Eyes on the Pentagon: new Toronto event independent of 9/11 hearings

Witnesses in CIT film describe flight path to the north of the official one.

By Craig McKee

The Toronto 9/11 hearings are no longer the only game in town.
The 9/11 research group Citizen Investigation Team, which contends that no commercial airliner hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, has announced it will present a screening of its documentary National Security Alert on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 in Toronto. The Sept. 11 event will also involve a multi-media presentation along with other evidence, according to a statement released today by CIT.
The event is being organized by Toronto media critic and 9/11 researcher Barrie Zwicker, who is supportive of CIT’s research, which indicates that a large aircraft did approach the Pentagon, but on a path completely inconsistent with the allegedly knocked over light poles. If the eyewitness accounts to this effect presented in National Security Alert are correct, then the pole evidence had to have been staged.
“Simply put, the plane did not fly where it absolutely had to be to match the government reports and cause the directional damage inside and outside of the building,” says Craig Ranke, co-founder of CIT.
There has been a concern among some 9/11 researchers who have studied the Pentagon event that the idea that no airliner hit the building would be ignored at the Toronto hearings (official name: the International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001). The hearings are being held in Toronto, Canada, Sept. 8-11 to coincide with the 10th anniversary of 9/11.They are being organized by the International Center for 9/11 Studies.
Most of the researchers who have been invited to present evidence are focused on the question of whether the World Trade Center was brought down by some kind explosive force – a belief that is virtually unanimous within the Truth movement.
The hearings will feature well-known members of the 9/11 Truth movement like David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan, Paul Zarembka, Peter Dale Scott, Niels Harrit, Jonathan Cole, David Chandler, and Graeme McQueen. Former elected officials Mike Gravel and Cynthia McKinney are also on the roster of witnesses who will present evidence.
Some of these, including Gage, Cole, and Chandler, have denounced CIT and their research. They suggest we can never really know what happened at the Pentagon and therefore we should leave the subject alone and focus on the towers.
Griffin, who has written several books on 9/11, does not go along with this. He is on record as saying the evidence doesn’t support the idea that a 757 hit the Pentagon, and he agrees with Zwicker that the light pole evidence must have been staged as part of the deception (http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/david-ray-griffin-barrie-zwicker-support-cit%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98staged-evidence%E2%80%99-scenario/).
Concern has been raised by supporters of CIT’s research that there is a co-ordinated effort by certain members of the Truth movement to relentlessly and systematically attack CIT and its supporters. These would include many who post at 911blogger.com, the largest 9/11 web site. “Blogger” routinely bans people who speak in support of CIT.
According the web site for the hearings (torontohearings.org), the focus for the event will be on evidence that is the least controversial and where the greatest consensus exists. This would seem to virtually eliminate discussion about the Pentagon, even though one of the topics on the list to be addressed includes “anomalies at the Pentagon.”
According to Ranke, his group did not receive an invitation to present evidence at the hearings, nor did Zwicker, the author of Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11. Both will appear at the National Security Alert screening. The screening will take place at 8 p.m. on Sept. 11 at the Royal cinema, 608 College St.


    1. This is news to me. I will check on this. But do any of the witnesses (with the exception of David Ray Griffin) believe that the official story as it pertains to the Pentagon is false? This point of view needs to be heard. Offering only the least controversial evidence won’t get us to the truth. In a deception, things are not what they seem – on purpose!
      Let’s not forget that it is the official story that must stand up to scrutiny. Truthers don’t have to prove what happened, they just have to prove the official story DIDN’T happen.

  1. I can only say that there are efforts underway to secure the participation of people who will offer the strongest possible evidence regarding the Pentagon. The issues surrounding the Pentagon are not being systematically blocked from the Toronto Hearings by any means. I am aware of the disagreements between ‘mainstream’ factions of the movement and the CIT, but I do not know all of the reasons for them.
    I agree with some of your points above, but I do not agree with the statement that “Offering only the least controversial evidence won’t get us to the truth.” This statement belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the goals of these hearings. The objective is not to fully and without exception reveal all of the truth about 9/11 – that is not required at this stage of the movement! The objective is, and should be to take the strongest evidence and submit it to rigorous examination in order to then move towards a more thorough and independent investigation. Looking for EVERY piece of strong evidence to be part of these hearings is the wrong direction to go, and is simply not possible.
    I do, however, agree that the OCT is false in regards to the Pentagon, and I’m quite certain that virtually everyone in the movement that I know (and that’s a lot) would agree. What’s at issue is HOW to move forward towards the common goal of exposing the truth.
    Disagreements of this kind are to be expected in any social movement, but serious care has to be taken not to excessively splinter the efforts towards 9/11 truth. The actions that Zwicker has taken are damaging to the movement as a whole, and I do not support them.

    1. I have found tremendous opposition from some in the movement – particularly by contributors to 911blogger.com – to the idea that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. The very idea is mocked, ridiculed and viciously attacked by a vocal minority that seems to be listened to disproportionately. Respected members of the movement like Richard Gage, David Chandler, and Jonathan Cole have not spoken up to denounce these attacks. Instead, they’ve added to them – albeit in much more respectful tones.
      Their statements on the fully compromised 911blogger are not helping the movement at all. And the vocal critics of CIT are doing more to splinter the movement than anyone. How is simply hearing what CIT has to say harmful to the cause?
      You state that Mr. Zwicker’s actions have been damaging to the movement but you don’t state which actions you refer to. Supporting CIT? I think Mr. Zwicker believes, as I do, that the evidence indicates that a commercial airliner did not hit the Pentagon. It seems to me that the alternative to this view is to suggest that Flight 77 did hit the building. Isn’t that supporting the OCT? Where`s the middle ground?
      Taking the strongest evidence and rigorously testing does what exactly? I think we should also test the weakest elements of the OCT. This would include the Pentagon (physical evidence and witnesses) and Flight 93, which is supposed to have buried itself in the ground. To pick apart that bizarre claim would do more than all of us just agreeing that the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition.
      Lastly, you state that efforts are underway to secure people who “offer the strongest possible evidence” concerning the Pentagon. It is now Aug. 20 and I can’t help wondering why these people are still to be confirmed. I’m not sure what role you are playing in the hearings, but I am not optimistic that the valuable evidence unearthed by CIT will get fair attention. I hope I’m wrong.

  2. Craig, I wish I had more time to respond, but I will attempt to clarify as best I can:
    1) My role with the hearings is to help where I can, as I fully support the approach being taken by the steering committee. I am close to the members of that committee, but not a member myself, so I don’t have complete information about the decisions made by the committee, only those that they choose to share with me. Furthermore, I have to be cautious about what I say, so for that reason I’m remaining anonymous for now.
    2) I have reviewed some of the work done by the CIT, although I do not claim to be an expert in all of their views or conclusions. However, what I have seen does appear to be compelling, and for that reason I have no doubt that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. I appreciate the work of the CIT, and I was disappointed when I learned that the people you mentioned withdrew their support. I have no idea why that happened, and I wish it was not the case. I also wish that I could report that the CIT was being invited to the TO hearings, but I am not in a position to influence that decision.
    3) Having said the above, I don’t think it is critical to the success of the Toronto Hearings that an in-depth analysis of the events at the Pentagon be brought forward at this time. Nevertheless, as I have stated before, there is no concerted effort to keep the Pentagon issues out of the hearings, and I think that at least some of the analysis will be brought into play.
    4) I sympathize with your perspective on the treatment of the CIT on 9/11 blogger, etc. I’m not sure what you mean by “fully compromised”, but if that indicates your belief that blogger has been infiltrated, would it not make sense that those doing the infiltrating would seek to weaken the movement from within by causing dissent against the CIT? Perhaps the people you mention (Gage, Chandler, Cole) do not want to get involved because they are focused on the events in New York. As you said yourself, “Truthers don’t have to prove what happened, they just have to prove the official story DIDN’T happen.” I agree – however, we don’t have to prove EVERYTHING that didn’t happen. Just disproving part of the OCT is all that is needed, and we can certainly prove the falsehoods regarding WTC1,2,7, so maintaining a focus on New York is all that is really required, IMHO.
    5) Regarding Zwicker, the damage I’m referring to is in terms of holding another event at the same time as the TO hearings, as well as the tone he has taken publicly against the hearings (see Kevin Barrett’s radio show http://noliesradio.org/archives/35718), using information that was given to him in confidence. It is unfortunate to see this taking place. Nevertheless, I will probably try to attend his event, as I am very interested to hear what he and others have to say about the Pentagon evidence.
    6) “Taking the strongest evidence and rigorously testing does what exactly?” — It will be a huge leap towards bringing the best available evidence into mainstream acceptability. The point of all this is that at the end of the hearings, we will have a report that says “here is the best evidence we have, rigorously examined and picked apart by an independent group of distinguished panelists. Stop calling us crazy and look at the damn evidence!!” That report can then be used through all sorts of channels (legal, political, media, etc) to educate those in our society who still dismiss all of 9/11 truth as conspiracy theory. This is an important goal which cannot be achieved if the evidence is not absolutely solid. It has nothing at all to do with “…all of us just agreeing that the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition.” It’s not about US Craig, it’s about THEM!
    7) “… I am not optimistic that the valuable evidence unearthed by CIT will get fair attention. I hope I’m wrong.” — Me too. 🙂
    PS: Thanks for sharing your views in a respectful manner.

    1. I’m glad to hear that we have some key areas of agreement. And I appreciate that you have responded in a thoughtful way even with respect to areas where we don’t agree. Frankly, when I began writing about 9/11, I was shocked at how vicious many comments (particularly with respect to CIT) there were. I have written a fair amount about this. When someone resorts to personal attacks to destroy their opponent, I can’t help wondering what their real motives are. When someone takes the rational approach that you’ve taken, I’m much more encouraged.
      I appreciate your openness to what CIT has found in their research. As for Mr. Gage, I understand that he is focused on the towers where his greatest expertise lies. But his withdrawal of support for CIT seems to have resulted more from pressure from some of the harshest CIT critics not from a re-evaluation of CIT’s work.
      You said: “Perhaps the people you mention (Gage, Chandler, Cole) do not want to get involved because they are focused on the events in New York.” My point is that by denouncing CIT, they have become involved. And I’m sure they knew this would be the result of their actions.”
      When I began writing about 9/11, I had no idea what the inner politics of the Truth movement involved. I just said what seemed right to me based on what I had learned. Besides being banned from 911blogger within a week of joining, I soon came to see that something wasn’t right, and that the attacks against anyone who didn’t believe a 757 hit the Pentagon just didn’t ring true. This web site has banned many people, including Ranke and Marquis of CIT. But the site continues to permit relentless attacks against them. Why aren’t these attacks denounced by sincere and well-meaning people in the movement (those still permitted to post there, that is)?
      Here’s perhaps the biggest disagreement you and I have:
      You said, “It’s not critical to the success of the Toronto Hearings that an in-depth analysis of the events at the Pentagon be brought forward at this time.” I couldn’t disagree more. We’ve had solid evidence about the demolition of the towers for years now, but we still haven’t broken through with the public. If we just talk about the towers, we’re giving some of the more absurd aspects of the official story a free pass. How does this help us? Why can’t we do both?
      As to your point 3, that some Pentagon evidence will make it into the hearings, I can’t help wondering who will be presenting this. Whose evidence is acceptable to the “mainstream” truthers?
      I agree that the report that comes out of the hearings could be a very valuable tool for approaching media, authorities, etc. And I agree it’s about them, not us. But if we put all our eggs in one basket, we’re needlessly leaving out much of our most powerful evidence.
      Why isn’t the focus on punching as many holes in the official story as possible? That’s how I became a believer. When I looked at the WTC evidence for the first time, I was intrigued; I wanted to know more. When I looked at the Pentagon, I was hooked for good. It was the accumulation of evidence that convinced me.
      I think other people would react that way, too.

  3. Hello Toronto hearings,
    I have to say I am very appreciative of your very candid and supportive comments. They were very surprising to say the least.
    I just want to address one point with you and that is regarding your statement pertaining to “strongest evidence”.
    There is no doubt the majority 9/11 truth community believes that the towers were brought down in a customized military demolition. And we know that the MSM cites this as major belief within the movement. The problem has been that findings have been ignored and mired in scientific tit for tat debate. Accounts of explosions have been written off or explained away. Obviously, the MSM and govt officials have been complacent and latched on to easier explanations in order to deal with the issue. This has been going on for almost the entirety of the 10 years.
    The reason perhaps the masses have not risen up in the name of 9/11 truth is because the majority of people do not want this to be true and therefore they take comfort in the fact that the govt or MSM have given some explanation and an impression that there is no truth to it. That perhaps will never change or is harder to change than we think.
    Let’s say that the towers are the main focus of your hearings, as they should be. And let’s say that Gourley’s report concludes that the towers were demolished and that is what we should lead with. What then? We demand an investigation based on this report but who planted the bombs? How do you prove that? How do you locate them? What happens if the MSM or govt inquiry starts to suggest that al-Qaeda planted bombs or incendiary devices? After all, Willie Rodriguez even claimed to see one of the alleged hijackers in the building right before 9/11.
    On the other hand,
    We have multiple (approaching 20) witnesses who work in the area every day, concentrated in a small basin, who independently corroborate a very simple and impossible-to-mistake detail – a north side of the gas station banking flight path. All were unaware they were destroying the official story and all thought they were actually supporting it when confirming this detail on camera, on location which makes them excellent witnesses. They stood by where they saw the plane even after being made aware of the implications, which also makes them excellent witnesses. What they saw proves the plane did not hit the Pentagon and instead flew over and away from the Pentagon.
    Furthermore, what they saw implicates Lloyde England. Period. The plane was nowhere near his light pole and no poles were hit, yet his cab is damaged and the damage simulates that a pole crashed through the windshield, through the dashboard, and into his backseat disconnecting his front passenger seat back off the center hinge. He lied on camera and he cryptically and virtually admitted involvement in the event!
    Staged light poles, a staged cab and cab driver who virtually admitted involvement in staging the planned event leaves no question that it was an inside job orchestrated by US military and intelligence operatives.
    This can only bolster the case at the WTC. This evidence helps prove that not only were the towers demolished but that they were brought down by US operatives. Wouldn’t you agree?
    The witnesses are still living and breathing and three happen to Pentagon police officers. Some said they would testify if necessary. Lloyde is still walking around a free man and is a traceable link to the perps, especially the shirt and tie guys on the highway. He can tell us who put him on that highway. Don’t you agree?
    So why wouldn’t anyone want to include this evidence alongside the towers? Moreover, if this evidence proves US operatives were behind staging the attack on the Pentagon (lending credence to the towers being an inside job) and this evidence implicates a key individual involved in the staging who can lead us directly to the perps- why isn’t this considered “our strongest evidence”?

    1. Aldo,
      That’s a great summary of why the Pentagon evidence is crucial to an examination of why the official story isn’t true. I agree that the Pentagon evidence is in many ways stronger than the controlled demolition evidence. I also think that it’s better to look at both than just one or the other. We need to expose as many holes in the official story as possible. And with the Pentagon, there’s no ambiguity about who’s behind any deception.

      1. Thanks Craig. I appreciate your continued support and coverage. You are a true soldier in the world of 9/11 truth.
        That’s what makes it obvious that there is a psy op going on is the fact that they refuse to even include our findings alongside the towers.
        The trick is they have manufactured the so called controversy. Legge and others have misrepresented our research and evidence, Blatantly been deceptive and refused to make corrections. Then they sit in these ivory towers and keep us blocked out from telling the truth while they attempt to rewrite history and facts. It’s obvious there are infiltrators from the intelligence community attempting to create the he said she said atmosphere where laymen who lack research throw their hands in the air in frustration and confusion and deem it too “controversial” with too many unknowns. Meanwhile we have all the answers which make it all perfectly clear. It is all simply being drowned out by the noise the infiltrators have created.

  4. I just looked at the schedule of the Hearings. It looks like the events will be finished by the early evening on Sunday 9/11/11. So there will not be a competition to steer people away from the hearings, as the Zwicker event doors open at 7:30 and begin at 8:00.
    As for who’s speaking about the Pentagon at the Hearings:
    Barbara Honneger will introduce a video testimony of April Gallop.
    David Griffin will speak on the “anomalies” of AA77 and UA93.

    1. Great point. Clearly, Barrie Zwicker and CIT weren’t trying to compete for people’s attention. They just want the Pentagon evidence to be part of the discussion.
      I have to laugh at the term “anomalies.” Sounds like minor points of contention. A fake plane crash is much more than an anomaly. It’s a deception on a massive scale.

  5. Any alleged 9/11 ‘hearings’ which do not invite the Pilots for 9/11 Truth and CIT does not include all of the ‘strongest evidence.’
    Even if they were to re-bill the event as being focused on the WTC only, they would STILL have to invite the Pilots for 9/11 Truth, because much of the Pilots’ research is directly applicable to the alleged maneuvers performed at the WTC.
    No, these glaring omissions from the so-called Toronto Hearings can’t simply be explained away. I salute Zwicker for organizing the National Sercurity Alert screening in Toronto. I applaud this blog author, Craig, for posting consistently on this blog his desire to see the truth of the Pentagon crimes come to public light. And, on moral grounds and on principle, I reject any claims that evidence of the Pentagon crimes should be hidden in order to help unify the 9/11 Truth movement. This is absurdity at it’s highest peak. I agree with Craig, as points out above, that yes, it should be our goal to put as many ‘holes’ in the official lie as possible.
    To all good people who read this blog, let me assure you, if you have not already seen the CIT evidence or the Pilots for 9/11 Truth evidence, you MUST SEE IT. You will NOT BE WASTING YOU TIME. We are talking about professional aviators explaining ‘ground effect’ and why the alleged maneuvers at the WTC and Pentagon are physically impossible. We are talking about police officers in uniform testifying to a north of CITGO path at the Pentagon, inconsistent with the light pole damage and official lie. If this evidence cannot be discredited (perhaps the police officers were smoking crack on duty and hallucinating, etc. Perhaps the professional aviators are smoking crack, too, and don’t know what they’re talking about.) then it is more likely to be believed because the sources are QUITE CREDIBLE. And, when you consider the DEPTH of the evidence which these researchers have amassed which CORROBORATES ITSELF and CONTRADICTS THE OFFICIAL LIE, then, you begin to see why bad people would want this information hidden from the public. Because, if people like you, your neighbors, your friends and family, all saw this evidence, then they would all be screaming for a new 9/11 investigation and justice for the FALSE FLAG ATTACKS at BOTH the WTC AND the Pentagon.
    Anyone who organizes an event claiming to present ‘all’ of the ‘strongest evidence’ and who does NOT invite both the Pilots and CIT is organizing a cover-up of the Pilots and CIT research, assisting the criminals who murdered Americans on 9/11, and helping destroy our republic, the rule of law, and our American values and our American way of life.
    In effect, anyone who suppresses Pentagon truth is a traitor.

    1. On the subject of the CIT evidence being hidden from the public – this is the CIT evidence freely available on the internet on their own CIT website, CIT blogg, in their CD’s, Youtube videos, presentations, tours of European venues, radio interviews, etc. etc. People who have to go blaming others for hiding their freely available information from the public, in order to explain why their assessments of evidence doesn’t convince others, might ask themselves whether their assessment of the evidence is very convincing. That would require actually assessing the evidence with a degree of detachment and objectivity which in my view they are, at this stage, incapable of.

      1. Why is it that comments critical of CIT and its supporters are so often sarcastic and condescending? Is it possible to assess what these people are saying with a degree of detachment that you suggest for them?
        Anyway, you missed the point. The Toronto Hearings will be examining important evidence from 9/11, and some of us believe evidence the no 757 hit the Pentagon should be part of that evidence. Do you really have a problem with that?

      2. Please.
        I didn’t say our evidence is being hidden from the public. I was very clear in my comments. Why would you misrepresent what I said?
        The hearings are excluding us and our evidence and the people hosting and presenting at the event have attacked us wantonly and with absolute proven DISinformation. Completely confirmed DISinformation. This is not because you all are “not convinced”. It is because people like you, whoever you are, and people like them are consciously being deceptive and subversive for specific reasons, be it personal or because you/they were assigned to do so. Yes, the evidence is that deadly to the official story.
        A. Wright, what the witnesses saw proves an inside job. Everyone agrees with this. The north side flight path proves an inside job. The witnesses stood by where they saw the plane even after learning the implications. Some said they would testify to it if needed. Why then would you or any of your “unconvinced” cohorts fight the evidence? Why if you and your cohorts are genuine truthers would you fight to “convince” truthers our findings are “unconvincing”?
        Have you spoken with the witnesses? No? That’s no surprise. You people treat them as inanimate objects or words on a piece of paper. Like they are just images and sounds flashing on your screen. They are real people, you know? More went on after the camera stopped rolling. Like making them aware of the implications and them standing by it. You understand that, right? Who the hell are you to say they are “unconvincing”? Were you there when the plane went by the gas station? What’s interesting is you called us and our evidence “unconvincing”, not the witnesses. Which is key, because it shows that you are distracting everyone from the witnesses and trying to get the focus on us.
        In fact you can’t even articulate why you “aren’t convinced” and sound “convincing”. That’s what’s hilariously transparent. Furthermore, you and your ilk can’t even engage us verbally or in person with debate or discussion. You all rely on spamming relentless disinformation, smear and innuendo.
        You think we are all stupid, don’t you? You think you can Jedi mind trick people with the power of persuasion and innuendo. You actually think you can pretend to be “unconvinced” on a blog message board and it will convince people that the evidence is “unconvincing”?
        Our YouTube and constant messages of support say otherwise.
        Can I convince you that your charade is unconvincing, A. Wright?

      3. Dear Mr. Marquis,
        Don’t waste too many keystrokes on Mr. Wright. He popped up about the same time Mr. McKee banished Agent Albury Smith, very conveniently as if it were a World Wide Wrestling tag-team hand-off on who was going to run the comments of this forum around in circles.
        Alas, without some conflict, there is little excitement and just a wee too much back-slapping and congratulating between Mr. McKee and me, so he is tolerated.

  6. To all above who have added their voice to the discussion, I extend my thanks and appreciation.
    Craig: I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on some points, but that’s ok. People with the same goals to do not have to always agree on every point.
    A. Marquis: Thanks for your perspective. I can only say that I appreciate why you are so passionate about the Pentagon evidence. It doesn’t necessarily change my position, but I don’t disagree with what you have to say.
    Adam: I appreciate the point about the timing of Zwicker’s event, which I hope to attend.
    911NewsCentral: I will only say that I hope you are not implying that I claimed at any time that “evidence of the Pentagon crimes should be hidden in order to help unify the 9/11 Truth movement.” I never said that, and in fact tried to emphasize the opposite. What I had hoped might come from this discussion is a mutual understanding of different viewpoints, leading to some level of agreement about the approach being taking by the organizers of the Toronto Hearings. It is clear to me now why that is unlikely to occur. Furthermore, your accusation that people with a different approach than you are participating in a cover-up is simply outrageous. You’re talking about people that I know personally, and who I know for a fact are well-intentioned individuals working just as hard as you if not harder to reveal the truth about 9/11. Accusing such people of being part of the problem when they are taking bold steps to advance the truth movement is beyond unfair and your approach does not speak well of people in the movement. As I mentioned before, disagreements like this are bound to occur in a movement like 9/11 truth, where the stakes are enormously high and the evidence is complex, but that does not give you an excuse to make such accusations. Lastly, quit talking like this is a uniquely ‘American’ issue – it’s a world issue, affecting all nations, in case you hadn’t noticed.

    1. Yes, I wish agreeing to disagree were something we in the Truth movement could do more often. Too many times disagreement comes in the form of mockery, ridicule, and vicious attacks.
      I don’t want to get in the middle of your debate with 911newscentral, but I will say that the subject can become a very emotional one. I think a general frustration on the part of those who want to expose the Pentagon evidence is understandable because of how they (we) have been marginalized by the “mainstream.” As to 911newscentral’s specific arguments, I’ll let him defend himself.
      Perhaps a reasonable person like yourself could reconsider (as you seem willing to do by attending the CIT event) whether we need to restrict the evidence we present. It’s a strategy that has failed so far, and the chances of that changing are not great, in my opinion.

  7. I just finished listening to Zwicker on the Barrett radio show, link: http://noliesradio.org/archives/35718 as previously mentioned. I highly recommend listening to it as it is HIGHLY relevant to this topic, if a person has the time to listen. Thank you to Toronto Hearings for giving the link. Here is my summary of what Zwicker said. Words in [ ] are mine, not his.
    [BEGIN] Zwicker said he takes no credit for organizing the [so-called] Toronto Hearings. Zwicker questions the third criteria for inclusion of evidence at the [so-called] Toronto Hearings: whether something is ‘controversial’ or not. Zwicker says he worked for 17 years in media, much of it mainstream, and that in his experience the word, “controversial” was a “code word” meaning something is to be avoided. He believes that the evidence of the CIT meets the other two requirements; it is well-researched and “important” in its implications. He notes that one person on their steering committee can veto any evidence out of consideration. Zwicker calls his screening of the CIT’s Pentagon Truth NSA documentary in Toronto on the same day as the [so-called] Toronto Hearings a “complimentary event.” Meaning, in his view, it adds to, rather than takes away from, the overall value of the other event. Zwicker says that people of reasonable education and intelligence face a “litmus test” with regards to the 9/11 official lie as a whole: is it believable? Of those people who pass the first litmus test, they then face a second litmus test: is the Pentagon portion of the story, in particular, believable? Zwicker compares the second litmus test within the 9/11 Truth movement to the first litmus test of Americans in general with regards to 9/11 Truth in general. Zwicker says he has personally met with and had civil discussions with people associated with the [so-called] Toronto Hearings. Zwicker finds these men to be intelligent and wonders how they pass the first litmus test (doubting the 9/11 lie as a whole, believing the WTC were controlled demolitions) yet fail the second litmus test (continue to believe a 757 crashed into the Pentagon according to the official lie). Zwicker expressed some disbelief that these men are really telling the truth. [END]
    I did not hear Zwicker mention Pilots for 9/11 Truth at all. Were they invited to either Toronto event, his or the controversial so-called hearings?
    I feel that we are truly very fortunate to have a man of Zwicker’s stature standing up for Pentagon Truth. Very, very fortunate. And, we should all support him with everything we’ve got. Want unity within the 9/11 Truth movement? Then embrace Zwicker, embrace the CIT, embrace the Pilots for 9/11 Truth, stop arguing, stop being divisive, and THANK Barrie for organizing the CIT screening. For God’s sake, remember that PEOPLE DIED at the Pentagon. They were Americans, too! And, they had family. They had rights. Who is standing up for their rights? The CIT is. And, Barrie Zwicker is. And, Craig, the owner of this blog is. And, this humble post writer is. ARE YOU???
    Join it!
    And, God bless America.

    1. Thanks a lot for the summary of the Zwicker interview. You’re right, people in the movement should be glad he is part of this fight instead of dismissing him and the Pentagon evidence. Some of the most bogus Truth activists I’ve run into on line have attacked anything to do with CIT, Zwicker, and challenges to the Pentagon official story. Some of those people are trying to keep us from the truth, not expose it. Others, I’m sure, are sincere but mistaken that all our eggs should go into the WTC basket.

      1. WTC v. Pentagon is a false dichotomy, Craig. Have you read “The Eleventh Day” yet? All Americans should be calling for release of the 28 redacted pages from the Joint congressional inquiry. How about “Disconnecting the Dots”? Ever hear of Behrooz Sarshar? He should be a household name. There is a lot of of important stuff to go into besides the WTC and the Pentagon. How about the complete failure, for 100 minutes, of our $500 billion a year defense?

        1. I wasn’t saying it’s a choice between the Pentagon and the WTC. I’ve said many times that all aspects of the official story need to be dismantled. This includes the Pentagon, the towers, Shanksville, the behaviour of the politicians, the intentional failure of the air defense, the true history of the supposed hijackers, the impossibility of the multiple-hijack scenario, and much more.
          I agree completely that there’s much more to go into than the towers and the Pentagon. The more we all work together to show the official story to be a lie, the more likely we are to succeed.

  8. We’ve had the governor put on our 9/11 truth engine for nearly a decade now. For the better part of that decade the position taken regarding putting forth the strongest evidence had some merit and would continue to have merit among, shall we say, rational innocent people.
    The issue is that the guilty people had more than a leg up. They had their story well prepared with actors waiting in the wings before the first pixel of an aircraft was repeated endlessly on the telly. They had gears of the machine lubricated and engaged, easily turned by patriotism and flag waving to overcome moral resistance to war profiteering, torture, and other repugnant things to civil society. They have been gaming the system, steering it, slowing down the governor, and applying brakes.
    The 9/11 Truth Movement was never on a level playing field, never with sufficient players, lacking in seasoned players, and always tackling the vilest of the disinformation dirty tricks and “kooky, insane, crazy” labels to distract from what a sober review of the evidence reveals. The message to whistle-blowers was swift and severe, having been kicked off with the Anthrax attacks.
    Toronto Hearings wrote:

    “Taking the strongest evidence and rigorously testing does what exactly?” — It will be a huge leap towards bringing the best available evidence into mainstream acceptability. The point of all this is that at the end of the hearings, we will have a report that says “here is the best evidence we have, rigorously examined and picked apart by an independent group of distinguished panelists. Stop calling us crazy and look at the damn evidence!!” That report can then be used through all sorts of channels (legal, political, media, etc) to educate those in our society who still dismiss all of 9/11 truth as conspiracy theory. This is an important goal which cannot be achieved if the evidence is not absolutely solid. It has nothing at all to do with “…all of us just agreeing that the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition.” It’s not about US Craig, it’s about THEM!

    “Shock-and-awe, Baby! is what I say for the next decade.
    Going with the strongest evidence shouldn’t be at the expense of truth and other truthful pieces of evidence that others have actively tried to bury with ridicule.
    The fact is, mainstream 9/11 truth addresses (the aim of the Toronto Hearings?) neither CIT well, nor DEW and alternative destruction mechanisms that more Occam Razor explain the totality of the pulverization and its massive energy requirements, nor the highly stilted television propaganda whose war drums still beat today.
    I hate to get too political here, but the court jester sometimes exposes the ongoing patterns, ala Jon Stewart: The Media is Pretending Ron Paul Doesn’t Exist. Ron Paul isn’t just an anti-war candidate whose message they need to bury or ignore, but he also will take an axe to the Federal Reserve that is on more than one level responsible for our woes. And 9/11 plays into this as well.
    Shock-and-awe, Baby. Shock-and-awe.
    The effects of the crime are as big as the depth of the crime itself. We shouldn’t be satisfied with a halfway and halting approach to truth, because that will leave in place the illegal wars, illegal detention centers, illegal rendition, illegal torture, and other ills and cancers to our well-being. We need to follow truth where ever it leads us.

    1. I absolutely agree that all the elements were in place in advance to imprint the phoney official narrative on 9/11. This is one reason I believe we really have to look at the whole event and not just focus on one element.
      One quote from Toronto Hearings that you cite hit me harder the second time I saw it. This contributor said that with the final report of the Toronto Hearings, we can say: “Here is the best evidence we have, rigorously examined and picked apart by an independent group of distinguished panelists.”
      There’s the problem right there. We only look at the towers (or at least put most of our focus there) and then we present the result as our “best evidence.” This suggests that other evidence isn’t strong enough to be offered to the public.
      This is a terrible approach. First of all, it may NOT be the best evidence. Secondly, the WTC evidence combined with the Pentagon evidence combined with the Shanksville evidence makes a hugely stronger case for 9/11 being an inside job. Add to that the identities of the “hijackers”; the war games; the bizarre behaviour of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Myers; and so much more, and you’ve got an official story that crumbles into dust.
      Please let’s not depend entirely on thermite to convince the world. Yes, bring the best WTC evidence forward, but show how ALL of the official story can’t stand up to scrutiny. That’s the only way the public will be convinced to rethink the issue.
      I spoke to an acquaintance the other day who told me he’d seen a science show that showed clearly how the towers could have fallen from plane impacts. He actually said that the building being steel made it more vulnerable. He has the impression that the steel girders were corroded and that it’s totally understandable that they would have weakened. Is an analysis of the WTC dust going to change this person’s mind? No, we need everything at our disposal.
      The Ron Paul thing was funny and sad at the same time. I agree with you why they want him kept out. It’s just too bad that Paul can’t include 9/11 Truth in his list of apple carts to upset.

  9. All I’d like to know is exactly who decided what was the “strongest evidence”?
    I just hope it isn’t the same people that have been continually exposed for supporting lies, censorship and downright disinfo regarding the witnesses (on record, documented and proven btw) or the totally refuted, government controlled FDR. Is it these same people?
    You’re a legend Craig! Good to see an honest broker in these times. Keep the good work up mate!

    1. You’re too kind. Way too kind. But thanks for encouragement nonetheless.
      I’m going to avoid a blanket condemnation, but it does seem that the organizers of the hearings believe, or have been persuaded, that Pentagon evidence should be kept to the fringes of the debate. I don’t agree with this view. I think putting all our eggs in the thermite basket is poor strategy.
      I will engage in rational discussion with anyone who is sincerely putting forth a contrary view to mine. The person posting comments here under “Toronto Hearings” has shown him/herself to be a fair-minded person and willing to discuss respectfully. I wish that happened more often.
      Unfortunately, a vocal group that we know all too well is only interested in attacking those who question the official Pentagon story. I see this comment stream is getting that treatment by the same gang over at 911truthaction.org. (http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7294) Sad.

    1. I agree we need to be positive and work together. But that only works when people want to work together. Those who just want to discredit and attack those who have a different view from them are not worth engaging.
      It would be great if the Toronto hearings took 9/11 Truth mainstream, but I’m not very optimistic. Especially because the main focus is on the World Trade Center (nothing wrong with examining the WTC, but the Pentagon and Shanksville need attention, too).
      I saw an interview with Dr. Graeme McQueen (one of the Toronto organizers) on CTV, our largest private TV network in Canada. The first question dealt with whether the scheduling of the hearings is “insensitive.” During the interview, a graphic ran along the bottom of the screen that read: “Conspiracy theorists converge on Ryerson University.” Why didn’t they just say “wackos and nut cases”?

  10. I have done the work that AFAIK CIT has refused to do and PfT have refused to do. I have examined the universe of possible flyover flight paths and of locations where flyover witnesses might reasonably be found: the parks, the marina, the golf course, the airport grounds, the roads and bridges, the airspace and the river, the control tower at DCA, the high-rise buildings at Crystal City.
    Eliminating all flight paths that would be overly conspicuous (over the airport, wrong way up the airliner traffic stream, over the river and the golf course, U-turning over Crystal City, over the restricted airspace at the Mall and the WH) I have found that only one flyaway flight path is remotely possible: a hairpin turn upriver to merge with the departing DCA traffic stream.
    CIT’s task is thus obvious. To interview people at the Graveley Point park and at the marina and in all the parks and to locate commuter driver and limo drivers who were present on the roadways.
    The bank angle for an aircraft performing this 125 degree turn at 400 mph or so would be quite acute, and the turn would be very conspicuous.
    CIT’s unwillingness to go out there and look for flyaway witnesses is damning, Their inability to recruit anyone on the ground in DC to help them out is also damning, Anybody who has driven past the Pentagon on I-395 knows that flyover is impossible. You guys are fooling yourselves.

    1. If you have “done the work,” then why don’t you present the results of your research concerning people at Graveley Point Park, etc. Instead of bashing CIT, why don’t you pick up the ball and run with it. That’s the way knowledge is advanced: one person finds out one thing and others build on that. The more you focus your attention on what you think CIT hasn’t done, the less credibility you have.

      1. It is not practical for me to spend time in DC. And I do not have the resources to recruit anyone to help me there. I am not the one making gaudy claims about having proven inside job.
        It is incumbent upon those who advance speculative hypotheses as if they were proven fact to test their hypotheses by seeking data supporting them. CIT’s failure to do so suggests that they know what the results would be from a search for witnesses. Besides, they believe they already got the answers they went there looking for. Why would they want to mess up their program with a messy search for witnesses that probably don’t exist? And why won’t they get in touch with Deb Anlauf?

        1. Now who is engaging in speculation? They know what the results would be… how do you know that? Maybe they just don’t agree with your take on what research needs to be done.
          And I’m not sure why it’s okay that you aren’t able to go to DC to do research but CIT must cross the continent to do this on your say-so? If I understand their “gaudy” claim about inside job, it comes from the fact that a group of credible witnesses contend that the plane flew on the north side of the Citgo gas station, which is irreconcilable with the physical evidence, including the downed light poles. What’s gaudy about that?

    2. Brian Good has not done any work and frankly much of this has been covered. Craig went to the marina, walked through south parking lot and we tried a host of other possibilities, much of which has been detailed on our forums and elsewhere…and I am sure it will be covered more in the future as there is much research still going on. And as you can tell from our forum we never stopped searching for flyover/flyaway witnesses as in the case of Dewitt Roseborough.
      We’ve given possible flyover routes, including the one proposed by Pilots for 9/11 Truth. What Brian Good fails to make the readers aware of is that planes are flying around the Pentagon all the time so a good majority of those witnesses he claims exist may not have even noticed or understood what they saw. Others like Roosevelt and Dewitt are scared to death and simply don’t want to talk about it. And that’s why infiltrators like Brian Good try to manipulate readers.
      As always, Brian Good attempts to mislead the readers with lies and distortions of the truth. In case you don’t know this is the same “Brian Good”:
      -who has been attacking and harassing Kevin Barrett. Going so far to attend his meeting in a V for Vendetta mask and outfit. Standing in silence only to make knife throwing motions toward Kevin Barrett.
      -who relentlessly attacked 9/11 hero Willie Rodriguez
      -who stalk and sexually harassed a major 9/11 truth activist an organizer named Carol Brouillet. He tried causing problems between her and her husband resulting in Carol having to get a restraining order
      -he was hanging around AE911truth and was working with them until he was no longer welcome
      Now he has set his sights on us in attack after attack, lie after lie. He prides himself on being a deeply infiltrated 9/11 truth infiltrator so much he uses screen names like “true beleaguer” and “snug bug”.
      As for what we have done and haven’t done again, there is much evidence we haven’t released. In fact, how does he know we haven’t spoken with Deb Anlauf? The fact is he doesn’t. His job is to give the impression our work is incomplete and erroneous and hope people believe him.
      The fact is the north side flight path proves a flyover. We could have stopped there but we didn’t. His job is to keep moving the goal posts while pretending the north side flight path doesn’t prove a flyover alone or an inside job for that matter?
      BTW, Do we even know if Brian Good is his real name? Of course not, we know absolutely nothing about this man, his history or background.

      1. Dear Mr. Marquis,
        “Less is more.” I forget the famous person who wrote a several page letter to a friend and apologized at the end for not having the time to edit it down to a much shorter note. Other famous authors talk about how writing is the easy part, but editing (and cutting things out) is where the real craft of word-smithing comes in.
        You had me convinced until you wrote:
        “As always, Brian Good attempts to mislead the readers with lies and distortions of the truth. In case you don’t know this is the same “Brian Good”:” and the bullet points that followed and the concluding BTW.
        Regrettably, I’ve had the opportunity to Google Mr. Good and see some of his past playgrounds, like Screw Loose Change. Although I haven’t run it into the ground, my belief is that the “stalk and sexually harass” complaint against Mr. Good is an example of an opponent (Kevin Barrett?) seeding the internet with exaggeration (and lies), from which other (later) opponents sometimes in a coordination fashion created a linked web or “internet echo chamber” of seeming validity to the accusation. “Oh, it must be true, because I read it on the internet; here’s a link.” Every place — including here — where it was deployed, it was irrelevant and unnecessary.
        The one difference between other forums and your usage is that Mr. Good’s opponents-of-the-day were losing the discussion and couldn’t debate the points. You, on the other hand, with some editing were making mighty fine points to counter Mr. Good… until you hit below the belt.
        I bring this up, Mr. Marquis, because flame-wars are a trend with CIT every where I’ve Googled into past CIT discussions on other forums (with CIT principles in participation). I was repeatedly left with the impression that the bad internet behavior was purposely deployed (by you) not only to ban you, but also to shoot holes into the feet of the fly-over theory and your CIT research. It then resembles the classic disinformation technique of owning some controversial subject or field of research, and then doing something on purpose to discredit the champion and thusly guilt-by-association take out of contention the entire field of research.
        I am very sensitive to this, because I presently champion the research of both Dr. Judy Wood and September Clues. I watch for the techniques attempted to take them and consequently their research out of play.
        Needless to say, your antics elsewhere left a bad taste in my mouth and lots of doubt in my head regarding the sincerity of CIT’s fly-over. To this day, I really could go either way: a real plane flew over and things were staged or a mock-up drone/missile of a plane flew into light poles and the Pentagon. (I don’t believe it was a 757.)
        I respectfully request that you and the “CIT fans/detractors” who are following you through the internet refrain from such nonsense here. Take a look at my angry McCain avatar. I’m Mr. McKee’s Cheney, and you don’t want me on your bad side. 🙂
        Let’s take Mr. Good’s point-by-bullet-point rebuttal of the personal charges at face value and give him the benefit of the doubt. Let’s now concentrate on the significance of the other salient points.
        Thank you.

  11. Aldwin, I have done a lot of work. I studied the length of runway 15 and found that it was too short for 757s. I did research and found that 757s do not use runway 15. I forced Craig and Rob to abandon their claim that the Pentagon flyover plane landed on runway 15.
    I contacted DCA officials and learned that traffic the morning of 9/11 wad coming into DCA from the SE and departing to the NW. I thus learned that the SE was not a viable departure path for a flyaway plane.
    I studied the area and learned the Gravely Point is a plane spotters’ park, where hobbyists with video cameras and telephoto cameras record the tail numbers of aircraft arriving at and departing from DCA. I learned about the golf course on the island in the river that foreclosed on an across-the-river flight path for a flyaway plane. I learned about the forbidden airspace above the Capitol Mall. I studied the turning capabilities of a 757 and learned the formulae for determining bank angle and g-force.
    I studied the light poles and learned that your claim that they were planted in the cloverleaf in the dark the night before is absurd. That would have had six broken pieces of light pole lying in the short grass in the cloverleaf visible to anyone who drove by through two rush hours.
    If you had done the work that I have done, your ideas about the Pentagon would not be so silly.
    I have called out Willie Rodriguez because he is a swindling fraud. He stole his story from a true hero, Pablo Ortiz, who died on 9/11. Willie’s claims that he single handedly rescued 15 persons and that he saved hundreds of lives are easily proven to be lies.
    I have called out Kevin Barrett for a bigot, a liar, and an advocate of violence, who has done his damndest to fulfill every “Kooky Truther” stereotype that exists. His V-for Vendetta campaign was an agent-provocateur’s wet dream, incredibly irresponsible. I never made knife-throwing gestures.
    I didn’t stalk or sexually harass anyone. You are very confused. The north side path doesn’t prove flyover. That’s ridiculous.

  12. Dewitt Roseborough? That’s quite desperate even for you Aldo. He hung up on Craig because he didn’t want to be harassed. You don’t have him confirming anything, only thing you have are your own powers of suggestion.

    1. I don’t see what’s desperate about mentioning Dewitt Roseborough at all. He has been quoted as saying he saw a plane fly overhead but so low that he thought it was going to crash into the highway. He didn’t say he saw that plane hit the Pentagon. In fact, his account suggests the plane flew over and then there was a fireball coming from the building. Seems pretty relevant to me.
      As for the phone call with Craig Ranke, this indicates nothing at all other than the odd decision of Mr. Roseborough not to want to discuss 9/11. There could be many reasons for this. The least likely in my mind is “harassment.” I have done many interviews over the years where people didn’t want to talk and it was my job to try and coax some information out of them. Craig was polite but did his best to get some answers. How can you fault that?
      People tend to do what they think is in their own interest, and for some reason, Roseborough felt talking about the plane he saw was not in his interest. Perhaps he was told not to talk about it, but that is speculation on my part. If not, why would he refuse to describe what he saw?

  13. Actually, no. He hangs up because he’s annoyed, not because he’s scared. His language towards Craig Ranke makes it crystal clear.
    I find it curious you would use the verb ‘suggest’, voluntarily confirming my point about using the powers of suggestion to see something in Roseborough’s testimony that just isn’t there. His account suggests nothing of the sort. That is why you can’t quote a sentence from his account that confirms flyover, only bits and pieces which you have to alter by interpolation in order to shoehorn them into your theory.
    I’m also amused that you claim he saw the plane flying so low that Roseborough thought it might hit the highway, then in the next breath you claim it flew over the Pentagon.That’s quite a feat of aeronautics. Would you care to calculate for your readers the g-force required to execute the pull-up? I bet your readers you won’t do the calculation, because it will prove you wrong.

    1. Mr. Under,
      You have amazing powers of clairvoyance, apparently. You can tell what Mr. Roseborough is thinking as he is refusing to talk to Craig Ranke. But short of mind reading, there is no basis for your comment that he is annoyed, not scared. Even if he was annoyed, people often react that way when they are being asked about something they don’t want to reveal. I have talked to dozens of politicians about subjects that made them look bad, and annoyance was the usual reaction (no, I’m not equating Mr. Roseborough with crooked politicians or saying he did anything wrong).
      You said:

      “I find it curious you would use the verb ‘suggest’, voluntarily confirming my point about using the powers of suggestion to see something in Roseborough’s testimony that just isn’t there.”

      I used the word “suggest” because that’s the correct word. It wasn’t explicit either way, but it suggested flyover. You should be praising Ranke for trying to clarify and remove any doubt. But, no, you mock the idea of even asking. This tells me you don’t really want to hear any more from this witness.
      You said:

      “His account suggests nothing of the sort. That is why you can’t quote a sentence from his account that confirms flyover, only bits and pieces which you have to alter by interpolation in order to shoehorn them into your theory.”

      What did I alter? He says he heard a roar and then saw a fireball coming from the Pentagon. What did I shoehorn into what theory? I just reflected what Roseborough was quoted as saying. Your comments are quite disingenuous.
      Here’s the relevant section of the article:

      It was as he was leaving the Pentagon that the world Roseborough knew changed forever. “I got out into the parking lot, just walking along, and all of a sudden, I hear what I would describe as a ‘lion’s roar’ above my head,” Roseborough said.
      “It caught my attention, and as I looked up, I heard another roar and I saw this airplane flying low. I thought, ‘Oh, my God, this thing is really low.’
      “I thought it was going to crash onto the highway,” recalled Roseborough. “Just as I thought that, I saw a fireball come from over the Pentagon. I was just standing there dumbfounded, thinking, ‘What just happened?'”

      Your last paragraph is so childish and inane that it merits no serious response.

  14. It’s interesting how much you guys have to say about the personalities and how little you have to say to defend your positions on the issues.

    1. You’re quite the comedian, Mr. Good. I focus on personalities and not facts?
      From your previous comment:
      • “If you had done the work that I have done, your ideas about the Pentagon would not be so silly.”
      • “I have called out Willie Rodriguez because he is a swindling fraud.”
      • “I have called out Kevin Barrett for a bigot, a liar, and an advocate of violence…”

  15. I was responding to Mr. Syed, Craig. When I first started engaging in internet debate in 2004, I noticed that the Bushbots’ response when they could not defend their man on the issues (Pet Goat, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike”, dumb-ass wars, torture, al Qaa Qaa) they simply responded with accusations that I was some other poster–as if that were a response. Some of them went as far as to compile lists of all the posters they thought were one guy in some boiler room somewhere–as if there was only one guy in the world who was wise to the shortcomings of George Bush. CIT likes to play the same game. If somebody points out their inability to provide a plausible explanation of how the light poles might be planted, instead of providing a plausible explanation they’ll say, “Oh, that’s the same argument employed by someone else, so this person must be that person”.
    The ad hominem attack is the argument of those who have no argument. And the identity game is the argument of those who don’t even have an ad hominem.
    And the only reason I mentioned Barrett and Rodriguez was because Aldwin insinuated that there was something inappropriate about my conflicts with those lying clowns, who discredit any cause with which they associate. Talking about their bigotry, lies, and blatant fraud is not mere gossip about personalities to avoid the issues. Talking about their bigotry, lies, and blatant fraud IS the issue when it comes to those two.

    1. Dear Mr. Good, you wrote:

      instead of providing a plausible explanation they’ll say, “Oh, that’s the same argument employed by someone else, so this person must be that person.”
      The ad hominem attack is the argument of those who have no argument. And the identity game is the argument of those who don’t even have an ad hominem.

      And when they use ad homimem together with the identity game, they are: GuitarBill.
      {Inside joke for anyone who has ever gone up against that disinformation agent who makes his home today on Screw Loose Change as well as the Community Hall section of Red book, a **cough** massage and escort website for the SF Bay area seemingly catering to military and government types. Another nemesis of GuitarBill told me of this site; I would give a link but it is blocked by my corporation’s IT. Mr. Good, I suspect GuitarBill is an admin or developer there, where his handle of late was AlgorithmX. For your debates on SLC if you’d like to trash GuitarBill’s credibility about a simple subject like GuitarBill and his credentials, you’d do well to snoop into Community Hall.}

  16. Dear Mr. McKee,
    It is well that you point out Mr. Good’s choice of words and his tenor. They do need to be improved.
    To Mr. Good’s credit:
    – He has proven himself time-and-again as being well prepared and informed (before he inserts his spin.) I do not doubt that he has done a lot of work on the Pentagon plane. He is a worthy debate partner and respectable here.
    – Others have called out William Rodriquez for being essentially “a swindling fraud.” Phil Jayhan of Let’s Roll Forums has had his flame wars with Willie. Ignoring that those flame wars are the same discrediting hole-in-foot-shooting activities I deplore, I believe there is much substance to the claim that Willie could not have done all that he credits himself with.
    – Kevin Barrett has his own issues. Again, I think he may have originated the lie (or exaggeration seeding the internet echo chamber) concerning Mr. Good’s “work relationship” with another 9/11 Truther that was twisted into being “stalking and sexual harassment.” Had this been the case, it would come into the google search results from official police and/or “sexual predator monitoring” websites.
    [BTW, I have a valued co-worker who plead guilty to some “sex crime” charges less dangerous (e.g., voyerism, illicit pictures) than implied by “stalking and sexual harassment” by Mr. Good. Fighting all the charges might have gotten some of them off my colleagues record, but at the expense of the judge punishing him significantly worse than what his plea-agreement work release permits and financially more than the $10k retainer he paid his lawyer. The point I am making is that in today’s knee-jerk reactionary society, if the allegations against Mr. Good had any merit, Mr. Good probably would not even be allowed on the internet anymore.]
    Because it doesn’t relate to the discussion, let’s just nip it in the bud here.
    That’s me: always championing the underdog who isn’t being given a fair shake.
    Señor El Once

    1. I would be much happier if the discussion on the Pentagon and any other aspect of 9/11 Truth were to stay on the issues and the facts, and not on personalities. In this regard, there’s plenty of blame to go around.
      Your points are well taken. You see positive in Mr. Good’s research, and that’s fair enough. It just seems that his opposition to CIT’s conclusions don’t show a great desire for consensus. Rather, it seems that he prefers to attack them relentlessly rather than to build on what they’ve found out.
      I would just prefer that sincere and intelligent debate about 9/11 focus on the genuine search for the truth, as well as the work to bring this truth to a wider audience. I don’t really care what personal failings a person has unless it has a direct impact on the case they’re trying to make. Or if they’re being a hypocrite in attacking other people’s failings.
      We know the media and other establishment institutions will do everything they can to dismiss the Truth movement out of hand, I think it’s important we not continue to do that to each other.

  17. “It’s interesting how much you guys have to say about the personalities and how little you have to say to defend your positions on the issues.”
    I’ve made Craig well aware of your positions over at 911Oz, Good aka Watson. You’re a troll who constantly changes his position and cries ignorance when cornered. I repeatedly exposed you at that forum whether you were advocating the non witness compatible “SOC” fantasy under your own name:
    Or the totally contradictory, disinfo ridden claim that the aircrat “impacted” from NOC under the name “Watson”
    You guys have been well outed. Your “stances” are illogical , are devoid of physics and based on incredulity. Of course the “personalities” have to be scrutinized, you have no argument!
    If you would AT LEAST try to explain how “impact” could have physically happened from the trajectory witnessed THROUGH lightpoles 1 and 2, the generator and the “C Ring exit hole”, maybe you’d save some face. Or the aerodynamical impossibility of the descent and pull up at “580 mph”. But you can’t. That’s why NOBODY has accepted CIT or P4911T’s challenges to a face to face debate. They’d have to repeat the same nonsense spewed for years on camera. You KNOW how ridiculous you’d look.
    Watch the troll answers Craig….

  18. Sorry for responding to the trolls Craig, but I thought that this should not go unanswered:
    Señor El Once wrote
    “my belief is that the “stalk and sexually harass” complaint against Mr. Good is an example of an opponent (Kevin Barrett?) seeding the internet with exaggeration (and lies), from which other (later) opponents sometimes in a coordination fashion created a linked web or “internet echo chamber” of seeming validity to the accusation. “Oh, it must be true, because I read it on the internet; here’s a link.” Every place — including here — where it was deployed, it was irrelevant and unnecessary.”
    QUOTE (Carol Brouillet)
    Frankly Brian,
    I don’t think your attacks on me, Kevin Barrett, and William Rodriguez
    have anything to do with Kevin Barrett or William Rodriguez or
    anything rational. The attacks have to do with Brian Good and Carol
    Brouillet and are completely emotional. You have a crush on me and
    erroneously hold delusions about me. You are being irrationally
    jealous of Kevin and William. You cannot accept the fact that I am
    happily married and refuse to allow you to TRY to cause trouble
    between my husband and I. Because of your delusions, I cannot ever
    feel “safe” in your presence alone, and would rather not see you
    again, but you are so desperate for attention that you are doing
    extremely negative, destructive things- attacking me and respected
    members of the 9/11 Truth Movement to force me to pay attention to
    Please stop attacking Kevin, William and I. Do something useful-
    attack the people who did 9/11, not the people who are putting so much
    effort into exposing the lies and stopping them. Leave me alone- stop
    the email attacks on me and others. I think it probably harms your
    reputation more than mine, although it is horrifically embarrassing to
    me to think that at one time I thought of you as a friend. Now I only
    see you as a threat to me, my family, the Northern California 9/11
    Truth Alliance and the 9/11 Truth Movement. I have zero confidence in
    your judgement and rationality.
    Carol Brouillet
    Why not ask Carol Brouillet if she was in fact “stalked and harrassed” compadre?

    1. Dear Mr. OneSliceShor,
      Yes, indeed, you make my point. The link you posted goes to Kevin Barrett’s website to a very tedious page to read. Its one redeeming quality in my book is that it is proof of what I call a concerted “smear campaign.”
      No need to “ask Carol Brouillet if she was in fact “stalked and harrassed” “. Why don’t you ask her if she was sexually harassed, if Mr. Good was a sexual predator, and if so, why she didn’t take steps to formalize her complaint with the authorities? This is where your link takes us and the accusations it makes.
      Evidentally, it was first seeded… err posted to Screw Loose Change [SLC] 9/21/2009 in the comments. These comments are no longer available in their original forum. However before they disappeared, Kevin managed to resurrect these (poorly and almost incomprehensibly) on his blog on a page dedicated to Brian Good. Weak-minded, fact-challenged, and ad hominem preaching participants on SLC to this day, though, keep echoing the link and the gutter sentiments.
      Although the words are attributed to Carol Broulliet, she posted them neither to [SLC] nor to Kevin’s website. It was posted to SLC by “CBSF”, who got them from some Google group whose link got munge by blog auto-linking software when cut and pasted.
      Were we to give that message more validity than it is worth, we see that she complains about emails, not stalking. She complains about being uncomfortable in Mr. Good’s presence alone, but if it were “sexual harrassment”, not only would she have labeled it as such, but she (and her husband and the 9/11 community group) would have taken steps in this regard.
      In that very thread, Brian Good wrote:

      Carol’s post basically begs me to lay off Kevin and Willie. I was hurting them severely, pointing out Willie’s lies and Kevin’s endorsement of those lies. I’m still hurting them, and I’m not sorry. They’ve both done enormous damage to the credibility of the truth movement and Carol.

      In my assessment, this comes closer to hitting the nail on the head regarding why Carol was uncomfortable. in seeing her 9/11 heroes brought low.
      It is the participants on SLC (to this day) who twisted and twist the meaning of Carol’s message into sexual harassment… Over and over on that thread and continuing to day. Keven Barrett demonstrates his unworthiness in the same manner with that permanent and Google-indexed page with its final “9/11 Sex Stalker” title.
      Twisting meaning and repetition ad nausem of libel when they think they have a weak spot is par for the course on the disinformation SLC. Don’t get me started on GuitarBill, his present nemesis, which by the similarity of the tactics might very well be an updated sockpuppet for Mr. Good’s nemesis then, for all I know.
      At any rate, discussions down this despicable SLC avenue against Mr. Good end here.
      P.S. To Mr. Good. Woes me for defending you, but were it not for my bat-shit crazy leanings into no-planes and DEW, we’d be on the same 9/11 page. Every aspect of that SLC affair is deplorable and shouldn’t be subjected on anyone, those $#%&*@! SLC disinformation whores.
      As a side note if Pat ever lets commenters back into SLC, Snug.Bug wrote:

      At 100 km/3600 sec you don’t multiply your 100,000 m by 3600 sec. You divide it. That gives you 27.8 m-s.

      You are only partially right. Your units are wrong. The correct answer is “27.8 m/s”. “m-s” implies “meter-seconds” which is an entirely different dimensions than “meters per second”.
      Also, if you want to say a quanity x is squared, you use the ^ symbol, as in “x^2”. When this appears in the denominator, it is useful to use parenthesis to explicitly state order of precedence to avoid all ambiguity. An example is “m/(s^2)” which is “meters per second squared”, or acceleration.
      GuitarBill has screwed up before in this regard. Whereas computer’s order of precedence might interpret m/(s^2)=m/s^2, it is not the same as (m/s)^2. An oft repeated mistake similar to this is where GuitarBill flushed out (or down) his “minor in physics and advanced math degree” that he so plugged endlessly elsewhere. Yeah, typing mistakes happen, but when they are pointed out and still repeated, that’s a flag.

      1. Why not go directly to Carol’s blog (around/since Oct. 19, 2007)?:
        “Archives of Carol Brouillet’s 9/11 Truth Blog From January 2002 through January 2009
        October 19, 2007
        I’m so behind on getting out the press advisories for the November 1st event, although I posted the latest version online if anyone wants to help send it out. I was working with Camille, Kevin Barrett, Sharry Clark, and John Leonard on art for the World Peace Week/War on War Week which is a real challenge via email.
        I was stunned at last night’s meeting when I was attacked heavily by Brian Good on the November 1st event AND the Trick or Truth idea, AND War on War Week- because of Kevin Barrett’s involvement AND for having Captain May on my radio show. Jeremy Begin took Brian’s side and the group voted against endorsing War on War Week and using any of our funds to promote it.
        At the same time they also voted to give an award (publicly if possible) to our wonderful artist Cam, who did the art for the Rodriguez event and has been working closely with us on the “Trick or Truth” “World Peace Week” art and to give her $250. I was also given $250 in donations for radio ads on Air America for the Rodriguez event and they voted an additional $250 towards the ads- and Janette was at the meeting and lots of people signed up to help and volunteer. Dave Heller generously volunteered to make the picket signs for the October 27th rally- so I wasn’t like totally beat up and murdered by the group.
        However we wasted so much time- that we had less than ten minutes to discuss the San Francisco Tea Party for Truth and zero time to do any serious organizing/thinking about it, although we were lucky, and a newcomer said he might be able to squeeze a permit out of the National Park Service for the action- which we did without a permit last year…
        Unfortunately, Brian wrote a LONG attack email directed at me and cced to most of the local activists this morning which I was forced to respond to- and ate up much of my precious time. No press advisories were sent out- I missed the big peace rally. I did get a hold of Barrie Zwicker who agreed to be on the next radio show on the “Stopping State Sponsored Terrorism” theme (also the theme of the book he’s working on) – which is the theme of World Peace Week… oddly enough Barrie Zwicker’s birthday is on November 5th (Guy Fawkes Day) and William Rodriguez’s wedding anniversary is on Veterans Day- November 11th- which is when World Peace Week begins and ends.
        I just hope when I get through this difficult period that I will be able to look back and appreciate the hard lesson that I was forced to learn from this experience, but I’m still in the midst of it, and royally mad at Brian for his incredibly bad judgement, and being so counterproductive.
        On the brighter side, I do appreciate my family and friends more than ever for their understanding, love, and support, and I do hope that the time I spent responding to Brian’s accusations might help increase understanding between Kevin Barrett and his accusers and mend some bridges (undoing the damage caused by those who are TRYING to create rifts in the movement and unjustly attacking Kevin Barrett, and Captain May, and I for being in league with those who have created some awful websites and films that target 9/11 Truth activists as members of Al Qaeda- with names, addresses and encouraging people to use violence against them.)
        November 16, 2007
        I was so busy yesterday, making plane reservations, taking Jeremy to the orthodontist, feeding him, before he had to leave for the play he’s working on at school, and I couldn’t get a straight answer from Brian as to whether or not he was going to the meeting, so I could figure out carpooling with Chuck and whether I needed to write a letter or not to the group. Fortunately, Chuck called Brian, received assurance that he wouldn’t go to the meeting- so I went.
        November 20, 2007
        …Sadly Brian is putting all his energy into counterproductive attacks, and I am doing my best to ignore him, and not let [him/it?] bother me, and I try to channel my anger into something productive like the work at hand. ….
        January 18, 2008
        …About eight of us will be attending the Media Strategy Summit in Santa Cruz at the end of the month. We voted to ask Brian not to attend meetings or be on committees- which was the most emotional, painful part of the meeting for most of us. I can’t handle the emotional abuse…..”
        Or one could check CIT’s website for their experience(s) with “BrianGood”:
        Original discussion w/alleged truther Brian Good, via email in June 2009
        Or one could see the incessant, obsessive trolling of the 911oz forum by “BrianGood/Watson” (who was twice banned/”Fighting Pit” restricted there):
        From my own experience, onesliceshort is by far the closest to the mark so far on this thread, but “enjoy” Brian’s trolling here, by all means… [rolleyes]

      2. Dear Mr. Boz,
        Thank you for your very informative posting regarding Mr. Good. It sheds a picture of Mr. Good more in line with our experience here on Mr. McKee’s Truth & Shadows blog.
        You ask a very good question:

        Why not go directly to Carol’s blog?

        The reason we haven’t been going to Mrs. Brouillet’s blog is that few of Mr. Good’s opponents make reference to it. Instead, they point to Kevin Barrett’s axe-to-grind reposting & skewed executive summary of a Screw Loose Change [SLC] exchange already off the deep end with its unpunished ad hominems that employs select extracts from yet other web repositories. SLC, as its modus operandus, heavily skews the picture of Mr. Good into a realm of libel (e.g., “sexual harassment”). And since that time, SLC has been fueling that libel fire so that it burns to the top of most google searches on Mr. Good. I have never really googled Mrs. Brouillet.
        The reality of Mr. Good’s actions then and now, is that he is so passionate in his beliefs that he is an annoyance. Mrs. Brouillet states (October 19, 2007) that she’s “royally mad at Brian for his incredibly bad judgement, and being so counterproductive.” As time and interaction with Mr. Good goes on, she writes (November 16, 2007) “received assurance that [Mr. Good] wouldn’t go to the meeting- so I went”.
        The choice quotes Mr. Boz extracts from Mrs. Brouillet’s writings from November 20, 2007 and January 18, 2008 shed further light on Mr. Good’s “energy into counterproductive attacks” and the need for the group to “vote to ask Brian not to attend meetings or be on committee.s”
        The limit of my lame-ass defense of Mr. Good are the charges of “stalking and sexual harassment”, which I believe were deliberately trumped by the ill-rebuted SLC and too easily fall from the fingers of Mr. Good’s debate partners.
        However, I quite like the description: Mr. Good’s “energy into counterproductive attacks.” This quite nicely sums up my assessment of Mr. Good’s tenure here, with the caveat the attacks were against concepts or theories, not against persons.
        Thank you indeed, Mr. Boz, because “energy into counterproductive attacks” would logically be the output of an agent provacateur, an infiltrator, a govt agent.

      3. Just to comment on a previous post of yours up the page where you were critical of A.Marquis’ comments about Brian Good – I think that is to your credit.

    2. “Why not ask Carol Brouillet if she was in fact “stalked and harrassed” compadre?”-onesliceshort
      Let’s re-iterate that question once more, since Patty & “James B[ond’s]” err…loose-screw ‘blog’ really isn’t worth the keystrokes already wasted on it IMHO.
      Carol could probably be contacted through her “Deception Dollars” website for her direct input on the matter:
      And for God’s sake “Brian,” please DO NOT stalk the poor woman via e-mail (and you would very likely leave ISP header information that law enforcement agencies could track- so just don’t do it).

      1. Dear Mr. Boz,
        Upon further review, research, and reflection, I see the errors in my lame-ass defense of Brian Good based on my having incomplete information and my inate dislike of gutter libel (and trust in the overall goodness of people).
        Evidently, Mrs. Brouillet was a 9/11 community organizer and the target of Mr. Good’s energy into counterproductive attacks. Mrs. Brouillet’s not wanting to go to a meeting if Mr. Good were to be there could be attributed to personality conflict. But when the group votes a couple of months later to ask Mr. Good not to attend meetings or be on committees, this starts stacking another way. Moreover, the letter to Mr. Good attributed to Mrs. Brouillet takes on a different significance in a larger context.
        The picture isn’t pretty. And with time, new online vistas, and different participants, it also isn’t relevant. The worst of it and the worst of the skewed smear (ala SLC) shouldn’t be forever dug up and shoved in our faces. That’s my hobby horse hot spot and the true foundation of my wimply played defense.
        In other news, however, we should be tipping our hats to Mr. Good for his recent SLC efforts. Not only did he get the great and mighty disinformation warrior and smear merchant GuitarBill to capitulate — “BAN [Mr. Good]” –, but he effected the shutdown of all new comments on any article there! SLC is not a forum I’d post to under any alias. However, its one redeeming factor is that the vitriol against 9/11 truth can be so over the top, it discredits itself.

      2. Mr. Boz, I have never stalked or harassed Ms. Brouillet. She was upset when I pointed out to the truth group the dangers of Barrett’s incredibly irresponsible “War on War” campaign, and I convinced the group to vote overwhelmingly to deny funding and promotional efforts. This was part of her complaint about my allegedly bad judgment. The other component of my judgment was that I recognized in Willie Rodriguez’s refusal to answer simple and reasonable questions about his story the earmarks of a con artist. She construed these “counterproductive attacks” on those two clowns as personal attacks on her. Ms. Brouillet gets a lot of strange phone calls, and at some time she apparently believed that some of them came from me. I have never made strange phone calls to anybody.
        I email Ms. Brouillet a couple of times a month to suggest radio guests or provide information about issues of interest and local activist opportunities. She emails me occasionally. I resent your suggestion that there would be any criminal component to a simple email. Such insinuations among the CIT community show their cultural kinship with the Barrett and Rodriguez crew.

  19. Well Dewitt was in south parking lot and described hearing and seeing a plane above him, then mentions a fireball rising separate from the event. Then most importantly he stresses that he had trouble understanding what happened. He was trying to put it all together. Craig and I have spoken with dozens of witnesses and people related to the Pentagon. We know when key witnesses and alleged witnesses will either clam up or spill the beans on the answers we are seeking. All he had to say was he didn’t want to talk about it because of the memories. Instead he is cordial and curious up until to the point that Craig asks about when he saw the plane. Then his tone and behavior change. It’s pretty obvious. He was in a position to see the flyover and that’s exactly what I believe he saw.
    You know I also spoke with him and it was the exact same thing. I can tell these things now after speaking with so many witnesses. How many witnesses have you spoken with “fly under”? Hmmmm
    But its irrelevant to the north side flight path. He is just another spin job for people or entities like “fly under”.

  20. All I have to say is what has “Brian Good” done for the movement? What does he do? What about “fly under”?
    What has CIT done and what do we do?
    Take a moment and think about it.
    Anyone who does nothing but stir up shit and attack people and contributes nothing should be suspect.
    That’s all I have to say.

  21. Yes, Aldo, all you have to say is an attack on the messenger. You won’t answer the questions. Why won’t you go out to DC and make a serious attempt to find flyover witnesses at Graveley Point and the Marina and on the highway and in the parks? Why won’t you track down Deb Anlauf? Why won’t you present a plausible scenario for how the lightpoles got planted?
    You reveal how your mind works, and the confirmation bias is obvious. You don’t like me, so you think any bad claims made bad about me, no matter how poorly evidenced, must be true. And you think anybody who dislikes me, like Kevin Barrett, must be a good guy.
    What has CIT done? For one thing, its character assassination of cooperating witnesses such as Father McGraw and Lloyde England, and its unethical behavior, have badly stained the integrity of the movement. It’s made a fool of prominent movement personages such as Scott, Griffin, Gage, Ventura, and Deets. It’s wasted an enormous amount of energy of talented researchers who could have spent their time on more productive things. Fortunately, its Operation Accountability program, which had almost as much potential for generating ugly headlines as Barrett’s War on War and Where They Live programs, has flopped.
    What have I done? I’ve worked very diligently behind the scenes as a researcher, editor, writer, a producer of charts and graphics, a videographer, a video editor, a pamphleteer, a tabler, a gadfly, a witness, a debater, a printer, a poster-hanger. I’ve done a lot of organizing of materials and data and keeping track of finances and mailing lists for 9/11 organizations. I’ve also done a pretty good job of keeping people like Ranke and Rodriguez out of the Bay Area, and I don’t think Kevin Barrett will be coming back here in a big hurry.

    1. Just because you repeat something endlessly doesn’t make it any more true. You’ve said many times that CIT has engaged in “character assassination” of Lloyde England. I plan to stop acknowledging this false charge, but in this comment I’ll try once again to be clear.
      Mr. England may be a nice, harmless gentleman, but his account of what happened at the Pentagon is completely unbelievable. I don’t believe he is telling the truth whatever his motives might be.
      His account is very important to the official story because it (if true) supports the south of Citgo (official) flight path. Either England’s account is not true, or all the witnesses in National Security Alert are wrong.
      Oh, I forgot; he invited Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis into his home. That should have bought him some good publicity, no?
      P.S. Full marks for calling Mr. Marquis “Aldo” this time.

  22. “Brian Good” hasn’t kept CIT out of the bay haha. We haven’t any need to go to the bay.
    But I tell you what, “Brian”. I’ll be going up to the bay area real soon. Why don’t I bring a camera and we sit down and dispell any notion that you are an agent provocateur/disinformationist by going over your background in detail. Then we can discuss the pentagon and i can show you where you are wrong… On camera. How does that sound?
    Maybe while there I can find Victoria Ashley and Jim hoffman too. Maybe some others like cosmos and then we can discuss this all in person and on camera.
    Maybe we can finally sit down and get this all hashed out.
    Isn’t it interesting that the majority of the attacks and subterfuge is coming out of the bay area?

    1. No Aldo, I’ve got better things to do than gossip about myself with the likes of you. But if I ever find that you’re putting on a program up here you can be sure I’ll be there to call you out for the damage you do to the integrity of the truth movement. And I’ll keep an eye out for you at conferences too. Be sure to wear your tinfoil propellor-hat so I can recognize you.

      1. Of course. How did we know you’d dodge that?
        Because you are not who you say you are. Busted.
        Wait a minute, if we are putting on a program up here that means you were talking out of your you know what when you said you can and have kept us out of the bay.
        I think they need to re-evaluate who they put in the field to go after us. You are highly ineffective.
        If we ever do have a conference up there I won’t need a tin foil hat for you to identify me. I’ll be the guy rushing off the stage with a camera in my hand forcing outside of our conference once you start disrupting it. You ever had a camera in your face “Brian”? You ever debated someoneone who knew what they were talking about on camera?
        Tell you what “Brian”. Why don’t I come up there and we exchange info. That way you know all about me and I know all about you. I can even sign an agreement that I will not divulge your personal details. I just want some info I can verify that you are who you say you are. That’s what us citizen investigators do ya know? Verify, confirm and corroborate. If you have nothing to hide, that shouldn’t be a problem. Should it?
        I am sure if that doesn’t work for you- which I’m sure it won’t. We can just stick to a videotaped debate or discussion on our findings and your disinformation. This would be a perfect opportunity to prove us wrong on camera and corner us on the claims you’ve made about us.
        What do ya say? Well I know what you’ll say. But say it anyway for everyone reading.

  23. Victoria Ashley: hardest working disinfo shill in the biz, pretending to be a truther. Here is what she said just today at truthaction:
    I’ve made an effort to get a “a Boeing hit the Pentagon but never should have” speaker in to the conference to offset the “no Boeing” line-up so far — even suggested we would pay for the flight — but aside from some support by fellow attendees, I have so far been met with silence from the organizers (have emailed 3 different people, one yesterday, 2 more than a day ago).
    Many of the Canadian activists and speakers have been supporters of “no Boeing” for years now, so I think the only way to have avoided this would have been to completely keep the Pentagon topic off the agenda, which is what I thought was the original plan.
    Apparently it never was, if what Snowcrash dug up is true.
    As clear as it is that WTC7 is a simple smoking gun, and a litmus test regarding whether people are going to believe their eyes or what they are told… it’s also clear from listening to today’s propaganda bile on NPR’s “On Point” that as compelling as the controlled demolition evidence is, there still exists a lot of SPIN that can be used to obfuscate the issue when the propaganda meisters are summoned.
    If, however, a video were one day to be leaked, showing a Pentagon flyover, there could not be any spin. It would prove a staged deception more than ANYTHING else. No spin about how Column 79 failed and dragged the rest of the building down.
    Shame on you Victoria. Your agenda is transparent.

  24. Aldo says:
    “Isn’t it interesting that the majority of the attacks and subterfuge is coming out of the bay area?”
    Exactly man.
    It’s a small clique who has started this crap and an even smaller clique who have manouevred themselves into the position of gatekeepers and “thought control police”. If you actually go to the YT video at the site the “thumbs up” tell the real story.
    What bugs the crap out of me is that the likes of Brian Good and Chris Sarns have been spamming forums about how we should concentrate on our “strongest evidence”, trying to spin the myth that support of the NOC witnesses would somehow undermine the Manhattan op evidence. YET, Brian Good aka “truebeleaguer” at TruthAction and his bumchums have been testing the ground and overtly undermining the controlled demolition evidence. Wth?
    I’d REALLY like to see Aldo in a face to face debate with ANY of these people.
    @El Señor Once
    Is that sarcasm or are you actually admitting Good was harrassing Carol Brouillet, BUT you still commend him??
    Ha! How’s it going mate? It’s STILL like Groundhog Day talking to these people. Evidence, interviews, proof, quotes, physics, aerodynamics vs ummmm….

    1. Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,
      Clearly a few years ago, Mr. Good was harassing Mrs. Brouillet as the principle of the 9/11 community group with an argumentative & confrontational disposition in person and attacking/biting emails in the ether of the internet. Clearly, he has exerted his energy in counterproductive attacks against 9/11 Truth (and attempts to get at the truth) all over the internet, with this blog being no exception. Mr. Good has attacked CIT with the strongest evidence? argument… which he has also used against video fakery and (nuclear/cold-fusion powered) DEW [my pet 9/11 projects today where I haven’t been convinced otherwise], because the powers-that-be prefer these topics off-the-table of any serious public consideration.
      Still, it doesn’t mean Mr. Good can’t do something good once in awhile.
      You take issue with me commending Mr. Good for his actions on Screw Loose Change [SLC]. If you’ve ever had run-in’s with GuitarBill or SLC, you’d see that getting SLC to muzzle itself is great! [I battled GuitarBill on AlterNet. GuitarBill through SLC libeled me repeatedly for half of 2010, and I’ve never made a single posting there under any name.]
      Here’s my wild-ass speculation on the matter: legend, as in CIA/NSA or other alphabet agency legend to give legitimacy to a false backstory. SLC gives Mr. Good his legend as a 9/11 truther.
      You see, real 9/11 truthers don’t last long on SLC. They don’t get banned. They get tired of the run-around and ad hominem by the tag-teaming disinformation agents. If the truthers are smart, they quickly realize that their time is better spent elsewhere.
      Ah, but conflict (in a story or discussion) peaks interest. Without conflict and someone posting an opposing point of view (e.g., 9/11 truth versus 9/11 coincidence), the me-too-isms and congratulatory backslappings get old and peter out the number of comments.
      SLC has the appearance of a NSA Q-group training ground for 9/11 disinformation. Because most 9/11 truthers know better than to walk into an ambush [can be forgiven] and to stay there to absorb the repeated abuse, SLC can’t fulfill its mission. So it hires Mr. Good to be their whipping boy, their designated 9/11 truther. Only their whipping boy has been whipping their asses. Time to reset.
      Man, you should (not) see the abuse Mr. Good goes through, or rather went through while the comments were active. SLC not only originated the sexual harassment ad hominem against Mr. Good, but they dig it up and rub Mr. Good’s nose in it regularly. Combine an old Mr. Good alias [“my pet goal” or something like that] and the hyped sexual harassment charge, and you’ll get what SLC participants affectionately call Mr. Good: “goat f***er” and other variants.
      Mr. Good was like a bot without tire for 9/11 truth, battling the bots from the government, coming back to life again and again, traversing over the same discussion territory again and again, suffering the same insults. Sometimes he made good arguments. For all participants, it was practice in learning how to fight dirty online. For Mr. Good, it is building a legend and street cred about 9/11 truth.

      1. Mr. Once, my street cred was built long before I started posting at SLC. I started there in 2009 when they posted an evidence-free attack on me called “Brian Good’s Greatest Hits”.

    2. Support of the NOC witnesses doesn’t hurt the NYC evidence one bit. (Though any rational support of the NOC witnesses whould acknowledge the possibility that some Pentagon patriots decided to prank a couple of hipsters from California by telling them what they wanted to hear.)
      It’s the unjustified, evidence-free, and irrational conclusions that some people draw from the statements of the NOC witnesses that damage the public’s perception of the truth movement’s grasp on its marbles. Everything at the Pentagon is fake to you, even when you can’t plausibly explain how it was faked–like the lightpoles. But the ASCE report, since you think it disagrees with an NoC impact, is somehow gospel? They didn’t even let the ASCE guys on the site until it was all cleaned up.

      1. Now “Brian Good” is attempting to make the readers think that 15 eyewitnesses, at different and opposing vantage points, some with a view of the Citgo property or on the property itself, who all don’t know each other other than the ANC guys and Lagasse and Brooks, independently decided to prank Craig and I (and well Dick Eastman first right?), with the same exact detail about the plane being on on the north-side path?
        So when Lagasse went on and on in that email from dick Eastman from 2003 about details of that very memorable day in order to convince Eastman that a plane hit the pentagon, he added that detail about being on the “starboard side” of the plane while refueling at the Citgo in order to “prank” Eastman???
        Now talk about “throwing everything at the wall and see what sticks”.
        The conclusions are justified. A north side of the Citgo plane cannot hit the light poles, show up low and level as seen in the grainy and edited gate cam frames, match the problematic and anomalous FDR and your partner Legge’s bs agenda, turn the generator with it’s right engine and wing which of course throws Frank Probst under the bus who as you know was interviewed by the ASCE lol.
        In fact it’s funny to see you say that “some Pentagon patriots” pranked us on the north side flight path while in the very next paragraph implying the north side flight path not only happened but can still mean the plane hit from the path.
        And man you sounded like Russell Pickering there for a minute haha “everything at the Pentagon is faked to you”. No actually just the lying witnesses, light poles, the cab scene and the damage caused to the Pentagon. The deaths and injuries from the people inside… those were real. The emergency response…that was real. The fear and trauma felt by people like April Gallop is real. The deaths of innocent men, women, and children in Afghanistan and Iraq and the possibility of more in different countries based on this lie is very real.
        And yes “Brian Good”, we do have a plausible explanation for the planting and staging of the light poles…
        Of course you’ve known this. Your job is to feign incredulity on every point no matter what.

      2. Aldo said: “Now “Brian Good” is attempting to make the readers think that 15 eyewitnesses, at different and opposing vantage points,”
        How many witnesses do you have in NSA? It’s not 15. Terry Morin is a clear Soc Witness, Roosevelt Roberts is a SoC witness, Ed Paik couldn’t see the Citgo and his account has been ambiguous and subject to change. You don’t care though.
        With respect to Lagasse, there’s this:
        Where he did say he literally saw the poles hit.
        He also said this to Dick Eastman:
        “Dear Sir rest assured it was a Boeing 757 that flew into the building that day, I was on duty as a pentagon police sgt. I was refueling my vehicle at the barraks k gas station that day adjacent to the aircrafts flight path. It was close enough that i could see the windows had the shades pulled down,
        it struck several light poles next to rt 27 and struck a trailer used to store construction equipment for the renovation of the pentagon that was to the right of the fueselage impact point. The fact that you are insinuating that this was staged and a fraud is unbelievable. You ask were the debris is…well it was in the building..I saw it everywhere. I swear to god you people piss me off to no end. I invite you and you come down and I will walk you through it step by step. I have more than a few hours in general
        aviation aircraft and can identify commercial airliners. Have you ever seen photos of other aircraft accident photos…there usually isnt huge amounts of debris left…how much did you see from the WTC?…are those fake aircraft flying into the building. I know that this will make no diffrence
        to you because to even have a websight like this you are obviously a diffrent sort of thinker.”

        He also mailed this to Eastman:
        “Mr. Eastman The barracks k gas station is were the press set up after the attack, approx 500-600m west-south west of the pentagon. The aircraft struck the poles in question, they were not blown down, the aircraft passed almost directly over the naval annex splitting the distance between the ANC
        and Columbia pike. and was approx 100-150ft agl when it passed over the annex and continued on a shallow-fast decent and literally hit the building were it met the ground. There was no steep bank, but a shallow bank with a heavy uncoordinated left rudder turn causing a severe yaw into the building
        with the starboard side of the cockpit actually hitting at about the same time the wing was involved with the trailer, Because of the Doppler effect no one could have heard the plane if they were on rt 27 until it was already in the building, identifying its position and trajectory from that angle would have been difficult if not impossible…it was not over Arlington National Cemetery but closer to Columbia pike itself, there is a small grove of trees that would have shielded anyone on 27 from seeing the aircraft until it was literally on top of them…again not much time to make the assessment. I identified it as American Airlines almost as soon as I saw it and radioed that it had struck the building. I was on the Starboard side
        of the aircraft. There was very little wake turbulence that I can recall, which was surprising to me. The aircraft DID NOT have its landing gear or flaps extended. whoever said the landing gear comes out when its that low forgets the aircraft was exceeding the speed that would allow gear to be extended. How and where the trailer was struck I cant speak of because rt 27 blocked my view slightly to the right because it is elevated. I did however see it in person BEFORE any EMS/Fire arrived and it was fully engulfed in
        flame 30-40 seconds after impact literally torn in half. you can see in a few AP photos a tower workers 300zx on the left side of the impact point that was struck adjacent to the fire truck that was hit. 3 fireman were there at the tower as well as two persons in the tower that watched this entire process and are luck to be alive. There was almost no debris to the right/south of the impact point but I found a compressor blade and carbon fiber pieces over 3/4 of a mile away to the north on 27 when we were collecting evidence. The biggest piece of debris I saw was one of the engines smashed…but intact in the building. I saw the building from the inside and outside..before during and after the collapse and rest assured that it was indeed an American airlines 757 that struck the Pentagon that morning. no photos clearly show the size of the original breech…it was at least 10-12 feet high and 20-30 feet wide not than size persons who weren’t there claim. I don’t know what else I can say to convince you. I hope your search for the truth will end with this e-mail as I have nothing to gain by lying or distorting facts.. I live with what I saw everyday of my life, It has taken a long time to deal with the images, screams and anger I felt that day, to be honest your website angered me to the point I wanted to just curse and rant and rave but I decided this would be much more helpful in quelling misconceptions”

        Yes, Lagasse saw the light poles hit, he saw the plane hit the building and he saw a smashed engine. You cherry pick the part where Lagasse swears he was on the starboard side and where he stated in your interview that he saw the plane fly NoC. That’s the only part you want to hear. Fact is Lagasse was wrong about his positioning of the plane and so were Brooks and the rest of your witnesses.
        All the other witness, you label ‘agents’, so that you don’t have to consider their testimony. These include Father McGraw, Joel Sucherman, Mike Walter, (In fact, you call them the ‘USA today parade’), Lloyd England, Madeleine Zakhem, and everybody else who dares tell you something other than what you want to hear. Witness testimony is inherently unreliable, and so is your research methodology. Why didn’t you ask Lagasse about the plane debris he found? Not information to your liking?
        Why haven’t you found a single piece of positive evidence confirming physical evidence fakery? Why do you rely on falsification-speculation only? (This isn’t possible, therefore whatever I think happened, happened)
        This is SnowCrash, by the way. FYI. You all have accounts at 911oz, open a thread and we will see how far your argumentation takes you.

  25. Boy do you pile on the assumptions, Aldo. The guys didn’t know each other? How do you know? Didn’t they all work at the same place? How did they find out you were looking for witnesses?
    And yes, the unanimity of their perceptions is another sign of a prank. Real data points tend to scatter, they don’t all line up in a row.
    Didn’t Sgt. Lagasse write to Eastman “I swear to god you people piss me off to no end”? He is there revealing a very substantial motivation to prank Eastman. He would be offended by the very suggestion that the USA would attack the Pentagon, and he wanted to make fools of the assholes who could think such a thing. And he succeeded magnificently, making fools of people like Griffin, Ventura, Gage, Deets, and Scott.
    For you to cite evidence that you claim was faked as proof of anything is the central absurdity of the entire Pentagon research enterprise. It’s a waste of time to talk with people who lack the reasoning skills to distinguish a) recognizing an associated condition (skepticism of the NoC witnesses) and a criticism of your irrational epistemology (everything’s fake except when you want to believe it) from b) two conflicting conclusions.
    Your belief that six pieces of broken light poles could be sitting the cloverleaf through two rush hours and nobody notices them is absurd, and is sustainable only if you indulge the belief that ordinary people are really, really dumb.
    Sergeant Mark Williams told USA Today that he saw the bodies of passengers still strapped in their seats. If you’re not willing to track down Sergeant Williams and call him a liar to his face, you should just do us all a favor and drop the whole thing.

    1. Oh come on “brian”. I am seriously not entertaining this idiocy. Ed paik doesn’t know morin and Terry morin and paik dont know the ANC guys and none of those guys know the officers. But thats the way you work though huh? You’d rather spread rumors about these people rather than call them and confirm these serious accusations you’re making right?
      As for your argument from incredulity about the light poles absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
      You are trying to get people to use their post 9/11 conspiratorial mindset. People were in pre-9/11 attack mode. In fact, most were caught up in the attacks in New York. Many were on the phone or listening to the radio. Do you drive down the highway looking for light poles on the ground? Most were looking at the road they were driving on. And not to mention you can’t see them from the highway. If they saw it maybe they assumed it was a part of a car accident. And if they did happen to put it together later who are they going to tell and why would hey even risk it? I know first hand that witnesses get scared and clam up, well that’s because I am the real thing and have actually spoke with witnesses who clam up you are not because you have never spoke with a witness before let alone the ones you’ve made accusations about.
      What Mark Williams claims to have seen INSIDE the pentagon AFTER the staged event on the OUTSIDE is really irrelevant.
      It could be anything from USA TODAY inserted propaganda, to mistaking people sitting in office chairs to the possibility of planted cadavers sitting there in a row of airline seats in the newly renovated and hardly occupied wedge waiting to be blown up.
      Did Mark Williams see the plane approach the pentagon on the outside of the pentagon? Did he see it on the south side of the Citgo? No? Then his account does not supersede the north side and flyover/away evidence.
      But by all means, try and locate Mark Williams for your campaign of appealing to people to get them to believe that he really saw people in airline seats- an event that happened after a confirmed and corroborated deception took place proving the plane didnt even hit. It’s a pretty common name though not sure you will have luck with it. But wait that’s not what you do. You’d think that if it proves us wrong you or Jeff Shill would call him. Instead you try and construct a scenario that attempts to make people think it is our responsibility to contact him or even relevant to our findings.

  26. Apparently the fake truthers have had some success today, according to “Victoria Ashley” (if that’s even her real name). Here is what she said at truthaction:
    “The situation has changed again. Apparently they had to wait for a meeting to happen.”
    and at 911blogger:
    “The situation has changed. I’m not sure what it will end up being myself, but it won’t be what it was appearing to be, which means that some of our efforts made a difference.”
    What say you, WordPress user “TorontoHearings?” CIT and Pilots were not welcome to speak of the flight path because it’s “too contentious,” but apparently the folks at the Hearings are now bending over backwards to accommodate the concerns of “Victoria Ashley” and her contention that the plane did hit, even though that contention is rejected by probably 95-99% of the movement, as can be seen here: http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=10011
    What’s behind this? Money? (“Victoria” openly said she’d pay for the airfare of the pro-crash speaker.) Threats?

  27. I mean seriously, it wasn’t good enough for you that CIT and Pilots weren’t speaking, Victoria (I know you’re lurking here)? You actually had to express concern and alarm that a woman WHO WAS INSIDE THE CRASH ZONE AT THE PENTAGON was going to be heard????
    Who the bloody effing hell do you think you are?
    (Wait, don’t answer that, I think I know.)

  28. Ooo, he’s mad. I hear Kevin Parrot is mad too. Maybe you and he and Adam Ruff and Rob could do a mad hour on the radio. I think he’s having a hard time scaring up guests.

  29. Aldo 2:08, why are you so interested in investigating me and so little interested in investigating Deb Anlauf, the residents and employees of the marina, and the habituees of the planespotters’ park?
    You remind me a lot of Rodriguez and Barrett that way. I wouldn’t trust you to honor any agreement you might sign with me. Your behavior toward Father McGraw and Lloyde England suggest that your word is worthless.
    Craig has fled from debate with me 5 times. I see no reason to bother with a round 6.

  30. Craig never fled. All you are doing is allowing us to collect more quotes of you saying the same things over and over.
    Ok you are declining “Brian Good”? I just want it on record.

  31. Don’t waste energy on Brian Good guys. Seriously he rotates the same arguments over and over, nobody ever agrees with him and everyone disagrees with him – but he will tirelessly spam his bullshit all over this blog.
    Loving your work here in this blog Craig, you can hold your head up high. As for Brian Good, if he isn’t paid to peddle his bullshit then he really should send an invoice in – and he should hang his head in shame.

  32. So the question is, did Sgt. Lagasse ‘hallucinate’ when he saw the plane debris inside the building?
    And another thing: just find me one witness who saw light poles being planted. When did they install the broken foundations for those light poles into the ground? Did a group of 50 people push the generator towards the Pentagon, cutting an engine shaped whole and a gouge from a flap track right after the ‘bombs’ went off? Who saw this happen? Time to go canvassing again. Will you include the first responders this time, documenting their experiences inside the Pentagon? There are two people who claim seeing charred passengers still strapped in their seats. Will you contact them?
    Dewitt Roseborough at no time said he saw a plane fly over the building. At no time. It would have been an unmistakable sight.
    – SC

    1. Fly under,
      Planted debris could have been in there before the explosion. Remember the section that was “hit” was under “renovation” and much of he area was unoccupied. We’ve covered this over and over. Do you understand this now?
      Again absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I don’t need to find witnesses who saw light poles being planted as i have proof that they WERE planted. Again, it was likely done in the middle of the night using vans or trucks under the guise of securing the area for the presidents arrival scheduled sept 11 afternoon. The foundations were likely busted when they took down the original light poles. Not hard to do. Light pole removal accomplished over weeks or months would go unnoticed as it would appear to be normal highway work. Nothing that would be memorable.
      As for the trailer, that is covered here:
      I already covered the alleged charred bodies in airline seats above. Again what people found after the plane flew on the north side and away from the pentagon is irrelevant, if anything it is only more evidence supporting an inside job.

      1. Aldo said: “As for the trailer, that is covered here:”
        Yeah Aldo, I know that thread, you quote me in it, debunking you. I’m sorry if you missed my earlier announcement that I was ‘Fly Under’,because I didn’t know if Craig McKee would allow my comments here given our acrimonious history…. So I’ll use ‘SnowCrash’ from now so that you won’t mistake me for somebody else again.
        Everything else you said about physical evidence fakery is speculation. Rather you should turn it around: the physical damage wasn’t faked and the witnesses from your biased selection were mistaken, as witnesses usually are about these types of things. If you disagree, cite me a credible scientific paper claiming witness testimony is accurate under these circumstances, or even accurate at all.
        This is where you went haywire: the only thing you had access to were witnesses, so you decided you were going to select witnesses which supported the theory you had already invented before you went to Arlington, and then you concoct the weirdest excuses to discard all counterevidence. You have no direct evidence for physical evidence fakery, you only have your suspicions and conjecture. Physical evidence is hard evidence, witness testimony isn’t. You are confusing verification and falsification: even if you had proven the official account false, you still wouldn’t know what happened instead unless you had direct evidence. As many have shown, neither Roosevelt Roberts, nor Erik Dihle, nor Maria de la Cerda, nor Dewitt Roseborough are what you say they are. Quite the opposite, in fact. There’s reams of evidence falsifying flyover and verifying impact.
        Just exclaiming the plane passengers found in the Pentagon were ‘fake’ will not do. You must include that evidence, if you don’t want to fool yourself. But it’s too late now, isn’t it?

      2. Those dead people in plane seats weren’t fake Aldo. Look at what all this got you to say. Don’t you ever stop and think what the hell you’re doing? This is beyond bedlam. Why haven’t you asked Lagasse about the physical evidence of a plane inside the Pentagon? He would have gladly told you all about it. Except, that’s not what you wanted from Lagasse, is it?

  33. OK- I think we’ve all read/heard enough circular, blathering drivel from “Brian Good”…
    Let’s review here, shall we?:
    ———————————————-BEGIN QUOTE
    “Let him rot here..
    Honestly guys, I’ve watched this Good character’s rants and distorted, lazy posts and had been looking for an ‘entrance’.
    But how do you argue with someone whose stance is..
    1) The plane could physically have flown NOC and ‘impacted’ and that the damage was indeed staged.
    2) That CIT ‘discarded SOC witnesses’ and actually presents these alleged witnesses as PROOF of the ‘SOC flightpath’ AND that the damage was indeed caused by the plane!
    He talks of ‘discarding’ while blatantly doing the very same with Roosevelt Roberts and God knows who else to suit HIS theory.
    3) That it MUST be accepted that the NOC witnesses may all have been lying.
    So there you have it. His ‘bulletproof’ theory ‘ball’ neatly tied in a bundle, defended by insults, repeated lies JREFers would be proud of, links to duhbunker sites and blatant disinfo, totally ignoring all points and FACTS pointed out to him.
    An endless circle that gives him the attention he craves in his impotent little hate-driven world.
    Listen, dickhead, CIT and P4T are within grasping distance of actually laying out and PROVING how one of the actual ops were carried out that morning.
    We all know they are close because MANY strange bedfellows have been coming ‘out of the closet’ in recent times.
    Certain so-called ‘truthers’ have gone blatantly against the way of honest debate and logical reasoning and are relying on duhbunker tactics and pure disinfo to attack these guys.
    Actively in contact with eachother, swapping ideas and links.
    Fucking disgusting.
    Not only are you insulting posters but anybody reading your drivel.
    I just hope (and am sure) readers of this idiot’s threads realize this.
    Ignore this fool.
    Please Mrbojangles, go on. Love reading your posts man :)”– onesliceshort, 18 Apr 2010, 12:48 AM (Sydney-ish time zone)
    ——————————————————-END QUOTE
    Parallels Between a PitTroll and Pseudoskeptic “Debunkers” post #50 @ 911oz:
    OK- here it is roughly 18 months after “onesliceshort” wrote those ‘harsh’ [but true IMHO] words: a healthy woman could have borne TWO children since that time! Has “Brian Good” learned anything in that time frame? Has “BG”/”truebeleaguer”/”snug.bug” changed his tactics or “logic” since that time?
    Everything that one needs to know about “Brian Good” is contained and/or linked on that thread- I should know because I wrote it… Peruse the Aussie “Fighting Pit” at your leisure, but please consider- I’m sharing this information with you all to hopefully prevent Mr. McKee’s blog from turning into a ‘sub-Oz fighting slop-hole.’
    Don’t claim that you haven’t been properly warned though…

  34. Mr Boz, I prefer to focus on facts rather than theories. You prefer to discard facts to promote theories.
    Your belief that the three facts you cited contradict each other is only because they are not all part of the same theory.
    Yes, CIT discards SOC witnesses such as Morin and Elgas. That’s a fact.
    Yes, a NoC flight into the Pentagon is possible, or at least has not to my knowledge been shown to be impossible. (Only by imposing the unreasonable demand that the plane fit the 5 frames can the claim be made that it’s not possible.) The perpendicular approach much better fits the hole in the Pentagon wall than does the 45 degree angle approach.
    Yes, it’s possible that the NoC witnesses are not telling the truth. No reasonable person can deny that it’s possible and that they might be highly motivated to prank a couple of pesky assholes from California.

  35. Ah ok so now it appears since “Brian Good” has been exposed he tagged in snowcrash aka “michiel de boer”. This is another online entity that has followed same patterns of “Brian good”, another suspected infiltrator. This person or online entity has relentlessly following us wherever discussion on our evidence turns up and spearheading his/her/its disinformation attacks. In a recent post at truthaction he/she/it made a point to say he/she/it isn’t an anonymous person and proceeds to give the name “michiel de boer”. But the fact is this person is an anonymous person. There is no picture or video of this person. There is no verifiable background or history on this person. This person who is supposed to be from the netherlands appears to have mastered the English language and even American english phrases and sayings. Also “michiel de boer” is a common name in the Netherlands where this person claims to be from, just type it in Facebook and see for yourself. Its like going online and saying your name is mark roberts and you live in los angeles california and thats good enough. It’s almost a brilliant idea to use an uncommon sounding common name and identity from another country. It makes it much harder to trace and or confront them. Plus it gives the impression this is a genuine person from another country who is concerned about terrible ol’ CIT. I could be wrong sure, but once you study this online personality and their constant lies, attacks, ducking and dodging and then repeating of the same process I think if you were in my position you would come to the same conclusion.
    As you can tell from his/her/its posts here they are riddled with same questions cloaked in an incredulous tone that have been answered and flat out disinformation attempts like calling Terry Morin and Roosevelt Roberts south of the Citgo witnesses.
    Like many of the other suspected infiltrators, he/she/it refused or more specifically reneged on a live debate with Craig…
    So yeah I am not getting into the back and forth snowcrass wants so he/she/it can make it appear there is something to debate and that things are unresolved. You guys reading can check the 911oz threads linked here, it’s all the same disinformation snowcrass is spewing here and the multiple responses from me, craig, other cit research team members, and supporters setting the record straight. Or if you have any doubts or questions send an email to cit@citizeninvestigationteam.com or pilotsfor911truth.org/forum and we’ll help you out.
    He’s been called out before for a debate and even promo

  36. Hey Snowcrash,
    How can you link to Adam Larson on ANYTHING when his scrawny ass has been exposed in this thread (not literally..eww):
    Just so you know, I got the jist of SnowCrash’s “debate style” at 911Oz when in the first two posts he claimed that Morin indeed saw the aircraft over the Navy Annex. The directional damage is impossible to achieve from this trajectory. North of Columbia Pike.
    He ran away. No room for bullshit. He doesn’t like hard facts, physics, aerodynamics. Now he’s tied his colours to Frankie Legge’s multiple orgasm..sorry “peer reviewed paper”
    And Aldo is “stretching”?? Haha!
    He also arrogantly stated that Penny Elgas “saw a lightpole being struck” and that a “piece of airplane debris landed in her car”. Totally false.
    He hung on to (and still does?) the apron strings of Jeffy Hill who TRIED to find just ONE “SOC witness” or “lightpole witness”. And failed. (He actually uncovered THREE more NOC witnesses!)
    Hill phoned Lloyd and the same story was churned out including that he WASN’T on the bridge!
    I asked Snowcrash how he could be considered “SOC” when he denied being on the bridge. Same thing for Hill and JimD. They ran away.
    He sits up at TruthAction with his bud JimD (who needs to explain just why he didn’t defend his boss Alex Jones when SnowCrash started a thread ridiculing him- JimD is a mod there!) and the rest of the Ivory Tower mob dissing not only NOC but Controlled Demolition. The “strongest evidence”.
    But hey, what else to expect from somebody defending the OCT from “hijackers” to government controlled data that’s been ripped to shreds at P4911T. One who attacks solid evidence NO MATTER WHAT HIS OPINION ON THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION THAT THIS EVIDENCE POINTS TO.
    Par for the course I suppose
    He’s blathering on about “debris” when NONE of it has been identified. Ask Aidan Monaghan.
    You see, I can link to any of my claims on disinfo spouted by you guys. You on the other hand have been reduced to typos, minor details that can be twisted and blanket ignoring every witness that saw anything but the official spin.
    You live in Canada man. You busy that day?
    MrBoz! Keep ‘er lit!
    “Support of the NOC witnesses doesn’t hurt the NYC evidence one bit. (Though any rational support of the NOC witnesses whould acknowledge the possibility that some Pentagon patriots decided to prank a couple of hipsters from California by telling them what they wanted to hear.)
    Brian Good”
    God loves a trier haha.

  37. @Brian “Watson” Good
    “Mr Boz, I prefer to focus on facts rather than theories. You prefer to discard facts to promote theories.
    Your belief that the three facts you cited contradict each other is only because they are not all part of the same theory.
    Yes, CIT discards SOC witnesses such as Morin and Elgas. That’s a fact.”
    No, here are the facts Good:
    “Yes, a NoC flight into the Pentagon is possible, or at least has not to my knowledge been shown to be impossible. (Only by imposing the unreasonable demand that the plane fit the 5 frames can the claim be made that it’s not possible.) The perpendicular approach much better fits the hole in the Pentagon wall than does the 45 degree angle approach.”
    You prefer to focus on “facts”??
    Here check these facts out:
    Now the illogical and circular logic enters the fray with his claim that the aircraft flew NOC AND “impacted”. Even if this ridiculous claim is made, he acknowledges the staging of the lightpoles, generator and the “exit hole”. He acknowledges that the alleged passenger DNA that was “found” mostly around the “exit hole” area at C Ring was physically tampered with:
    Doesn’t matter, just get the damn plane into the building. It flew down like a kite using Star Trek technology and performed hari-origami on itself, both fully “penetrating” and disassembling itself simultaneously.
    Brian “Watson” Good has also claimed that there were simultaneous explosions within the building AS the plane “entered”.
    Chris Sarns claims (as does Jim Hoffman) that the aircraft was blown up JUST before entry. The latter claiming the use of a SAM….problem is that there is no visible crater on the exterior and the little problem of the people within metres of this alleged perfectly timed explosion. And they survived.
    The “5 frames” AREN’T part and parcel of the Pentagon OCT btw?
    “Yes, it’s possible that the NoC witnesses are not telling the truth. No reasonable person can deny that it’s possible and that they might be highly motivated to prank a couple of pesky assholes from California.”
    And the last statement is why this idiot should be ignored.
    Notice the difference in posts? Links, proof, facts, physics and aerodynamics vs a person with obvious psychological problems and/or an agenda.
    It’s bizarre to see so many completely differing constantly chopped and changed theories and “opinions” from Ashley, Legge, Good, Sarns, Bursill and Jeff Hill’s freak show all spouting bile from the OCT (to the letter) to the Star Trek “NOC impact” (and the baggage it trails with it), yet they all AGREE! As John Bursill said to Chris Sarns at 911Blogger “you’re all on the same page”
    As long as it’s CIT/P4911T bashing and squeeeezing the round plane into the square hole at this speed:
    Who the hell are the “lizardmen/space beam” gang in reality?

  38. I’ve noticed that Aldo didn’t address my arguments, but instead resorts to ad hominem and snitchjacketing, just as he does with every Pentagon witness whose account doesn’t agree with his NoC/flyover theory.
    onesliceshort: come over to the 911oz forum and open a thread. We’ll discuss anything you want to discuss and you can post a link from here to there. Yes, I have confidence in Adam Larson and I don’t think you’ve exposed him at all.
    Jeff uncovered plenty of witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon, which as you know is mutually exclusive with either ‘NoC’ and flyover. (In my rational universe, anyway, not yours, because you consider physical evidence fakery on the scale proposed feasible and therefore in your irrational universe, anything is possible)
    So yes, Jeff did a good job.
    Penny Elgas found a piece of the plane in her car and brought it to a museum. So also describes in excruciating detail how she saw the plane hit the Pentagon. You can’t use her to support either NoC or flyover in any way.
    Yes, I ridicule AJ, and so would you, since AJ believes a plane hit the Pentagon, doesn’t he? We just ridicule him for different reasons.
    I live in Canada? I don’t think so. Fishing for information? Confused with Jeff? I don’t quite get where you get your information from. Since it’s unreliable, it must be from CIT.
    Plenty of ‘debris’ has been identified as belonging to a 757, to American Airlines, and to AA 77 specifically. This includes an engine disc from a RB211-535E4B triple-shaft turbofan, a piece of American Airlines emergency lighting, various plane fragments that match an AA 757, DNA evidence from AA 77’s passengers and the FDR.
    As for the CIT thread about “variable SoC myths”, yes, thank you proving the NoC path impossible by citing so many excellent sources that confirm the SoC path.
    Again, come to 911oz, open a thread and let’s discuss it. You can link back here.
    – SC.

  39. Reading Sgt. Legasse’s account, which I haven’t seen before, the most telling part of it is where he says
    “How and where the trailer was struck I cant speak of because rt 27 blocked my view slightly to the right because it is elevated.”
    Looking at the Pentagon from the gas station, he has clear view of most of the Pentagon and a clear view of the roof of the building. If the plane was obstructed in any way by the road then the plane hit the building. For the plane to go over the building it would have to remain at all times about the skyline of the building, sillouetted against the sky. If the plane even goes in front of the facade from his perspective and certainly if any part of the plane is obstructed by the raised highway then the plane cannot go over the building. This is confirmed by Mr. Turcios who said that he didn’t see the impact because it was obstructed. Terry Morrin confirms this also. He could see the roof line of the building but describes the plane disappearing gradually behind the trees. The plane cannot go below the roofline of the building and still get over the building. Looking at the video on CIT where they illustrate the idea of the plane approaching the building and then an explosion – the plane doesn’t go below the roof line of the building. It is not obstructed by anything.

  40. Well we know we aren’t going to get anywhere with this anonymous “Michiel de Boer” character. We know he/she/it refuses to reveal themselves or even put a voice and genuine sincerity behind their arguments. You saw the thread where Craig was trying to arrange for a live debate and he/she/it came up with excuses and then reneged. That’s what they do. They run then use emotionless posts online filled with absolute proven disinformation as a means to sow doubt and confusion.
    Ask yourself why he/she/it doesn’t speak to any of these witnesses we’ve interviewed. Namely Roosevelt Roberts. Roosevelt is clearly talking about the plane he saw. The only plane he could see… less than 10 seconds after the explosion… only taking him 7 steps to get to the edge of the EAST loading dock. He describes a silver commercial airliner with jet engines at less than 50-100ft “just above the light poles” flying around south parking lot. But this anonymous entity parses parts of his account and tries to confidently assert what RR is describing is the approach of “flight 77” and then the c-130. Perhaps they think people won’t actually listen to the interviews and hear that Roosevelt is fluidly talking about the same event he mentioned in the edited LOC interview. An explosion happening while he was in the booth and lights flickering and ceiling tiles falling then running to the edge of the dock and seeing a plane flying away.
    You have to ask yourself why these so called truthers won’t let the witnesses speak for themselves and let the chips fall where they may. Why won’t they let the witnesses speak for themselves on the flight path? If they stand by it after learning the implications and would even testify to it, why would these so called truthers fight so hard to convince the public and other high profile truthers that it is all a “hoax”, “fraud”, “lies”, “disinformation”, “prank”(lol @ that one)? While some even going so far to do this while working with anti-9/11 truth “debunkers”. Why? Because they are likely not 9/11 truthers. Ask yourself why they won’t touch the witnesses with a 10 ft pole. jeff shill barely touched on the gas station fight path with any of the witnesses he contacted and when Erik Larson did he walked right into a landmine because Ed Paik detailed the exact same path-north side. Now Erik Larson doesn’t even come near the subject.
    Instead anonymous online entities who have done NOTHING for 9/11 truth like “Michiel de Boer” here, take Terry Morin’s account, which is only compatible with a north side flight path and all the other witness on both sides of him and throws the problematic black box data south path heading under the bus and the aerodynamic limitations out the window and somehow twists it like a south of Citgo path. He depends on the readers naiveté and lack of knowledge about the fdr and the planes aerodynamic capabilities.
    Anyone (Jeff Hill) can call witnesses and GET a witness to say they saw the impact. Especially after they led them there and did so while encouraging/fostering incredulity and ridicule in the witness or alleged witness against CIT and the idea of a flyover first. A genuine researcher trying to refute our evidence would ask them which side of the gas station the plane flew on. A genuine researcher would ask them details about the impact and then corroborate these details and match it against the FDR, topography, obstacles, and aerodynamic capabilities of a 757.
    Btw, Penny Elgas is a north side of the Citgo witness I can assure you all of that.

    1. Roosevelt Roberts said the plane was over the lane one area of south parking, above the lightpoles. If the plane flew over the building it couldn’t be there.

      1. He also said he was at east loading dock so he can’t be referring to the lane 1 you are referring to, a. Wright. He also said the plane was traveling east toward DC and came from where he thought the first one hit so he cant be referring to the lane 1 you are referring to. He also said the plane was “flying around the parking lot” so it can’t be the approach on SoC path “over Lane 1”.
        And as for what they could see or couldn’t see regarding the impact, flyover, roofline, etc. The plane was in a descent and pulled up at the last minute over the highway. Lagasse flinched and jumped in his car to grab his radio. He admitted he couldn’t see what the plane did because of the fireball.
        The event happened fast for many of these people by the time the plane throttled it. Many had the you-know-what scared out of them when that plane came by. And if you were there and you saw that plane go by and head to the Pentagon you would automatically assume or know it was going to hit or did hit based on it approaching the pentagon in a descent and HUMONGOUS fireball and smoke plume. All it had to do was, as Robert Turcios put it, “head to the Pentagon” and then they “see the huge explosion, the huge fireball”.
        Hope that helps 🙂

    1. Roosevelt Roberts said the plane was over the lane one area of south parking and he also described where that was – where the I395 met with 27 , which is basically at the cloverleaf intersection area. He said it was heading east towards DC which is basically where the plane was heading towards the building. He couldn’t actually have seen the plane if it had flown over the building because it would be behind him and flying low over a 70ft building about 500 feet behind him. That rules out him seeing the plane if it had flown over the building near the heliport as it couldn’t be anywhere near the lane one area of south parking and he would not be able to see it anywhere that it could have flown.
      As shown in the CIT video the plane would not go below the roofline of the building and would be sillouetted against the sky so it would not be obstructed by the road or anything else. If it was obstructed by the road as Legasse describes then it had to hit the building as it could not pull up in that short distance.Turcious actually went up on the bank to watch the plane but said he could see when it actually hit because it was obstructed. If the plane had flown over the building then they would be watching the plane and then there would be an explosion that started from the base of the Pentagon 80 ft below the plane while they were still watching the plane flying above the roofline of the building. It would be unmistakably two unconnected events – the plane and the explosion originating down at the base of the builiding. The cloud of smoke would rise up to meet the plane so the plane could not have been the cause of it. Terry Morrin’s description of the plane gradually disappearing below the trees, first the engines then the lower fuselage , wings , until he could only see the tail, when the explosion occured, means the plane was below the roofline of the building and therefore hit the building.

  41. “The plane cannot go below the roofline of the building and still get over the building. Looking at the video on CIT where they illustrate the idea of the plane approaching the building and then an explosion – the plane doesn’t go below the roof line of the building. It is not obstructed by anything.
    A. Wright”
    Now we enter the detractor “comfort zone”. Skip the path that was overwhelmingly witnessed, physics, aerodynamics, the OCT (what speed DO you elieve the aircraft was travelling?) and jump straight into the “pound the round klingon ship into the square hole”.
    Did Lagasse see this?
    Did his partner Brooks corraborate him?
    Turcios, who was at the gas station too?
    Turcios, who described a “lift” to avoid the signs on Route 27?
    By the way, here’s a view from a VERY much elevated position from Citgo 2001
    Here’s one from Citgo on 9/11
    Now why do you suppose Lagasse may have missed details about any “impact”. Was it because he was under a canopy?
    You don’t suppose the sun may have been a factor?
    Even witnesses along Route 27 claimed that the aircraft was between 50 and 80 feet above the road.
    Sean Boger, who was in the heliport seen in the gatecam footage linked to above made this claim to Aldo Marquis:
    “Aldo: Yeah, it’s the gatecam.
    Boger: Yeah I think that’s what it was and that cam is no higher than 3 feet..
    Aldo: Yeah, and it has the plane low and level across the lawn.Not coming from a descent..
    Boger: You see, I’m like 2 stories up. As I’m looking at that plane, it didn’t seem like it was level. It seemed like it was actually at a point of descent. So if it was say, 3 stories high. it was descending to two stories high. So it wasn’t, I didn’t see anything like level. To me it would actually be like too big to actually be that level.”
    Now here’s a bit of a hint for you:
    The land that the Citgo station is situated on in 79ft (24m) ASL
    Add the height you believe the plane flew over Citgo.
    The Pentagon area itself is 36ft (11m) ASL
    The Pentagon is 77ft (26m) MAXIMUM in height.
    YOU do the math and tell me a flyover isn’t physically possible.

    1. It the plane goes below the roofline of the building from the perspective of someone at the gas station then the plane can’t avoid hitting the building. This is confirmed by all of the witnesses you refer to above who said that the plane hit the building. Sean Boger was as close to the impact as you could probably be and survive and he said the plane hit the building. He watched it go into the building and explode , just as all the other witnesses said -‘like a car going into a garage’ as one of them described it. There is not one witness who said the plane flew over the building.

  42. Aldo, Terry Morin is a South of Citgo witness. Anybody who looks at a map can see that from his position south of the Naval Annex he could not see the plane at all if it was north of the Citgo. And yet he says he saw it fly down the hill. Perhaps your geometrically-challenged nature explains why your ideas are so peculiar.
    Aldo and OSS, claiming your adversaries have been “exposed” is another page from the Willie Rodriguez playbook. Ooo! That sounds bad! Exposed as what?
    Lloyde was not on the bridge. The photos show that. You guys still get confused by telephoto compression, don’t you? Geometrically-challenged. What can I say?
    I didn’t say the plane impacted from the north side. You don’t understand the process of examining the reliability of the various facts before trying to make sense of them. I can’t have a discussion with people who are unable to understand simple logic. You’re like a dumb kid with a complicated jigsaw puzzle who starts to hammer the pieces together ’cause you’re in such a hurry to finish.
    OSS, when you work out the g-forces and the bank angles necessary for a 757 to make that turn
    up the river, and when PfT have made a fancy video documenting the view of that turn from the rush-hour traffic on !-395, then we can talk.

  43. Seriously? How could he see it below the roofline when the aircraft allegedly struck lightpoles 1 and 2 30ft above Route 27? No matter, I see you haven’t read my post. Lagasse as with close on 20 more saw the aircraft NOC. Boger too 🙂
    And if you seriously believe a person could physically stand and watch an aircraft fly towards his no escape position at HIS LEVEL towards him, as he described it, at the OCT 540-580mph AND watch the explosion without ducking or flinching…oh wait, I forgot, you ARE dishonest. Never mind.
    All the links are there. That’s why I posted long answers – so as not to have to engage with you disinfobots. I’ve far more important things to do than answer two liner wordsmithery that’s designed to go round in circles, picking and choosing what area you can nitpick and which to ignore.
    Here Good. Just in case you “missed” the “Morin is SOC” debunk.
    Knock yerself out. Please.

  44. You’re not responding to the point. Terry Morin is a south of Citgo witness. That’s the point. You seem to live in a world where Terry Morin is not a south side witness because Sean Boger is a north side witness. Where a gray rabbit in Montana needs dental work and therefore it was flyover and therefore it was inside job: QED.

  45. @onesliceshort
    If you think Sean Boger ducked because he saw the plane coming towards him at his level, as he says, then the plane hit the building.
    If the plane descends below the level of the roof of the building between the roadway and the building, then it can’t get over the building, it would be far too close and too fast to pull up. If the view of the plane was obstructed by the roadway for someone at the gas station then it would be way below the height of the building. Terry Morrin could only see the tail of the plane when the exposion happened-he would be able to see the entire plane if it flew over.

  46. Those last two answers are a prime example of what I just said.
    ” I’ve far more important things to do than answer two liner wordsmithery that’s designed to go round in circles, picking and choosing what area you can nitpick and which to ignore.”

  47. And as long as you guys deny obvious facts (like the fact that Terry Morin is a South of Citgo witness) then there’s no reason for me to pay any attention to what you say.

  48. @Onesliceshort
    I have to say I never ignore any evidence, I just assess it. I have looked at all the links you gave, and I have seen them before. If I find conflicting evidence then I try to find an explanation for it and the explanation I look for is the most rational explanation. If I can’t find one eyewitness among scores and scores of witnesses from far away, from close by , from every angle and perspective who say the plane flew over the building then I don’t conclude that the plane flew over the building. If some eyewitnesses say the plane flew on a path that contradicts the flightpath with the damage then that is a contradiction. Contradiction is a two way street , ‘if A contradicts B then B contradicts A.’ It’s not , ‘if A contradicts B therefore B is wrong’, unless you have already decided that A is correct in which case you have not assessed the evidence properly. CIT listened to these witnesses and reached a conclusion that the plane flew where these witnesses said as if there was no evidence to contradict it. Once they reached their conclusion they never re-assess it no matter how much evidence they find later that does contradict it. Their investigation has only just started and they reached a conclusion , a conclusion that they use to assess the veracity of every piece of evidence of the event. All the other evidence is passed through the True/False filter of whether it agrees or disagrees with this initial conclusion – if it agrees with this initial conclusion it is true, if it disagrees it’s false. It’s a simplistic linear assessment of evidence, starting with a conclusion reached when they have heard only a small amount of evidence, instead of what it should be, a constant back and forth , weighing up, assessment and re-assessment of all the evidence with no evidence being immune from re-assessment.
    Looking at the kind of implausible scenarios they have to come up with to maintain this conclusion , with everyone who was there mistaken about a plane crashing into a building along with carefully placed operatives ,seemingly ordinary people, lying about a plane crashing into a building, with pre-placed broken lightpoles, seventy year-old stunt taxi drivers, planted aircraft debris from a completely different plane,planted explosives to immitate a plane crash, everyone pretending they found and identified bodies of people who were on the plane,faked videos, a plane that was not even painted to look like the plane it was supposed to be, a four engined turboprop flying high over the building a few minutes after the plane crashed, to fool people who saw a twin engined commercial jet into thinking they didn’t see a twin engined commercial jet, and in case that didn’t work, they would be fooled by a four-engined Jumbo jet that didn’t even take off until after the crash…all of this as part of a pointless inane plan that only a fantasist would consider would have any chance of success..I’d say it would be time to consider their conclusions.

  49. Not only chance of success was an issue. Why? Why fly a plane over the Pentagon when flying one into the Pentagon on a radio beacon was so much easier and less liable to be detected? Was this mandated by the Full Employment for Conspiracy Video Researchers Act?

  50. A. Wright:
    “I have to say I never ignore any evidence, I just assess it. I have looked at all the links you gave, and I have seen them before.”
    This coming from the person who had never listened to the evidence from William Lagasse? I very much doubt you’ve seen those links before never mind “assess” them. Have you even watched NSA?
    The “contradiction” you are talking about is an entire body of witnesses from nearly every conceivable angle within that basin of land placing the aircraft on a trajectory that makes the directional damage and alleged impact impossible. There are no “SOC witnesses” (despite Good’s immature repitition without clicking on the link I provided)
    Believe it or not, I have no problem with people arguing that an alleged impact occurred. I have no problem discussing witnesses who are positive that the plane hit the building.
    What i do have a problem with is the fact that people write the NOC path off based on their own interpretation and chopping and changing of the official path that is written in stone by the FDR/directional damage and the damage itself.
    Frank Legge’s mindbogglingly bad “paper” which has been destroyed by P4911T.
    Chris Sarns’ “NOC impact” fantasy that in of itself is an admission of staging of the lightpoles, generator, internal (and external explosions), internal damage, tampering with alleged DNA and fabrication of RADES/FDR data. Richard Gage quoted Sarns in his “retraction” as did Chandler.
    Jeff Hill’s attempt to find that elusive “SOC witness” backfired big time, didn’t it? THREE more NOC witnesses.
    Some witnesses such as William Middleton and Lagasse couldn’t physically SEE the aircraft on the directional damage path. From Middleton’s position, he also described the aircraft as partially flying over the ANC parking lot.
    Middleton’s view is shown here:
    Boger and Middleton’s view is shown here:
    William Lagasse is even on record as saying that the aircraft COULDN’T have been on the “SOC path” because he wouldn’t have been able to see it because the gas station itself would have blocked his view!
    Terry Morin is on record as saying that he was in between the Annex buildings and saw the aircraft fly directly over his head. That he couldn’t “see the stripes”
    Their POVs are shown here (@21min mark)
    Sean Boger is corroborated by Albert Hemphill and they were basically facing eachother from raised vantage points (the heliport and the annex). Boger’s testimony can’t be reduced to “issue perspective” as at no point does the aircraft cross to his right on the OCT path.
    Route 27 witnesses describe the aircraft crossing a point on the road that corresponds with the NOC witnesses.
    Stephen McGraw
    Penny Elgas
    Steve Riskus
    There are actually many more. But tht’s enough for now.
    So, it’s not just a case of a bunch of witnesses that may have “wrongly remembered”. There are physical dimensions to take into consideration. AND THEY ALL CORROBORATE!
    Before I even touch upon Erik Dihle and Roosevelt Roberts, I want to see your answer to what was seen in that area between the Navy Annex and Route 27. I don’t want questions answered with more questions or broad generalizations. Explain how all of these people were collectively “wrong”.
    Did the aircraft fly NOC?
    Be careful how you respond or the conversation is over. Break the mould.

  51. The NoC v. SoC question could have been very interesting had it been covered by legitimate scholars before a couple of Looce-Change-wannabees larded the issue with a lot of evidence-free speculations that they claimed were proven.
    Anybody who has ever driven past the Pentagon on I-395 can see that an undetected flyover is impossible. That’s why CIT can’t get any research help on the ground in DC.

  52. Brian Good:
    “The NoC v. SoC question could have been very interesting”
    Any honest skeptic would accept that “impact” is impossible from this trajectory. That’s why you clowns HAD to muddy the waters instead of uniting and demanding an answer from the government as to HOW “impact” was possible from the witnessed flightpath.
    You’re publically admitting that you dismiss the NOC evidence because of the only logical conclusion reached? There is no “SOC question” regarding wit ness testimony.
    Even if you don’t believe that a flyover occurred (and your argument is based solely on incredulity – and smoke and mirror sock/disinfo games), even if ONE piece of evidence had been proven to have been manipulated (your “NOC impact” nonsense), a legitimate demand for a new investigation could have been made. Actual eviedence that could be understood by the “man on the street”.
    Don’t you remember the post you made at TruthAction under the name “truebeleaguer”?
    “In the meantime let me point out that originally the idea of organizing around the CD evidence was that we could engage a whole group of people who were otherwise unlikely to be interested in 9/11 Truth–engineers, physicists, chemists–who might be inspired by their scientific curiosity and scientific integrity to look into questions raised about the NIST report. And thus it wasn’t meant to reach out to the public at all.
    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!
    Brian Good aka “truebeleaguer”
    NOC isn’t the only area of 9/11 you’ve been chipping away at in anonymity, is it Good?
    Exactly what “strongest evidence” are we talking about?
    Your “legitimate researchers” have been doing an awful job Good. I wouldn’t trust them to boil water:

  53. What makes impact from the north side impossible? You guys keep claiming it but you never demonstrate it. You always invoke the phony requirement of matching up with the five frames.
    North side impact better matches the width of the hole to the wingspan than the 45 degree approach does,
    Terry Morin is a SoC witness. Penny Elgas is a SoC witness. I’m pretty sure Father McGraw is a SoC witness. You guys deny facts when you say there are no SoC witnesses.
    Do you have a point other than to distract from the fact that you can’t refute my points?
    Why fly a plane over the Pentagon when flying one into the Pentagon on a radio beacon was so much easier and less liable to be detected?
    Anybody who has ever driven past the Pentagon on I-395 can see that an undetected flyover is impossible. That’s why CIT can’t get any research help on the ground in DC.

  54. Thought for the day (31 Aug 2011):
    Beware ANYONE AND EVERYONE who uses the phrase “snitch-jacket” (WTF does that even mean?)…
    or anyone who bleats the exact same post 25+ times (even while using multiple ‘personalities’ online)…
    or certain ‘truthers’ from / INEXPLICABLY influenced by the San Francisco, CA Bay area.
    Peace kids,

  55. Mr. Boz, if you knew how to google you’d know what snitch jacketing is. But then, if you knew how to google your opinions about the Pentagon wouldn’t be so peculiar.
    Last time I checked, the Bay Area was home to TWO world-class universities. Maybe that has something to do with the quality of thinking in the area.

  56. I was gonna say, “anybody else reading this shit?”.when I saw the Good copy and paste answer, but thank God MrBoz had a peek 😉
    Anybody that is even minimally swayed by what Good has been saying is
    1) As thick as two short planks.
    2) A disinfo merchant
    3) One of Brian Good’s multiple socks
    There may have been “two world class universities” in the Bay Area, but in my home country in Ireland, there were once hospitals with some of the best surgeons in the world.
    Now i can carve a fairly good Sunday roast beef, but that’s about as far as it goes regarding my knifing skills.
    Do you get my drift Good?
    Who are these “Bay Area” Einsteins?
    Brian Good – multiple personality broken record “NOC or SOC, I don’t care” spammer
    Chris “I don’t care about evidence”/”even if it (flyover) were true the public wouldn’t believe it” (real quotes) Sarns – “NOC impact” wordsmith.
    Cosmos (source of “snitchjacket”) – openly LIED to worm his way into 9/11 truth circles:by claiming he was a “9/11 victim family member” but now blatantly denies it even though it’s ON RECORD:
    The Toronto Hearings censored the NOC eidence, Pentagon 9/11 victim April Gallop (a real one Cosmos), Barrie Zwicker (for Christ’s sake!) and the Pentagon op in general not because they are the Achile’s heel of “9/11 Truth”, but because of some alleged PR exercise pushed by people who have infiltrated the movement (whether knowingly or unknowingly – I’m leaning more towards the latter as thy know they are peddling shit).
    CD evidence (even WTC7) is being gnawed at by the same people using the same tactics hoping to catch some breadcrumbs off of the MSM table. Manageable LIHOP accusations spoonfed via well placed disinfo on “hijackers” and “Al Qaeda” that can only HOPE to MAYBE bring charges of “incompetence”.
    MSM is one area of 9/11 that has been way overlooked. MSM is the bloodline that has protected the “powers that be”. The censorship and unmerited attacks on Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis (two of THE most thorough researchers on the Pentagon) is just another MSM controlling tactic.
    Barrie Zwicker wrote a piece on how us “conspiracy nuts” have been contained and marginalized by MSM. Some of the organizers (who have a LOT of sway in that they removed a 9/11 victim sympathetic to the truth) are just an extension of the system. On the phrase “conspiracy theorist”:
    “Used pejoratively, the phrase fails in at least four ways. First, as part of speech it includes two works each of which as legitimate purpose and meaning – as do the two in combination. The entertain a theory about a conspiracy or possible conspiracy can be eminently reasonable – and usually is.
    Second, the phrase as putdown is usually tossed out in place of a response to the facts, claims or assertions brought forward in connection with the with the theory being advanced. As such the phrase is counterfeit, a non sequitur.
    Third, it’s a psychological below-the-belt blow. The essential power of the phrase – especially when rendered as “conspiracy nut” or “conspiracy wacko” – is that it raises for the person who is the target, the spectre of one of our deepest fears: fear of our sanity. No one wants to be thought of as insane, not even slightly.
    Fourth, the cumulative use of this putdown forms a psychological and political wall in society, that helps protect actual conspiracies from being discussed and investigated as they deserve to be. It’s a compact but powerful ideological tool to deflect attention away from the reality of the conspiracy’s existence. Let’s look more closely at each dimension, because it’s time to permanently decommission this weapon of psychological warfare.”
    This ban has nothing to do with the “truth”. CIT collected interviews on camera, showed them to the public and came to their own conclusion. Detractors interviewed more witnesses (and even one of the CIT interviewees) and the SAME testimony cropped up. Over and over.
    You don’t agree with CIT’s conclusion? Present your own. Simple enough no?
    Just look at the crap that’s presented as a “counterargument” both here and on ANY forum it’s discussed. No wonder they refuse to debate the issue face to face.

    1. Great analysis, onesliceshort. You’re right on the money.
      I thought this part about the use of “conspiracy theory” as a pejorative term was excellent: “… the cumulative use of this putdown forms a psychological and political wall in society, that helps protect actual conspiracies from being discussed and investigated as they deserve to be. It’s a compact but powerful ideological tool to deflect attention away from the reality of the conspiracy’s existence.”
      Exactly. The scary thing is that most people who throw the term around, aren’t consciously trying to discredit people like you and me. It’s so internalized, that they think they’re being reasonable. The conditioning process is relentless.
      One of my core interests is Hollywood films used to condition us to hold certain views. Films like Conspiracy Theory with Mel Gibson show us an individual who fits the stereotype of the paranoid, wacko conspiracy theorist. He’s crazy, but in the movie he turns out to be right. We see the fact that he’s right as a “twist” on reality. In real life, of course, he’d just be crazy.

  57. So when I point out that the Bay Area has two world class universities (and maybe you can set me straight about how many are in the greater UK–I count Oxford, Cambridge, and the London School of Economics) OSS can only respond with ad hominem attacks on CIT’s critics, and a generalized objection to being painted as a conspiracy theorist. Well, if you don’t like being called that, don’t theorize. Stick to facts.
    It’s really not difficult at all to stick to facts. NORAD lies, unanswered questions, the laws of physics, ignored warnings, allowing 5000 al Qaeda to fly or walk out of Afghanistan–these are facts, not theories.
    We have no need of theories. None.

    1. You can’t always know something before you start investigating it. I think we know enough about the Pentagon to justify a new, independent investigation. But I agree that a position based on facts is superior to one where facts are unclear.
      I don’t agree that people who are labelled conspiracy theorists bring it on themselves. That label is a tactic used to mock and dismiss anyone who challenges any “official story.”

  58. Craig says:
    “I don’t agree that people who are labelled conspiracy theorists bring it on themselves. That label is a tactic used to mock and dismiss anyone who challenges any “official story.”
    Exactly man.
    These peoples’ approach to the Pentagon issue is no different to the duhbunker approach. They have been reduced to pointing to the OCT to “counter” this evidence. Brian Good actually quoted a section from the NIST report to back up his claims at 911Oz (I kid you not!)
    They point to the miserly pieces of scrap metal on the lawn and claim “there ya go, there’s the proof”. Scrap that has never been officially identified.
    They point to the serialless FDR, claimed to have been found at three different locations by three different people at different times. The data is pure garbage until all laws of aerodynamics, FDR protocol and math are ignored and the data is twisted and pulled.
    They claim that “passenger DNA” was identified (95% success rate) when it was allegedly found at the “exit hole”, where temperatures were allegedly recorded of 1000º+ for 80 minutes. Cremation point. Not to mention the fact that they would have been “liquidized” as per the OCT regarding the excuse for the lack of debris.
    They claim that the “hijacker DNA” was identified even though no samples from family members were taken to compare! “The FBI used hair and swabs from glasses from the apartment they were staying in” Bullshit.
    The “directional damage” IS where they’ve shot themselves in the foot.
    What they also always ignore are the sequestered 911 calls in Arlington that morning. Still to this day even though the Manhattan calls were released years ago.
    Those are all facts. Good claims the even MORE bizarre “NOC impact” mantra because he has no answer. Now THAT is a “theory” I’d like to hear elaborated on.
    Don’t suppose I’ll get an answer seeing as how he has totally misread my post on the Bay Area universities.
    I’ll lay it out easy for ya Good. The Bay Area may have two world class universities but it doesn’t mean that everybody living in the Bay Area is a farking genius! Jesus..

  59. Hey Snowcrash, aka Michael De Boer: Is this you? I recall from comments you made on Blogger that you have experience with sound engineering; in particular, synthesized sound.
    While I found numerous people with that name in the Netherlands, one in particular stood out. This Michael De Boer works for a government research lab that has or had a voice recognition project in conjunction with NIST, one that started back in 1996 I believe. He is a co-author on a paper:
    Here’s the company he works for: http://www.tno.nl/index.cfm?Taal=2 ; Check out what they do under the “themes” link.
    And look at this:
    [13] A. Loscos, P. Cano, J. Bonada, M. de Boer, and X. Serra.
    Voice Morphing System for Impersonating in Karaoke Applications.
    In Proceedings of the ICMC, 1999.
    Here is the paper on voice morphing:
    Is Maarten De Boer any relation?
    And here is NIST’s project page:
    NIST Language Recognition Evaluation
    The goal of the NIST Language Recognition Evaluation (LRE) series is to establish the baseline of current performance capability for language recognition of conversational telephone speech and to lay the groundwork for further research efforts in the field.
    An initial exploratory evaluation to gauge the state-of-the art in language recognition was conducted in 1996. At that time there was not enough focus to warrant frequent evaluations. In 2001 renewed interest in this area called for a re-evaluation of the technology.

    1. Dear Ms. Burik,
      That particular Michael De Boer has an impressive body of professional work and research to be proud of, whether or not he is the same person as SnowCrash. To that Michael De Boer I say, kudos.
      If that person is not the same person as our beloved SnowCrash, allow me to be the first to apologize for the linking of the Michael De Boer name and his professional accomplishments via Google search to “one of these damn bat-shit crazy 9/11 conspiracy theories websites.” Should that Michael De Boer ever be in need of seeking new employment or should his present employer do a background check, I sincerely hope that this particular Michael De Boer experiences no difficulties — whether in person or in secret — for this thread appearing in the Google search results on his name. Sorry.
      In the future as we stilt the playing field of this blog in the direction of the high road, let us be more considerate in our actions. What goes around can come around in a very karmic sense.

  60. Interesting, but I am sure he/she/it will deny any relation. Much like they did when reporter Sheila Casey questioned them about their identity. They are very guarded about their identity and background. But rest assured, he/she/it will attempt to ridicule you for looking into them or doubting their identity. Prepared to be called paranoid or delusional.
    Then they will head back to their roost at “truefaction” where they will try and keep up the charade of being a truther by posting in threads acting out about LIHOP/negligence and how hopeless the truth movement is. My guess is to sucker people away from the very clear evidence supporting staged military black operation while trying to demoralize, demotivate, and divide other frustrated truth movement members right out of the movement.
    Either way, it is good to see people questioning (and clearly doubting) the background of this anonymous online entity.

  61. I am really glad I happened onto this thread and can view it from a future perspective – that being now in 2014 as future to the remarks I am reading. And knowing some of how things have shaken out on T&S as far as the anti CIT clowns being pretty much routed and such.
    I was most interested in the discussion of the importance of honesty in identity for Truth activism. It is pretty hard to take someone serious when they are themselves an obvious ‘Covert Operation’ ie; an anonymous entity. So I was glad to read some agreement as to this prospect by several of the commentators who made prescient points as to the danger of taking anonymous entities serious in debate.
    I quote A. Marquis CIT — SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 AT 7:14 AM:
    “Either way, it is good to see people questioning (and clearly doubting) the background of this anonymous online entity.”
    Thank you Aldo, I agree completely, Willy Whitten – \\][//

Leave a Reply

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