The assault on CIT: Who is really undermining 9/11 truth?

Where’s the plane? Why do some “truthers” say a 757 crashed into the Pentagon?

February 6, 2011

By Craig McKee

A lot of people think they know what’s good for the 9/11 Truth movement. Many of the same people think they also know what’s bad for it. And virtually everyone claims they really want to find the truth about what happened on Sept. 11, 2001.
But how many of them really do?
If you depend on the web site – the supposed gold standard of 9/11 sites – you’d think that the greatest obstacle to finding the truth is two guys from California named Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis. Under the name Citizen Investigation Team, they’ve spent several years analyzing what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11.
As the result of their research, Ranke and Marquis believe that a commercial airliner did approach the Pentagon shortly after 9:30 a.m. on Sept. 11 but on a different flight path than the official story contends. They have conducted video interviews with several people who were situated near the Citgo gas station or near the Navy Annex building that morning and who say they saw the plane fly past them.
These witnesses, who include two Pentagon cops, say they are certain the plane passed to the left of the gas station and/or over the Navy Annex. If they’re right, the plane could not have knocked down the five light poles that ended up on the ground, and it had to have flown over the building. And if it didn’t hit the poles, this means the whole thing was staged to make it look like a 757 hit the building – in other words, an inside job.
The thing I find bizarre is that many of CIT’s detractors on 911Blogger believe that a 757 did hit the building. This ignores most of the physical evidence. Where’s the wreckage? Where’s the damage caused by the wings hitting the building? Where are the wings? What caused the punch-out hole? What caused the destruction and deaths in the Pentagon’s innermost ring?
Am I missing something here? Of course no 757 hit the building; that’s the whole reason the Pentagon event screams inside job. If you ‘re going to say Flight 77 really knocked over the five light poles and then disappeared into the side of the Pentagon, then why not say planes really did bring down the twin towers, or Flight 93 really did bury itself in a field?
If Flight 77 had hit the building, we’d have seen some of the videos of the event that the government is keeping secret. We know there were many cameras outside the Pentagon that would have shown the impact, and the same thing for the interior cameras. The fact that we’ve seen none of this is all the proof I need that something is being hidden.
The fact is, we don’t know what – if anything – hit the building. We have strong evidence that explosives were planted inside, and, according to the Flight Data Recorder that was supposedly found inside the building, the plane would have been too high to hit the building anyway. Its trajectory would also have had it missing the five light poles.
Ranke and Marquis are among the many who have been banned from 911Blogger (me included), so they can never answer the constant stream of attacks leveled at them on the site. The two have been called every name in the book: divisive, foolish, malicious, irresponsible, and lots more. Their research has been ridiculed, and they have been accused of undermining the credibility of the Truth movement. Some come right out and accuse them of being government agents.
But is this criticism out of proportion with the facts being debated? Does it ring true? Is it sincere, or is there another agenda? It certainly seems like this vicious in-fighting is doing much more to undermine the 9/11 Truth movement than the work of any one researcher could do.
Anyone considering the arguments of the Truth movement based on what they saw on 911Blogger would have to think the whole movement is in desperate need of getting its act together.
The claim from the anti-CIT gang is that if “foolish” and “nonsensical” theories are allowed to flourish they will take the movement down if they are later found to be false. I think this is a highly dubious claim. The anti-CIT people continually say that “science” should be paramount. But where’s the science that can explain how a 757 can disappear into a hole that isn’t nearly large enough to accommodate it?
Does fear of a theory turning out to be false stop anyone from considering the research of Steven Jones, who believes thermite was used to help bring down the twin towers? The presence of thermite residues in the tower dust does support the idea of explosives being used, but does it explain the molten metal under the rubble that continued to burn for three months? Does this anomaly mean we should attack Jones’s character relentlessly?
I tend to be suspicious when people write off a point of view by dismissing it as if it isn’t worth responding to. Frankly, this is often a tactic used by the pro-official story contingent. Should supposed truthers be using these same tactics?
In January, 9/11 researchers David Chandler and Jonathan Cole submitted a piece to 911Blogger attacking CIT again. This piece does nothing to advance the debate despite the gushing praise that the anti-CIT crowd has lavished on it.
And this week, CIT published a detailed response on its own site which is highly critical of the essay. Now, I won’t go through the piece line by line; CIT has already done that, and they can defend themselves (heaven knows, they’ve had enough practice). I will, however, deal with my impressions of the essay, response, and resulting 911Blogger comment stream in my next post.


  1. crimes against humanity/off to the hague they go/so many false-flag events/its insanity/give them the old heave ho….later

    1. Absolutely. I’ve also noticed just how arrogant and condescending the anti-CIT crowd on Blogger is. The viciousness of their attacks just don’t feel sincere to me. Also, there are comments much worse than anything I ever wrote there, but I was still banned.
      I’ll be writing about the Chandler/Cole thing this week.

        1. Yes, I just read it. Holy cow. At least he disputes their research rather than just calling them names. That’s better than the rest of them do. I still keep coming back to the question: how can anyone believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? I realize there are people who say they saw a plane hit the building. I know this issue needs to be addressed. But I can’t accept the idea that the physical evidence supports a 757 crash. No way.

      1. I recently read the angry, accusation-filled rantings of ‘Snowjob’ against Craig McKee and Scott at 911oz (maybe he just hates Canadians for some unknown reason). [I’m calling it “Rage Against the Canadians” in reference to a US rock band]. Just WOW.
        Anywho, I recently read this “Top Four Tactics of Disinformation” elsewhere, and it seems highly relevant in this context (although I don’t necessarily agree with everything that author writes):
        ” …
        DISinformants on the other-hand, knowingly set out to spread lies, falsehoods, and intend for the real truth to be rendered useless in a fog of confusion and subterfuge.
        A successful disinformation campaign makes use of the signal-to-noise ratio: Where the signal of the honest topic is clouded out by the noise of disinformation tactics and disruption. Resulting in an audience left in limbo with so much noise it is extremely hard to pinpoint and identify the most important truths, let alone draw confident assertions from the overall pool of information.
        Type 1: Provoke people with emotional and personal attacks
        Disinformants seek to hijack the main topic and get people to divert their energies in to defending themselves or countering threats to their egoic identity.
        Look out for words in capital letters trying to suggest higher intensity, and personal attacks covertly or overtly aimed at dirtying someone’s image. This is such an effective weapon of hiding the truth, because it has nothing to do with the truth itself, just encouraging people to fight amongst themselves.

        Type 2: Introduce irrelevant & dead-end confusion
        Whenever possible, the disinformant will introduce new facts or clues designed to conflict with opponent presentations — as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution to establishing the whole truth.
        These may bring in new doubts, purposely fuel confusion, or send followers after red-herrings on a path of endless information which leads nowhere important. All the time spent investigating the dead-end, is time NOT spent investigating the critical topics.

        Type 3: Character assassination by association
        Disinformation tactic number three associates opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “radical right-wing”, “loony left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “tin-hat wearers”, “sexual deviants”, “crazed lone wolf” and so forth.
        These are all pre-judged labels which are collectively understood to be negative, tarnishing words and have been written by the mainstream media for decades. These pre-judged labels offer an easy opportunity for small-minded and judgemental individuals to reject new information upon hearing these trigger words.
        By associating the negative label with somebody, that person’s character is effectively assassinated. i.e. Again it introduces doubt about the legitimacy of that individual’s message. Mainstream media use this character assassination frequently. If Fox news or any of the big six do cover controversial truths at all, it is usually to ridicule it and point people in the wrong direction.
        This makes others shrink from supporting the same cause if they fear pre-judged labels, so avoid the issue to protect their ego and public image of what others might think. That is an instant victory for the disinformants and their name-calling threats work well at frightening people with a lot to lose. Since most sheeple get their one dimensional news through the filtered propaganda lens of mainstream media, the label is often enough.

        Type 4: Argue the details of a different or less important subject.
        The fourth and final tactic of disinformation in this article facilitates perpetual application of disinformation even when major truths fail to be suppressed and become well known (such as Iraq WMD’s, The USS Liberty false flag attack, The Lavon affair, etc). Disinformants simply ignore the massive glaring truth in question and try to shift the focus on to a lesser topic or an alternative subject altogether, in an effort to draw attention away from the critical truth which is out in the open.

        The mainstream media invoke this tactic when a major point is no longer beyond doubt, the media spin machine will fall back to a lesser point and try to steer the debate and controversy on to a less important point, thereby taking the attention away from the more important proven truth. Of course the mainstream media’s preferred method is a media black-out, because attention of any kind risks giving a topic traction. What are you donig listening to the mainstream media anyway!
        It would be ‘good’ to see an outline of specific instances/examples used right here on Mr. McKee’s blog… 😉

  2. Craig,
    If you wander over to the Pilots forum, you’ll find plenty of people who have been banned from Blogger and plenty of people who see value in CIT’s work. I consider them the non-vocal majority. Blogger itself is getting quite skinny, lots of new people raising questions about the Pentagon like yourself and all being shouted/voted down by the same few BloggerGroupThinkers.
    They are forcing the “famous” (or infamous) truthers to take a stand – either with CIT or against CIT – in the name of 9/11 Truth Unity. What did Bush say after 9/11? Something about being with us or with the terrorists? The pigs have taken over Animal Farm.

  3. Craig, your post is proof that CIT is bad for the truth movement. Craig and Aldo manage to induce otherwise logical, thoughtful, and persuasive 9/11 truth researchers to make fools of themselves.
    Your post contains a number of professions of faith essential to the CIT version of reality, and they just aren’t true.
    1. “These witnesses … say they are certain the plane passed to the left of the gas station and/or over the Navy Annex. If they’re right … it had to have flown over the building.” Baloney. CIT has never shown a shred of evidence that the left-of-Citgo flightpath precludes hitting the building, and most of CIT’s own witnesses say the plane DID hit the building.
    2. “Where’s the wreckage?” There are pictures of engine cores, landing gear, and aluminum confetti all over the lawn. Sgt. Mark Williams said he saw the bodies of passengers strapped in their seats.
    3. “If you ‘re going to say Flight 77 really knocked over the five light poles and then disappeared into the side of the Pentagon, then why not say planes really did bring down the twin towers?” That’s a weak analogy because there’s no connection between the two events other than that they are both elements of the official story.
    A closer one would be “If you say Flight 77 missed the building, why not say the planes missed the towers too?”
    4. “If Flight 77 had hit the building, we’d have seen some of the videos.” What makes you think the Pentagon would voluntarily surrender their right to military secrecy?
    5. “Where’s the science that can explain how a 757 can disappear into a 16-foot hole?”
    Even CIT supporters acknowledge that the hole is 90 feet wide. It can disappear into the hole because the engines hit the wall first, rupturing the two forward wing spars, and the aft spar alone does not have the lateral strength to prevent the wing from folding up.
    6. “Ranke and Marquis …. have been called every name in the book.” And they’ve deserved it. They’ve been irrational, cowardly, they’ve argued by personal attack, they’ve refused to answer questions, and they’ve lied. Their demonization of inconvenient witnesses Lloyde England and Father McGraw is despicable, and hurts the truth movement by inhibiting potential whistleblowers.
    Bottom line: CIT’s own witnesses say the plane hit the building, they have not one witness who will say they saw the plane fly away, and their unwillingness to go out and look among dog walkers, airport limo drivers, airport workers, planespotters, marina residents, golfers, communters, and Pentagon employees for them is damning. They’re
    afraid to test their hypothesis!
    CIT’s response to Cole and Chandler is a joke. It’s a snow job. Don’t fall for it.

    1. I still can’t get an answer as to why any agreement with anything CIT says is met with attacks. I’m thoughtful but I’m being made a fool of? That’s pretty arrogant. People who don’t agree with you are fools?
      My responses to your points:
      1. The north path doesn’t preclude the plane hitting the building. It precludes the plane knocking the poles over.
      2. Wreckage: I know there’s no PROOF that this was planted, but it hardly accounts for a whole plane, does it? And the willingness of anti-CIT people to accept the Pentagon “evidence” stll puzzles me. If 9/11 was a deception, why is all the evidence at the Pentagon to be taken at face value? Has even one piece of the plane been positively connected to Flight 77? Serial numbers and such? And far be it for me to doubt Sgt. Williams, but I do. We’re supposed to accept that the whole plane was inside the buildiing without seeing 95% of it?
      3. I still don’t get it. Why do you defend the official story on the Pentagon?
      4. This point is so absurd that it barely merits a response. The world has doubts about whether the Pentagon was hit by Flight 77 – and you’re telling me they’d avoid confirming this because of “military secrecy.” Give me a break. If true, that would make them incredibly irresponsible.
      5. Oh my God. This wing folding thing is complete crap. i refer you to the essay by A.K. Dewdney and Jerry Longspaugh on And you well know that the hole wasn’t 90 feet when the alleged impact occurred. The wall collapsed about half an hour after. This is deliberately misleading.
      6. You accuse Ranke and Marquis of personal attacks but then you call them cowardly. Pot calling the kettle black?
      My bottom line: I believe everything should be investigated thorough and independently. You may feel CIT doesn’t include all the evidence. But you won’t accept ANY of theirs.
      And Chandler/Cole is a very weak piece. They list things that “haven’t had a lot of attention,” but what they list are the main issues that have had tons of attention. Not impressive.

  4. On Brian “Watson” Good and vert’s “folding wings” see here:
    which I bumped from my original post at #222 on the same thread, since vert seems to have “forgotten”:
    Those 2 engines on the NEVER-OFFICIALLY-IDENTIFIED “American 77” sure have been reported to have MIRACULOUS properties (if what we’ve been told is somehow remotely believable- hmmm… )

    1. The response to CIT’s pronouncements varies with the pronouncement. Some are attacked because they are lies, some are attacked because they are irrational, some are attacked because they are mean-spirited.
      Point 1. If CIT had stuck to the evidence and simply pointed out that their witnesses’ flight path shows that the light poles and some of the Pentagon damage was faked, I would say “Bravo, lads. Good work. You’ve shown the need for new investigations and may have proved inside job.” But that wasn’t enough for them. They had to bet their farm (and want to bet ours) on an unjustified, evidence-free, loony and stupid theory that the plane (for no plausible reason) flew over the Pentagon instead of into it.
      Point 2. Wreckage. Why would you expect to see the whole plane after it’s been through a two-foot thick bombproofed masonry wall? Doubt Sgt. Williams if you wish, but unless you’re willing to call him a liar to his face you’ve got no business muttering about it behind his back.
      3. Why do I defend the official story on the Pentagon? Because it’s a damned good story–for us! Why was there no air defense for 100 minutes? Why did NORAD lie to the 9/11 Commission? Why was an unarmed airliner allowed to fly 300 miles to attack the HQ of the greatest military the world has ever seen–almost an hour after the first long-warned of (and even drilled-against) attack? Why does CIT want to bury these questions behind the goofiest conspiracy theory since hologram attacks?
      4. Military secrecy. Yes, Bush and Cheney, NORAD, Condi Rice, and the entire Bush administration has gone out of its way to thumb their noses at the investigators, at Congress, at the Press, and at the UN. The Pentagon wants to show that it owes us nothing. It’s worked very well for them so far.
      5. I’ve read Dewdney and Longspaugh’s nonsense. When the wing hits the wall the shoulder hits first, and both leading spars are taken out. The trailing spar alone can not stop the wing from folding, The hole was 90 feet. The composite photo shows that. Even Dewdney and Longspaugh (under)estimate the width as 50 feet (15.5 meters). The 16′ hole nonsense is deliberately misleading.
      6. A personal attack that is substituted for an argument, which is what CIT does, is one thing. A criticism of the behavior of someone who aspires to represent the movement, which is what I do, is something else. They are cowardly. Ranke has fled from debate with me five times. They refuse to answer questions. They refuse to test their flyover hypothesis by actually going out and looking for witnesses.
      Bottom line: I accept CIT’s north path witnesses because I don’t call people liars unless I can prove it. CIT’s own witnesses say the plane hit the building. They have no witnesses who say it flew away, and they refuse to look for any. Chandler and Cole’s essay is quite perceptive, raising a number of points (including CIT’s unscientific methodology) that have nothing to do with your claim that the main issues have had “tons of attention”. Tons of attention where? Inside the truth movement, maybe. Outside the truth movement, not at all. That is where our attention needs to be focused–being effective outside the truth movement. And goofy, easily-debunked conspiracy theories are not the way to achieve that, IMHO.

  5. If anyone is interested in the ‘back story’ on Brian “Watson/snugbug” Good and his LONG-STANDING feud/obsession with/campaign against Citizen Investigation Team, they cay read about that here:
    Brian Good challenged to debate by CIT
    Brian Good fails to accept CIT debate challenge, but vows to continue attacks
    [Look for threads and posts by Brian Good or “Watson”]

    1. It appears to me that Brian “truebeleaguer” Good called for a “once-and-for-all showdown” with Citizen Investigation Team and those who don’t bash their research (who he described as “clowns and their misguided supporters”) over at Cosmos/YT’s TrueFaction forum back in late December 2010:
      The reader can also see the typical anti-CIT movement/TrueFaction “response” to refutations (as in label it “SPAM,” DO NOT read, DELETE/purge) on that same thread:
      I think it is quite self-explanatory (and I’ve been watching this anti-CIT campaign since at least 2008).

      1. I see you have nothing to say about the substance of my posts.
        No defense of the irrational claim that northern path = flyover.
        No refutation of the fact that many pictures of plane wreckage exist.
        No reason provided that anyone would want to do a complicated and risky flyaway op when simply crashing the airplane into the building would be simpler.
        No comment on the issue of the width of the hole in the facade, on the fact that CIT’s own witnesses saw the plane hit, on the fact that CIT has no flyaway witnesses–not one!–.and they’re afraid to go out and look for any.
        I forgot about the breakaway fuse pins for the engines. That doesn’t matter. The fact remains that when the shoulder of the wing hits the wall, the two leading spars are taken out and then the sole remaining spar does not have the lateral strength to keep the wing from folding up.
        My feud with CIT stems from the fact that from the start they have run away and refused to answer questions, they lie, their treatment of cooperating witnesses makes the truth movement look unethical and sneaky, and they are irrational. Ranke has fled from debate with me five times. I never refused to debate him. He rescinded his offer to debate me.
        Speaking of 911oz, I’d invite people to take a look at the thread “10 Holes in CIT’s Story”. With over 20,000 reads, it’s one of the most popular threads 911oz ever had.

        1. I’m not really sure what a chill pill is, but I have a feeling you should take one. I answered you yesterday with a relatively detailed comment. You sent me another at 3:34 a.m. EST and you’re claiming victory because I haven’t responded again. I’m under no obligation to follow your schedule. The fact is, I’m working towards a big deadline at work, and responding to your condescending comments is not my priority.
          I will say this before getting back to the writing that pays my bills: I have not been following the CIT/anti-CIT fight for very long but I don’t buy your claim that they won’t answer questions for a second. Aldo Marquis chased Snowcrash for a very long time to get him to debate but he never did. I read the correspondence. Was it all faked? I’m sure Snowcrash would have let us know if it had been. So who’s ducking questions? It’s easy to ban people from a blog like 911Blogger and then continually bash them when they can’t respond.
          I’d appreciate it if in future you would wait for my responses and skip the self-righteous act. If the responses are not prompt, or if your comments aren’t approved as promptly as you’d like, it’s not for any other reason than I was tied up with other commitments. Sometimes I even go to a movie. And I don’t bring my laptop.

  6. Craig, my response was directed to mrboz. Sorry about the confusion.
    Ranke has fled from debate every time I’ve confronted him–in a private email exchange, at OpEd News, at 911oz, at a French blog, and at the artists’ zetaboard site. He refuses to answer questions. Look at the “10 Holes” thread at 911oz.
    The reason the CIT crowd is banned from most forums is because they are time wasters. They are argue by datadump (CIT’s response to Cole and Chandler is quintessential) and then have their groupies come around saying how wonderful is their work that nobody in their right mind is actually going to read.

  7. Advice to Craig,
    Ignore Brian Good, he is irrelevant, illogical and lives in his own mythical world where he gets to invent the facts. The “debate with Craig” saga is stunning for Brian Good’s ability to claim victory from embarrassing defeat. Brian Good literally has no shame – for him to invade your blog claiming to have defeated Craig in debate is so stunningly incorrect that it almost defies belief. Craig offered him an audit debate, a format that most of the world would agree is the fairest method and Brian refused – because he knew he would be humbled. He is the coward with brave words who would run a mile before engaging in a real debate.
    As for his views on 9/11, Brian believes anything is possible. Even the impossible.
    It is a dilemma for you though Craig, because despite what Brian says – HE is the biggest time waster around. Engage him at your peril.

  8. KP, I note that you can not refute any of the points I made, most importantly the facts that 1) CIT has not one flyaway witness and refuses to go out and look for any and 2) their unethical treatment of cooperating witnesses is a disgrace to the truth movement and 3) CIT’s own witnesses say the plane hit the building.
    Instead you engage in CIT’s second mode of debate, second to the snow job–personal attack. Yes, I refuse offers of audio debate–because it gives the advantage to fast-talking liars. Ranke has fled from debate with me five times.
    If you wish to claim I am illogical and/or invent facts, it might serve you to provide an actual example.

  9. A 757 hit the recently hardened wing of the building then buried itself in a 16 ft hole?
    OK lets say that the aluminum framed vehicle did somehow manage that impossibility.
    WHERE’S THE WINGS ??? Aircraft components are built to break off to avoid shearing the whole damn thing apart. Some how this one managed to fold up the wings, empenage, tail, rudder, vertical stabilizer then squeeze through intact, depositing the parts behind how many walls? A short drop, sudden stop on the end of a hemp rope bow tie is all what’s needed to get the truth.

  10. So aircraft are built to shed wings for what reason? Is this an original theory or do you have actual expert statements on the issue?
    Threats of violence are bad for the image of the truth movement.

    1. @brian “aircraft are built to shed wings”, no all components are built that way, I only spent 25 years actually building wings and other major components for Boeing and McDonnell Douglas commercial. What about you ? whats the extent of your knowledge on the subject ?

      1. Hi northpal,
        We’ve been over Brian’s ‘folding wings’ (and pretty much everything else he rambles on redundantly and endlessly about) several times before, usually weeks (sometimes months or even years) ago. Sadly- I’m ‘afeard’ there just ‘ain’t no lar’nin’ that thar’ subject troll’ though.
        In all honesty, it probably isn’t worth anyone’s time (including Brian’s) for ANYONE to respond to his RepetiTrolling.
        Hell, he even admitted he knowingly makes ALL these repetition LOGICAL FALLACIES and misrepresentations!:
        “Mrboz, the reason that I repeat myself is because when I ask a question, and Ranke or Aldo or Rob doesn’t answer it, I ask it again. And again and again and again and again.”
        “Truebeleaguer” Good has admitted to many other ‘peculiarities’ as well, but I’m afraid it just isn’t worth a SINGLE more keystroke or second of my time tonight (or possibly ever for that matter).
        Good luck though- you will need it.

  11. My knowledge of the subject is sufficient so that I need waste no time on the claimed credentials or expertise of an anonymous internet poster. If you wish to claim that all components are built to break away, you’d better cite some checkable authority.
    So if the wings are fused to fall off, how come they didn’t fall off at the WTC?

  12. mrboz, the wings are not “Brian’s folding wings”.
    Perhaps you don’t know that one of the qualifying tests for a new airplane is the wing loading test. Sandbags are piled on the wing until it fails, or folds. The wings don’t snap off, they fold. That wings fold is simply a fact of life. That wings are not designed for big lateral loads is another fact of life. Wing loading is in the plane of the wing, with a certain safety factor to allow for unexpected hi-G maneuvers and turbulence. Lateral loads beyond the thrust loads of the engines are not encountered in normal aircraft operation.
    Wings fold, arms fold, trees, reeds, and flowers fold. Things break.
    Your claim that I admitted that I repeat logical fallacies is not true. Your belief that the fact that wings fold is somehow contradicted by the fact that they don’t shed is absurd.
    I note that you can not refute any of the points I made, most importantly the facts that 1) CIT has not one flyaway witness and refuses to go out and look for any and 2) their unethical treatment of cooperating witnesses is a disgrace to the truth movement and 3) CIT’s own witnesses say the plane hit the building.
    Instead you engage in CIT’s typical debate tactics: obfuscation and personal attack.

    1. OK Brian ‘aeronautical engineer’/’test pilot’ Good- so HOW MANY “sandbags” EXACTLY did/does it take to “fold” the wings on a Boeing 757-200 since you profess to know SO MUCH about wing testing protocols. [Or could it be that you are pulling your ‘facts’ out of your nether regions perhaps?]
      Of course, I will NEED to see some independently verifiable source(s) for all your bare assertions above if you are to be ‘believed.’
      P.S. BG- your bare assertions above about “wing loading tests” are LOGICAL FALLACIES too:
      “Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is a logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam). In other cases its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies.
      This logical fallacy is sometimes used as a form of rhetoric by politicians, or during a debate as a filibuster. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing. Modern politics contains many examples of proof by assertions. This practice can be observed in the use of political slogans, and the distribution of “talking points”, which are collections of short phrases that are issued to members of modern political parties for recitation to achieve maximum message repetition. The technique is also sometimes used in advertising”
      I’m QUITE certain that I have explained your fallacious posting behavior(s) to you (more than once) before, yet SOMEHOW you remain INCAPABLE of comprehending your ‘outward’ posting behavior appearance(s)… :rolleyes:
      Hey- speaking of Boeings and “wing loading tests”:
      Boeing 787 wing break test
      Hmmm- I don’t see ANY “sandbags” (or teabags) there… WTF??
      P.P.S. “truebeleaguer”-bot should take another look at my EXACT punctuation above- I think it ‘quoted’ it wrongly [yet again!] above.

      1. Whoops- looks like the B-787 wing test link might have gotten mangled (unless it needs Mr. McKee to fix it)- try this if it doesn’t embed above:
        Boeing 787 wing break test
        Also, has ANYONE seen any photographic or video evidence of these “AA77” ‘folded wings’ at the Pentagon property on September 11, 2001? I shure as hell haven’t seen that/those ANYWHERE yet…

  13. Mrboz, yes, Boeing’s current wing loading tests use an expensive hydraulic rig. Sand bags have been used in the past. The point you are trying to obscure is made quite clearly in your own video: that wings loaded beyond their design capacity fold. The lateral design capacity is considerably less than the vertical, because the lateral load on the aircraft in normal operation is limited to the thrust force.
    Yes, I responded to your post addressed to northpal. I generally slap down 9/11 ignorance when I find it.

  14. Quote Crai McKee
    5…. And you well know that the hole wasn’t 90 feet when the alleged impact occurred. The wall collapsed about half an hour after. This is deliberately misleading.
    A 90 ft wide section of the Pentagon facade on the ground floor was removed by the impact of the plane. There was a hole on the floor above where the fuselage hit. The collapse of the entire 65 ft wide section of the building happened later, due to the fact that facade had been removed and columns behind it had been so badly damaged.

    1. Are you just making this up as you go along? Where was the damage of the wings or the engines hitting the building? The facade was removed? What are you talking about? The hole on the floor above the fuselage? You’ve lost me.

  15. Believe it or not the majority of people involved in criticism of the governments official story the official conspiracy theory as many have come to call it do not know what really happened on 9 11 and they admit that. However in admitting this they demand that we all should and moreover must know the truth about what did happen. Most agree that whatever the governments story it does not hold up to charges of at the very least omission and distortion if not outright lying.

    1. Dr. Robert Bowman, Lt. Col. USAF (ret.) put it best: “The truth about 9/11 is that we don’t KNOW the truth about 9/11, and we should.”
      I think the strongest arguments are the best:
      1) Griffin’s 115 omissions and distortions in the 9/11 Commission report
      2) The 9/11 widows’ 300 questions, which they were promised would be a “roadmap” for the investigation, and for which they got 27 answers.
      3) The unscientific and secretive nature of the NIST reports on the towers. Because the NIST analysis of the towers’ collapse was truncated, ending at the moment of collapse initiation, they failed to explain the most baffling aspects of the destruction of the towers: the collapses’ symmetry, totality, speed, the pulverization of 180,000 tons of concrete floors, and the presence of molten iron in the debris piles.
      Conspiracy theories are for the birds. We don’t need them, and they only make us look nuts.

      1. You were doing so well, up until that last sentence. Yes, those three are valid and important to pursue. But when you use the term “conspiracy theory” in a derogatory way, you speak the language of the defenders of this and other “official stories.”
        First of all, there is no US. People who do research on 9/11 and who believe we need a new investigation don’t agree on everything. And they shouldn’t be expected to. Theories that have no weight to them will fall be the wayside. When people like you relentlessly focus on a theory you think will bring negative attention to the movement, you actually bring more attention than there would otherwise be. Why can’t we all agree that there are many unanswered questions about the Pentagon as well as the World Trade Center? Why can’t we push for answers to those questions? Why do some of us encourage infighting, which does much more to make the movement look foolish?
        Conspiracies happen all the time. There’s tons of proof of them throughout history. Some are intelligent and well documented, some not. But you and those who think the way you do seem to believe we should ignore something that isn’t already proven. Sorry but this makes no logical sense.

  16. 911…Were We Decieved? Lets take a look. David Copperfield made a Jumbo Jet vanish…hmm? He would have done the WTC but didnt have acess to thermite or cutter charges!…Is it possible to see planes that arent there?..Wait..didnt that movie *Tora Tora* have hundreds of planes in the air!..was it CGI?…Nah.. Boeing made them. They also made the new stronger than STEEL and CONCRETE PLANES…WOW.. Thats right, no debri on the ground to pick up, no Charred Bodies stuck to seats…Yeah…Its that new self cleaning oven technology..Very eco friendly…..My summary therefore is…butter can dull your knife, a square peg will fit a round hole and santa clause is real.Boy am I happy about that last one. The only thing real about 911 is, buildings were imploded and people were killed/murdered by the hand of people entrusted to run this Boil called USA.

  17. Wow.
    Brian Good says:
    “I think the strongest arguments are the best:
    3) The unscientific and secretive nature of the NIST reports on the towers. Because the NIST analysis of the towers’ collapse was truncated, ending at the moment of collapse initiation, they failed to explain the most baffling aspects of the destruction of the towers: the collapses’ symmetry, totality, speed, the pulverization of 180,000 tons of concrete floors, and the presence of molten iron in the debris piles.
    Conspiracy theories are for the birds. We don’t need them, and they only make us look nuts.”
    Is this the same Brian Good (aka “Watson” at 911Oz forums) that used the very same report to argue his “NOC impact” keek?
    “I have already pointed out that in the case of WTC1 NIST found that even after a direct head-on hit from a 767, only 6 core columns of 47 were severed, and only 3 were heavily damaged”
    “NIST’s “realistic” estimates of damage projection for the WTC1 core were 3 columns severed out of 47–2 in line directly in front of the wingbox and 1 in front of the port engine. Under this estimate, after taking out two columns the wingbox was unable to take out the third behind it.
    In WTC1, 94% of the columns that were within the 767’s trajectory were estimated by NIST not to have been severed–and NIST was highly motivated to over-estimate the damage.”
    Or this post at TruthAction under the name “truebeleaguer”?
    “Somewhere along the line, a bunch of not very well qualified people glommed onto CD and decided that if Dr. Jones said he found nanothermite, then that must be ironclad proof of inside job. In my experience, few of the people who attend a Richard Gage presentation are scientists or engineers, and I suspect he slants his presentation toward a more general audience.
    David Chandler’s approach presents another opportunity to present the technical issues to an elite audience: those who understand high school physics. Seriously, in today’s USA that is, sadly, an elite group.
    All I can say is, do a better job of getting the non-CD stuff out there. Get the widows screaming bloody murder about Behrooz Sarshar. More power to ya!”
    That’s his “defense” of the “strongest evidence”?
    We need to root these people out. Now.

  18. I hesitate to comment here, noting so many experts on engineering [aircraft and buildings], and those with so much knowledge of rhetoric and argumentation. I am after all only an artist who has relied on my visual acuity, since of design, and imagination as a special effects artist in Hollywood for some 25 years.
    Even so, bearing such personal deficits I decided to make these observations concerning the Pentagon strike/bomb, whatever one chooses to call it.
    Having looked at the visual evidence – as much as I could find on the web, I too am struck by the lack of any airplane wreckage on the outside of the building. By “any” of course I am discounting a few scraps small enough that a person could pick up by hand.
    I was also very surprised at the size of the hole that this plane supposedly entered. I am referring to the original hole, before the collapse of the “facade”, which really is not a facade, but a reinforced concrete wall. I have seen plenty of facades built for sets and such in the film industry, and have a very hard time accepting this term to represent the manner in-which the Pentagon is constructed.
    Now, by my reckoning, what we have here is either a magic act, or someone is loading manure on a finely manicured lawn. “Tight fit”? Hmmm…even if the wings fold, there are two huge titanium jet engines that are going to have to lodge themselves through a hole that is presumed to have been punched by a soft aluminum nosed aircraft. I am not getting something here, obviously. That is why I am asking here for some help. I have been led to believe, by standard high school level physics that an aluminum can laying on the pavement would be easily crushed by a brick being forced on it at some, say, 500 MPH or so. Crushed flat, would be my guess. The only damage to said brick would be caused by the pavement on the ground – which is just part of an analogy that wouldn’t really have this feature to it. {Sorry, just free-form thinking here}.
    Now that hole – before the other portion collapsed…well, I have a hard time with a jet that size going into that hole. But even more, I have a hard time accepting that the aluminum aircraft could have punched through that wall at all. I can envision the craft crumpling and then the engines hitting at their respective distances…but, whoops, that would mean two holes, you see the engines were ON, they are what propel the aircraft, the aircraft isn’t just carrying them along for the ride.
    So it is the engines that have the thrust in this scenario. Are you following this? As the aircraft meets the wall, there is no sufficient force to change the momentum of these powerful engines, that are, again – the driving force. The wings could not draw those engines in, even if the wings themselves were “folding back”.
    “If the glove does not fit, you must acquit”….whoops, wrong program. Hmm, where was I?
    Where am I? No are you serious? Is this still planet Earth?
    Sorry, lost my train of thought. Carry on.

  19. “9/11 Truth Movement must respond by policing itself and holding itself to the highest standards of intellectual rigor”~Joint Statement on the Pentagon: David Chandler and Jon Cole
    This is a very interesting assertion. and it has been set up from a long set of ‘reasoning’ and prologue to get to this ‘conclusion’. But there are many rhetorical and psychological assumptions buried in the simple assertion. And the long winded lead up to it is a gilded path that does not address the other rhetorical and psychological assumptions I speak to, but is in fact a particular form of framing that should be deconstructed before accepting the assertion above.
    It would take a prerequisite course in epistemology to really draw out and get to the center of the “mind set” that the statement reveals, and a complete deconstruction of the paradigm that is the medium for such a mind set, before a thorough critique could be comprehended.
    But some of the epistemic “sins”, or errors are highlighted by the central assumptions of a “9/11 Truth Movement” as an “entity”, and then the whole discussion of the “corporate body” in philosophy. And by ‘corporate’, I do not refer simply to the legal term, but to the physiological use of the term as well – corporal, in the sense of a physical manifestation of entity.
    And these sorts of considerations would be more akin to “..the highest standards of intellectual rigor,” than simplistic calls for “policing itself” before beginning to fully grasp what “itself” means, and which criteria are being used to define “itself”…etc. All of which in this instance boils down to a call for ‘Authority’ to “police”.
    Now, as it would take on the order of several thousand more words to take these thoughts to an adequate conclusion, I will leave this here as it is – as this may appear to be ‘Greek’ to most, and I may be spinning my wheels to no avail.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *