only recall seeing the top part of the pole, that was the only part that actually got knocked off. It may not have been the entire pole getting knocked down

      If he was “near the lightpoles”, how come he doesn’t mention seeing lightpoles 4 and 5 which would have been in full view if he had been where people like yourself claim he was.

      How about this scenario?

      Or this one?

      Look at this image by another waffler, Adam Larson:

      He also says that he was

      “in standstill traffic…right in front of the lawn there..”…”I ended up right in front of the Pentagon”

      “I was right in front of the lawn there…with the Pentagon on my right”

      To further cement his description of being directly in front of the Pentagon, well ahead of the “lightpole path” he says this:

      I got out of my car and walked across the one or two lanes of traffic and went over the guard rail onto the lawn there.

      He does not mention crossing one or two lanes of traffic, THEN a traffic island THEN another (exit) lane. It’s obvious from his testimony to any logical person.

      Look at the image again with all of those quotes in mind:

      Here’s “the” (singular) guard rail he’s referring to:

      So he is on record as not seeing the approach and describes seeing “the top part” of a pole. The guy was hovering about the area for almost an hour after the explosion.

      He’s in no way an “SOC witness”.

      1. OSS, you continue to indulge your usual tactic of trying to cover up your lack of high-quality information by burying us in low-quality information.

        McGraw said he was right next to England’s taxi. That puts him at the lightpoles.

        1. Brian,

          OSS already quoted McGraw as saying he didn’t see the light poles knocked over. And if you’re going to make comments about “low-quality information,” you should be specific. What and why?

  44. @Good

    Re: Penny Elgas

    HILL: “And you said you saw it..you saw it hit one of the lightpoles?

    ELGAS: No, I didn’t see it hit. I heard on the news that it hit a lightpole. But that’s how I ended up with a piece of the plane, is that it clipped the pole. The tail —that was actually the tail that I turned into the Smithsonian. A piece of the tail.
    …..

    HILL: And that kinda..the..what I was reading..it fell into your car?

    ELGAS: Well, that’s what they said, but that’s not what happened.

    HILL: You just picked it up, or..?

    ELGAS: I picked it up.

    Now if you could explain the physics of the “tail” hitting a lightpole, I’m all ears.

    According to you, she was in an even better position (HOV lane which cuts through the middle of Route 27) to describe this scenario. A scenario that saw, according to Lloyd England, his cab allegedly “speared” for 8-9 minutes!

    HOV lane:

    Lloyd scenario:

    She claimed that the aircraft crossed Route 27 “4 cars” in front of her. Where was she in relation to Lloyd’s cab? The poles?

    How long was she in this area?

    I wanted the traffic to turn around. I didn’t know what else to do so I got out of my car and ran back toward the highway yelling “Go Back! They just hit the Pentagon!” But of course, no one could move in any direction because traffic was at a standstill.

    She saw none of the poles being “struck” or Lloyd’s cab and that ridiculous scenario because she wasn’t there.

    And her testimony points to the NOC path.

    NOC witness path:

    You know it.

    1. OSS, Elgas describes the plane making a banking left turn. She sees the starboard wing and she sees the port wing under the plane. None of the NoC flight paths have a left turn.

      1. @Good

        I’ll ignore the “low quality information” bullshit seeing as how you’re low quality two line wonders take nothing away from the fact that McGraw is describing in no way whatsoever, being slap bang in the middle of all of this “damage” on the OCT path, and as Craig rightly says, claimed only to see “the top part of a pole…after the fact” and that he doesn’t believe that the “entire pole” was knocked over.

        His description is of being in front of the Pentagon. He repeatedly states this. The information is all there. Read the damn thing.

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/breaking-the-back-of-the-official-story-911-consensus-panel-cant-be-timid/#comment-2759

        As for the “banking left turn” you claim that Penny Elgas described..

        I saw one wing straight at me and the end of that wing I saw from under the plane because it wobbled, it tipped..

        In the nano-second that the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car, the plane seemed to be not more than 80 feet off the ground and about 4-5 car lengths in front of me. It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground.

        A “bank” Good? Do you even know what sort of bank would be needed to change the aircraft’s course over such a short distance? Thought not. The same sort of banks required for your non runner North of Columbia “path”. Not a “wobble”.

        Fail, fail and fail.

    2. @Good

      McGraw said he was right next to England’s taxi. That puts him at the lightpoles.

      Even your two liners are wrong Good.

      Lloyd’s cab

      McGraw’s proposed position according to you but contrary to his testimony:

      300ft isn’t “right next” to anything.

      1. Correct oneslice,

        300 feet is in fact the exact length of a 100-yard US NFL football field (actually 360 feet if we include the two 10-yard “end zones”). Those Canadian footballers up north even have larger “gridirons” as I understand it.

  45. @ Good

    Your claim that Morin “saw the descent”

    http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos-ona.html

    I’ve already pointed out to you how this “North of Columbia Pike/parallel o the Navy Annex and line up with the directional damge path” of yours is a non runner.

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/breaking-the-back-of-the-official-story-911-consensus-panel-cant-be-timid/#comment-2746

    So you must be claiming that he saw a “descent” along the official directional damage/FDR path. You must also be dismissing the testimony he gave to CIT in the above linked video as to it being “over his head”.

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/breaking-the-back-of-the-official-story-911-consensus-panel-cant-be-timid/#comment-2747

    ..or that it would have struck the Air Force Memorial had it been built..

    Gotcha.

    First off, let’s see what Morin could have seen of the “descent” from the position that you and other detractors place him. Just outside the wings of the Annex:

    Here’s the OCT path vs his alleged line of sight according to detractors:

    Could he physically see the “entire descent”?

    No.

    Could he see lightpoles one and two (the “flash” he claimed that he later “learned” was a “lightpole”?

    No.

    Could he see it cross the lawn? Could he see the point of alleged impact?

    No.

    Let’s not forget this Ingersol image taken minutes after the explosion from roughly the same area Morin placed himself but further towards Columbia Pike:

    Even the cars parked along the Navy Annex carpark would have hampered what little (if any) view he would have had.

    The eighth wing (which Morin said the aircraft had “cleared”) seen in the above image is at a lower level than the others.

    As to where he actually claimed to watch the aircraft from after it had passed 50ft above the Annex….over his head”,

    I ran to the outside (from in between the wings) and got into a position where I could see it.

    ….

    I had time for me to come down, start to see it descend and come back..

    Those below in the Pentagon basin were in a far better position to descrie the flightpath after it had passed over the Annex.

    1. Since Morin could not see the Citgo from his position, therefore if he saw the plane fly down the hill at all it was south of the Citgo. Morin is thus a SoC witness.

      1. @Good

        Do you even read the posts?? It’s all there. I’m not going to repeat myself.

        And I won’t accept your “SOC” claims because you’ve ignored every post debunking your version of what the “SOC path” actually is!

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/breaking-the-back-of-the-official-story-911-consensus-panel-cant-be-timid/#comment-2746

        You can’t have it both ways Good. Either the aircraft flew the official directional damage path or it didn’t, as Morin contradicts. Which path is he describing?

        http://imageshack.us/f/88/navyannexmorin2paths.jpg/

        Read the above post again.

        Craig, now you see why Good refuses to talk specifics, ignores posts and repeats the same thing over and over in two line bursts.

        1. He refuses to pin his colours to the directional damage path. Even if he “rejects” the alleged FDR data (which is part and parcel of the OCT), aerodynamics is also a major factor and the complete lack of witnesses to the necessary manouevres to line up with the damage from his path renders his argument null and void.

        2. He has ignored the posts on his alleged “SOC witnesses” while still refusing to point out that he is actually talking about the official directional damage path for the same reasons above, how is one to argue with somebody who won’t clarify his position?

        3. He’s totally wrong (make that desperate) and claims Elgas was describing a “bank”. She wasn’t.

        He claims McGraw was in the “lightpole area” when his whole testimony contradicts this. He also is on record as saying that he didn’t see the aircraft approach!

        “I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars.”

        4. Good accepts that the aircraft flew over the Annex or North of Columbia Pike. This alone debunks the OCT/SOC path. Morin had no view of the basin of land after it had passed the Annex, although he had a view of it heading towards the area where the Memorial was to be, 50ft above a 69ft building.

        Witnesses below the Annex unanimously place it NOC.

        Good is trolling.

  46. Before I forget, another quote from Morin.

    Craig: So how long..uh..period of time are we talking?

    Morin: Uhh..what…13, 18 seconds?

    Craig: 13 – 18 seconds? That much?

    Morin: Well yeah, he’s flying 350-400 knots..from here, all the way down, so maybe that’s the time and phase of not knowing much..of reacting at the time.

    1. More on Morin and “Brian Good’s” REPETITIVE OzPitTrolling behavior, oneslice (although you probably know all this already)- I had to resort to True/False questions to try to get some sort of honest, legible, DIRECT AND RELEVANT response from the CIT-obsessed online entity “Brian Good” at 911oz:

      1: T or F: Terry Morin is the person who took that “proof” photo that you keep spamming all over the Internet?
      http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=33931&postcount=59

      Q2-Q7 at post #61
      http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=33935&postcount=61

      Q8-Q12 at post #64
      http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=33938&postcount=64

      Q13-Q14 at post #66
      http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=33944&postcount=66

      Q15 at post #67
      http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=33946&postcount=67

      Summary @ “The Detracting Dodgers” post #1:
      http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=8055

      See also:

      Parallels Between a PitTroll and Pseudoskeptic “Debunkers”
      http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=7232

      Brian Good’s Failed Defence Of Point 6
      http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=7330

      A summary of Brian Good’s Failed Defence Of Point 10
      http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=7307

      Note that “Brian Good’s” obsessive, trollish evasive behavior that I’ve seen PERSONALLY dates back to at least MARCH 2010! OK “Brian Good”- you’ve had almost 2 YEARS to answer my 15 simple true/false questions- here and NOW is the time to answer them honestly, DIRECTLY and RELEVANTLY. No more dodging, no more tap-dancing, no more ‘Semantical Simon’, and no more of your ‘disinformationalist games-‘ Christmas is over after all.

      [this is me quietly constructing a “ShadowsTroll” placard sign to hang around its neck in order that the poor ‘townsfolk’ might not be enticed into its nasty behavior and ‘traps’ as I surely will need one in the very near future…]

      Methinks Mr. McKee’s ‘bridges’ have been infested by trolls while I’ve been traveling, judging by my reading above (and Mr. McKee appears to have some very astute [and a few entertained] readers).

      Merry Xmas and Happy New Year to most of you!

      1. Oh- I forgot 3 more EXCELLENT questions for “Brian Good” from my “The anti-CIT Movement- When and Why?” thread at post #1 (AFTER he finishes answering the 15 true/false ones honestly, directly, and relevantly of course):

        http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=9731

        I thought I should start this thread for those rabidly-anti-CIT detractors to explain their personal motivations.

        1. When specifically did you decide to begin your campaign of attacking CIT (and their supporters) and of attempting to discredit the research and work of CIT?

        2. What specifically was your personal motivation to do so (in question #1 above)?

        3. What is your specific motivation to continue (a) to attack CIT (and their supporters), (b) to discredit CIT’s work, and/or (c) to discourage discussion of Pentagon research in general?

        Please try to address all 3 questions (and all 3 parts of question #3) as completely and directly as possible.

        http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=9731

        1. Hey, welcome back. Glad to have your input on Mr. Good’s “contribution” to this site. I have asked him a simple question, which he hasn’t yet answered (so good luck getting him to answer yours).
          On Dec. 29 I asked him this:

          “You claim you are a truther but you seem to spend most of your time arguing with other truthers. I would like to know exactly in which areas you think the official story of 9/11 is false and where it is not.”
          Let’s get it on the table. What’s the big picture for you? Until I understand this, I won’t see the point in arguing over details.”

          So, we’ll see. I let him have one short comment today but there won’t be more until he gives me the answer I’m looking for.

      2. More linkspam? If I failed to answer your questions, I’m sure it was because they were meaningless and irrelevant.

        There’s no question that Morin is a SoC witness–since he saw the plane and he could not see the Citgo. Some people seem to have trouble with that simple geometry.

        1. Brian, I think you’re the one who has trouble with geometry. If the plane went directly over the Navy Annex, then it didn’t follow the official path. Simple. Even if one argued that it could have gone over the Citgo station, it would still have been north of the required path.

          Having said that, I asked you a question that you have not answered. I am posting this comment from you but the next thing posted on this blog from you will contain your answer to my question.

      3. Happy New Year MrBoz!

        I’m having trouble with those links. “Database error”. Anybody else?

        When you narrow the argument down to “yes/no”, “true/false”, detractors like Good self implode.
        I have “Snowcrash” bent firmly over a barrel (sorry about the image) at ATS using the same tactic as I used on Good at this forum.

        He, like Good, try to obfuscate Morin’s account by claiming that his claim that he could see the “entire descent” is just as valid as him claiming that he saw the aircraft “over his head”, flying over the Navy Annex in the direction of the Air Force Memorial.

        I used your image of Morin’s proposed “line of sight” (hope you don’t mind – it was just too good) which shows that he couldn’t see the “entire descent” on the alleged directional damage path.
        He couldn’t have physically seen even half of it. He couldn’t see the lightpole area or the area of lawn the OCT aircraft would have taken. He couldn’t physically see the alleged “impact area”.

        When Craig Ranke asked him about his “13-18 seconds” claim, he clearly states that this timeframe included a period “of not knowing much..of reacting at the time”. Hardly in keeping with the proposed OCT speed of 540mph or 3 seconds from it cleared the Annex until the explosion or of having the aircraft in sight for the whole period.

        They both also insinuate that the proposed “North of Columbia Pike but SOC path” can line up with the physical damage. They fully contradict the aerodynamics (two banks of 72º required) involved and the alleged FDR data. Funny thing is, Snowcrash has been a stout “defender” of Stutt/Legge’s paper, warts and all. The point of contention is that there is no left bank recorded in Stutt’s data in the final seconds. So he’s been squealing “Nirvana fallacy” when in reality he’s saying that Morin is a complete moron. That his testimony about the aircraft passing directly over his head, that the right wing may have been “hanging over” a bit (the Annex) and heading towards the Memorial can be skewed into somehow describing the OCT path (which he firmly rejects himself!) à la Marty Feldman on acid.

        Good had the foresight to claim that he knew nothing of “Wayne Stutt” – wouldn’t want to be nailed down to pesky details, eh Good?

        He and Good are disinformationists. We can go round in circles for months with these trolls and they’ll pop up somewhere else spewing the same crap, moving the same goalposts. That the likes of Gage have “faith” in any of those idiots is depressing. But no surprise.

  47. Yes, I was getting those “Database Error(s)” after I made that post for a while this morning- I don’t know if Hereward was running a backup of his [highly slanted anti-CIT and Pentagon research in general- see administrator “larsporsena’s” 2 or 3 posts re:Pentagon research for example] website or if it was an ISP problem (which shows to be located in Brea, CA/Los Angeles according to my computer BTW). Hey- wasn’t our ‘old friend’ the snowy ‘prince of prickishness’ a self-styled computer expert? Hmmm….

    Maybe you ought to start backing up copies of our better posts/threads Down Under oneslice (I’ll be away from regular internet access for weeks/months very soon- as in about 1 hour- I usually save the pages in both HTML and PDF and the better images as well).

    Speaking of Morin and our better 911oz threads:

    Where exactly WAS Terry Morin?
    http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=7829

    When the BS ‘SarnsabusterSpin’ Morin version comes up- see my GIS image at my post #51
    http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=45601&postcount=51

    I don’t know whether the snowy ‘prince of prickishness’ is merely “Punking CIT” or just more simian fecal flinging to gaze at the patterns on the wall, but apparently the self-styled ‘master hacker’ chose the blue vector from my “Parallel Quiz” at my 29 Dec 2010 post #52 for his “through the Sheraton” flightpath that the merry TrueFaction Yucksters were recently wetting themselves over:

    http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=45602&postcount=52
    vs.

    [SARCASM] Wowzerz- SnowCrabby got a whopping 4 responses on his “Punking CIT” poll- there was some effort WELL spent (on the image, the poll, and that ‘forum’ inclusive)…. [/SARCASM]
    http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7394

    HInt for the angry ‘prince of prickishness’- the answers to my quiz were on the same 911oz thread at post #58 on 30 Dec 2010:
    http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=45612&postcount=58

    ‘Masterful’ work on that “Morin parallel” image though- I wonder if that aircraft depicted was drawn to scale though- is the CITGO canopy REALLY that much bigger than a B757? Wonder where Snowy’s ‘impact’ would end up and how it could knock down all 5 lightpoles though- those 3 ASCE “Don Mason” (cough * 5 * cough) lighpoles sure are a ‘sticky’ issue for those OCT-types…

    That’s all the time I have this month/quarter year? possibly- enjoy yourselves with James Randi’s and Gregg & Vicky’s brigade(s?) of anti-CIT minions though by all means!

    1. Cheers Bo,

      You have a nice break mate. And thanks for the links and the breath of sanity in all of this white noise.

      Peace

      OSS

      1. Aiee..I thought that the wicked witch was dead…Christmas must be over..

        There’s no question that Morin is a SoC witness–since he saw the plane and he could not see the Citgo. Some people seem to have trouble with that simple geometry.

        Brian Good

        I’ll ask this again Good. Is this what you’re claiming Terry Morin saw?

        This is the official “SOC/directional damage/FDR heading” path.

        We’ve been over this several times now Good.

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/breaking-the-back-of-the-official-story-911-consensus-panel-cant-be-timid/#comment-2746

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/breaking-the-back-of-the-official-story-911-consensus-panel-cant-be-timid/#comment-2747

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/breaking-the-back-of-the-official-story-911-consensus-panel-cant-be-timid/#comment-2754

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/breaking-the-back-of-the-official-story-911-consensus-panel-cant-be-timid/#comment-2766

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/breaking-the-back-of-the-official-story-911-consensus-panel-cant-be-timid/#comment-2779

        Stop trolling.

  48. [NOTE: This is a continuance of my thinking on a post on another thread here to do with the Consensus topic – I’m a bit scattered in trying to catch up on some of these threads]

    Now on the topic of CONSENSUS again. I would like to remark on the importance of MINORITY REPORT. Not so much as portrayed in the film, but as a philosophical concept.

    Consensus is a concept that drives the underlying assumptions of democracy, that the majority consensus on some matter is where the just decision lies for the whole society. In this aspect, the Minority Report lies in the reasoning found in the Bill of Rights, and apparent in the Declaration.
    This particular minority report, the Bill of Rights is predicated on a line being drawn as to majority rule. There are certain inalienable rights that no authority has power in which to justly intervene. This is a matter of common knowledge, so I needn’t dwell on it. What I do want to illustrate with this though, is the important underlying principle of a Minority Report.

    Any group seeking Consensus that wishes to maintain the same philosophy of rights that we seek politically, must consider the innumerate benefits of the conceptual foundations of a minority report. Such benefits will only be discovered as to the relevance to issues presented by any natural minority group an issue will generate. As the Majority is in a general consensus as to the issue, there will be those who are more or less ridged in their point of view, rejecting any variation of the ‘dogma’ of the consensus by degrees collectively – until the group is left that is tolerant enough to see the benefits of the minority report as relevant as to the uncertainty principle.

    As I am not speaking to a ‘court of law’ in these comments, but to a ‘court of public opinion’, the jury of the Consensus is fundamentally changed from that of a jury at law, who is responsible for handing down justice; their actions having material consequence. The level of that bar is: “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”. But the ‘court of public opinion’ will generally have such a wide and unsettled opinion as to what is “reasonable” that consensus on that is like shifting sands.
    In other essays I have addressed this phenomena of the temporary nature of consensus, as change is the nature of time.

    As to how I try to judge all material, such as may have gained consensus, and such that which is a minority view, is the position of “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.”
    How this applies to me personally is, that I see the general consensus that has developed amongst a certain majority opinion. I have varying degrees of agreement of what I understand to be the majority opinion. I have only one certain conviction however; the official story cannot possibly be true by any reasonable assessment. It follows then that I demand a full and and lawfully empowered investigation.

    Just one last point to add here to my last comment about demanding an investigation. I was asked by a person I deemed a shill/agent/dupe, whatever;
    He asked,“If such an investigation were to be carried out, would you adhere to the verdict of such a court if it found there was no inside job?”

    When I answered that it would certainly depend on how that court was assembled and how transparent the proceedings were. He insisted that I answer whether I would accept such a verdict if a legal court were to take up the matter. But regardless how I explained that I would have to see the proceedings as they progressed to come to any conclusion as to their propriety, he would not let it go. He had to have a yes or no answer. When I finally replied that if the proceedings were held in the manner he was displaying in the conversation, that I would say the court had been rigged, and no I would not accept any verdict from such a kangaroo type of proceeding.

    Ha…this was all twisted around into whining that I was using ad hominem in my remarks and going off into a blast of his own…and we all know how such things go. Exhausting, novel length posting in such blog ‘debates’ are often but not always an attempt to wear one down with minutia and scattered Easter-egg-hunts. Trying to force ‘yes or no’ answers is a companion technique. The, “I know you are but what am I,” taunt is common as well, but can be delivered in various degrees of subtlety.

    So this does {believe it or not, Lol} lead back to the idea that if there is finally a seeming Reckoning of the 9/11 issue, we must remain alert, because the other side of those seeking the truth to be revealed will be those such as the toady blogger above, acting as lawyers and journalists trying to manipulate any such hearings. In other words, vigilance remains our first duty.~ww

    1. Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

      Well said. Hear, hear.

      Yep, that badgering you into a corner on a mal-framed “yes/no” question was going to get you spun no matter what.

      Thus, in the future when such cheap rhetorical techniques are employed, a possible tactic to take is to step “out of the framing” and call attention to the “misframing” in your opponent’s yes/no question. Then carry on with “re-framing it” which includes the original answer you provided.

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