By Craig McKee
Citizen Investigation Team would almost certainly not have participated in the Toronto 9/11 hearings last month even if invited, CIT’s Craig Ranke said in an interview.
“We knew they weren’t going to give us a fair hearing, even in the unlikely event that some of our evidence was addressed,” Ranke says.
“If we had been invited, it would have been foolish for us to automatically accept knowing that we’d be walking into a rigged situation where all aspects of the discussion, and even the final report, were controlled by our detractors and their associates.”
Ranke says it’s apparent to him that one of the major goals of the hearings all along was to marginalize CIT’s evidence that a large plane approached, but did not hit, the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. He points to the role that one of their vocal critics, Kevin Ryan, played in organizing the hearings as an indication that CIT’s evidence wasn’t going to be heard.
He also says the involvement of James Gourley, founder of the International Centre for 9/11 Studies (which sponsored the hearings), was another red flag. The chief technical officer for Gourley’s centre is Justin Keogh, who is a moderator at, and reportedly the owner of, the thoroughly discredited site 911blogger.com, which routinely bashes CIT and bans those who support them.
“It was clear to us that the fix was in,” Ranke said.
Ranke acknowledges that a number of CIT supporters lobbied to have the group included in the hearings, but he felt these efforts were misguided.
“Virtually all of our most vocal critics have avoided direct debate with us for years, so it’s obvious that they would have only invited us if it was going to be a tightly controlled and unfair format.”
The Pentagon was only briefly mentioned at the four-day hearings, although numerous speakers went over evidence of controlled demolition at the World Trade Center. The two speakers who did address Pentagon evidence were Barbara Honegger (who presented evidence that explosives were used in the building) and David Ray Griffin (who unveiled his “consensus approach,” which states that the cause of the Pentagon damage is secondary to the fact that it couldn’t have been caused by al-Qaeda).
Toronto journalist and 9/11 researcher Barrie Zwicker, an ardent CIT supporter, addressed the troubling direction the hearings were taking by organizing a screening of CIT’s video National Security Alert on Sept. 11, the last day of the hearings. Zwicker and Ranke have both said that they scheduled their event for that evening, hours after the hearings were scheduled to adjourn, so that participants and attendees of the hearings could make it to both events.
The screening was a success with more than 200 attending (this writer was one of the few who attended both the screening and the hearings). CIT’s evidence was laid out in a multi-media presentation by group members Ranke and Adam Fischman.
National Security Alert features interviews with a number of witnesses who say they saw a large plane fly overhead towards the Pentagon. The path of the plane, as these witnesses describe it, was to the north of the Citgo gas station across the street from the Pentagon. This means that the physical damage, including to the light poles, must have been staged, and the plane must have flown over the Pentagon, Ranke says.
“This explains why there is evidence that multiple people such as Roosevelt Roberts Jr. saw it flying away.”
In recent months, the concerted effort to attack CIT at every turn has continued. The bulk of these attacks have come from “truthers” who post at 911blogger. A number of them were involved in the hearings, including Ryan, David Chandler, and Jonathan Cole.
In February, Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth withdrew his support for CIT in a statement published on 911blogger. This came on the heels of a statement from Chandler and Cole that attacked CIT.
Ranke says Gage promised him that if Gage ever considered altering or retracting his statement of support for CIT, he would let the group know in advance to give them an opportunity to address his concerns. This, Ranke says, never happened either when Gage issued a “clarification” in late 2009 stating that he did not endorse the flyover position or when he withdrew support in 2011.
“He broke his promise to us,” Ranke says, “and as a result he based his retraction on demonstrably false claims.”
CIT is also unhappy with Griffin’s decision to play down the question of whether a plane crash was faked at the Pentagon. Griffin’s Toronto talk on the Pentagon repeatedly and almost exclusively quoted Chandler, Cole, and Frank Legge – all supporters of the idea that a 757, maybe Flight 77, did hit the building.
Griffin wrote in his latest book, 9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed, that the question of what (if anything) hit the Pentagon is relatively unimportant. He says all members of the Truth movement can agree that Flight 77 piloted by al-Qaeda did not crash into the building. Griffin does not even mention CIT in the book even though he summarizes the evidence both for and against 757 impact.
Ranke contends that ignoring or minimizing the evidence that the plane was north of the Citgo station and therefore flew over the building is giving away the strongest and simplest proof that 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by elements within the U.S. government.
Ranke says he is very disappointed in Griffin’s recent stance, which ignores the fact that the vast majority of 9/11 truthers don’t believe a plane hit the building.
“He’s in essence telling everybody our findings are unimportant,” he says. “The consensus he’s talking about does not represent the best evidence as claimed on his new website (consensus911.org), and in fact omits it.”
Ranke criticizes the Toronto hearings for focusing on evidence the organizers consider to be the least controversial because he feels they base this on a false premise. He says CIT’s contention that the plane did not hit the Pentagon is actually about as close to consensus as anything within the movement, and that the supposed controversy surrounding their work only exists because a small group, including several of those involved with the hearings, has made a concerted effort to manufacture it by bashing CIT and attacking their research.
CIT invited a number of their opponents to have on-camera discussions with them while they were in Toronto. This included any participants in the hearings who dispute CIT’s evidence or condemn their methods.
Among those they invited were Ryan, Gage, Cole, Chandler, Gourley, and Niels Harrit. None of them accepted. They also invited Griffin to have a discussion about his new approach, but Griffin only agreed to talk off the record.
For a detailed account of their differences with each of these individuals, go to this post on CIT’s web site: http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/The-Toronto-Invitations.html
I have to agree that the Toronto hearings were fixed from the start. Two of the main objectives of the hearings were
(1) To present evidence that the U.S. government’s official investigation into the events of September 11, 2001, as pursued by various government and government-appointed agencies, is seriously flawed and has failed to describe and account for the 9/11 events.
(2) To single out the most weighty evidence of the inadequacy of the U.S. government’s investigation; to organize and classify that evidence; to preserve that evidence; to make that evidence widely known to the public and to governmental, non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations.
Hearings whose purpose is to only present a one-sided examination of the evidence of an event are going to arrive at a foregone conclusion. I saw one of the panel at the hearings saying that he hadn’t seen any evidence that would change his mind that 9/11 was an inside job- he obviously hadn’t read the objectives of the hearings he was taking part in.
I have never heard anyone make a credible case that the 9/11 Commission Report isn’t seriously flawed.
Couldn’t the same be said of the 9/11 Commission Report?
NIST worked backwards from a ready made conclusion that “fire and impact damage” brought down the towers. Bad science.
That “fire” brought down WTC7. Lala land.
The ASCE Report on the Pentagon used the same faulty logic and didn’t even try to explain the facade damage vs the dimensions of a 757.
Even the authors of the 9/11 Commission Report publically distanced themselves from the book.
NORAD contradicted the FAA and openly accused eachother of telling porky pies.
CIA and FBI blamed eachother for “failures”.
Those that contradicted the official slant were either ignored or had their testimony redacted. William Rodriguez, Sibel Edmonds, Barry Jennings and a host of whistleblowers.
The list goes on.
This guy should break it down for you:
It’s a pity he didn’t use that logic when addressing the Pentagon.
And Wright, we actually saw the effect of your “other side of the argument” á la OCT regarding the Pentagon via the organizers who used the OCT itself (Legge et al). As with the 9/11 Commission, pure lies, disinfo, “data” released by the suspects themselves (which still didn’t add up to “impact”) being accepted as is while the same people dismiss the same type of evidence anywhere else but the Pentagon, censorship, gatekeeping, withholding of evidence and refusal to debate.
Dear Mr. Wright,
Perhaps you’d like to clarify this statement: “I saw one of the panel at the hearings saying that he hadn’t seen any evidence that would change his mind that 9/11 was an inside job- he obviously hadn’t read the objectives of the hearings he was taking part in.”
The way I read this, this panelist already believed 9/11 was an inside job and was stating he hadn’t seen any evidence to change his mind from this belief.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to imply that the objectives of the hearings, if fulfilled, would result in fixing the flaws of the govt’s official investigation into 9/11. If such flaws are fixed, are you saying that people would or would not believe 9/11 was an inside job?
@Señor El Once
The Toronto hearings only presented evidence that conflicted with the official account, it only presented interpretations of evidence that conflicted with it. It’s intention was to only point out all the flaws in it. It surprises me that a panelist at these hearings would expect to hear evidence that would change his mind when evidence of that kind was never going to be presented.
Dear Mr. Wright,
Very clever twisting of things. Shall we twist it back into shape?
Why did the official account (or OCT) have uncorrected flaws in it that the Toronto Hearings could have as their main intention for the whole extended weekend to point out? No flaws, no need for hearings. Massive flaws, hearings are a starting point. Eh?
Why was there evidence that conflicted with the OCT? Seems to me that for any theory (including the OCT) to be the god’s honest truth, it has to address all of the evidence; there would be no conflicts.
Thus, you must be in agreement that the OCT does not present and does not address (or analyze) a wealth of evidence that is brought up in the hearing. Why has the OCT never fixed its analysis and amended its conclusions based on this new evidence?
Right hand website man for Richard Gage. Owner of 911blogger (yes he is the owner as well as moderator). And chief technical officer for the “International Center.”
Passionate activist who simply put lots of food on his plate? Or well-placed mole?
Oh, but a young, bubbly, fresh-faced kid like that couldn’t POSSIBLY be an agent, right? Don’t all spooks look like Lyndon Johnson?
Let’s take a brief flashback to an illuminating scene from Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11.”
If they really believe the NoC witnesses are disinfo or a mere prank, why don’t they dare to say it?
There’s an entity called Brian Good who frequents these blogs stating just that.
Chris Sarns (who was quoted by Richard Gage in his “retraction”) states very clearly what he thinks of Roosevelt Roberts:
Or how about another entity that’s in this little clique, Adam Larson aka “Caustic Logic” who claimed that all NOC witnesses were part of a disinfo campaign.(this is another entity, “Snowcrash”, who was recently banned from here who literally bows before this guy – his hero.).
He and another entity called “Arabesque” (also a major player in this clique who is responsible for the “100 witnesses to an impact” lie) can be seen patting eachother on the back (as do Victoria Ashley, Hoffman, John Farmer and Screwloosechange!
Michael Wolsey and Hoffman openly labelled CIT and Pilotsfor911truth “disinfo” based on these
proven disinfo merchants’ “work”.(Hoffman included)
They’ve never addressed never mind “debunked” this testimony so in labelling those that merely collected the interviews on film and released them in full, or those (professionally capable) who did the math on the alleged flightpath and official FDR data as “disinfo” are actually labelling anything that counters the OCT as “disinfo”.
I always say that the proof is in the pudding. If a lie is exposed on any side of a debate (I’ve lost count of those that apparently swayed the likes of Griffin and Gage and partially listed in the 911Oz forum links above), repeatedly shown to be so and are still repeated and linked to, they are intellectually bankrupt (I’m being polite here!). They have an agenda.
It’s so obvious why they refuse an on camera debate.
OSS, you said “The ASCE Report on the Pentagon … didn’t even try to explain the facade damage vs the dimensions of a 757.”
That’s ridiculous. The ASCE report hypothesized that the right wingtip was broken off by hitting the generator and the left wingtip was broken off by hitting the ground.
I never said the NOC witnesses were disinfo. I said that CIT refuses to consider the possibility that they are. Your inability to comprehend the difference there makes talking with you a waste of time.
The NIST report is dismissed (rightly) for having “hypothesized” how WTC7 fell. Why the disparity between the ASCE Report and the NIST Report?
Here’s what the ASCE actually said:
Even if the left wing had been separated by “hitting the ground” or that the right wing separated by “hitting the generator”, two claims that aren’t mentioned anywhere in the report (disinfo as usual Good)..
1) There is no physical evidence that the ground was touched. The left wing didn’t and couldn’t physically touch the ground according to the ASCE Report
2) There are no physical marks on the facade that correspond with the extremities of any alleged 757 “impact”. The alleged “right wing impact damage” is not physically compatible with the lack of damage to column 18 and the roof slab between column 17 and 18.
3) The vertical and horizontal stabilizers (which you “forgot” to mention) aren’t explained at all:
4) There is no visible evidence of the extremities nor has any documented verification of debris been provided.
Do your homework.
You might be happy with this half arsed report, but then you would be.
Don’t start with your weasel words Good. Anybody who sees any logic whatsoever in that statement is as twisted as you.
You made a claim that was not true. You said ASCE did not even try to explain the inconsistency of the facade damage with a 757. Instead of linking the ASCE report directly to support your claim,
you produce somebody’s slide of what purports to be the text of p. 35, which ends, “the evidence suggests that the tips of both wings did not make direct contact with the facade of the building and that portions of the wings might have been separated from the….”
Your slide leaves out the text on the beginning of page 36 that completes the sentence: “… fuselage before the aircraft struck the building. This is consistent with eyewitness statements that the right wing struck a large generator before the aircraft struck the building and that the left engine struck a ground-level, external vent structure.”
Here is the actual report: http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
That’s where they address the discrepancy between the impact damage and the dimensions of a 757.
If you want to be taken seriously as a researcher, the place to start is with journalistic standards. You have to check that everything you say is true. When you are shown to be in error, you have to issue a retraction. That will make you more careful next time. To say things that are not true, and then when you’re called on it to try to cover over your error is not the path to truth. It only spreads confusion. It leads to the impression that you are less interested in truth than in fooling people into adhering to an ideological position. It models very careless behavior to other members of the movement, and inspires similar carelessness among them. Kevin Barrett has been one to advocate the position basically that we know we’re right and so the details of the truth don’t matter very much. And then he wonders why he can’t get a position as a college teacher, and why he’s not invited to speak at conferences.
If you want your opinions to be taken seriously you need to respond to the issues calmly and rationally. One of your favorite techniques is to accuse someone of saying something they didn’t say (the straw man fallacy) and then, when you get an explanation of what they did say, accuse them of being weaseley and contradictory. I am interested first in establishing the facts. You like to accuse me of inconsistency. You are in a big hurry to get to the Truth, and have little interest in facts. Sometimes facts seem to contradict each other. It is a fact that Tokyo is west of Chicago. But it is also a fact that Tokyo is east of Moscow, which is east of Chicago. Tokyo is thus both west and east of Chicago, and accusing me of inconsistency on the matter doesn’t change the truth.
I posted screenshots of the relevant passages. The final sentence makes no difference whatsoever to my answer to your initial claim.
““the evidence suggests that the tips of both wings did not make direct contact with the facade of the building and that portions of the wings might have been separated from the fuselage before the aircraft struck the building.
There. Fixed. Now what?
You have a nerve talking about “journalistic standards” and “research” when you’ve been exposed as a fraud and a devious internet troll throughout these blogs and anywhere else I’ve had to endure your bileous remarks.
Back to the point you avoided throughout your hypocritical tripe.
Where in the ASCE Report does it say that the left wing “was broken off by hitting the ground” and the right wing was “broken off by hitting the generator”.
And please point out where anything in my last post isn’t “true”.
You wrote “The ASCE Report on the Pentagon … didn’t even try to explain the facade damage vs the dimensions of a 757.” That was not true. And no, completing the sentence does not fix your spammy half-quote.
In my quote, on page 35 and 36 of the ASCE BPAT (the one you keep presenting in partial form), the hypothesis that the left wing was broken off by hitting the ground and the right wing was broken off by hitting the generator is expressed.
So first you say something that’s not true, then you try to cover up that it’s not true, and then you try to deny the facts of what the reports say, obscuring the issue by using insults you don’t even know how to spell. Such behavior hurts the truth. It doesn’t help it.
Have you problems reading??
Never mind that both you and the ASCE Report dance around the lack of damage from the stabilizers and cling to speculation made by a body that you yourself mock, but you still insist that the ASCE Report claimed that the left wing “struck the ground”!
I can’t believe that you were actually referring to this bile. “Hypothesis”??
They devoted a whole 2 paragraphs to speculative, physically incompatible nonsense based on one witness who was “close to the helipad” and having allegedly watched the aircraft appear “over the Navy Annex” (NOC on both counts). He also claimed that he dove to the ground as it passed over him. So, within the OCT 0.4 seconds that the aircraft crossed the lawn and him actually reaching the ground, he was able to make those observations just before the 200ft diameter fireball (the lawn is just 400ft long!) and explosion??
First off, the ASCE Report claims that the left engine struck the ground. Not the wing. There are no marks on the facade to correspond with this nor recognizable debris. The major problem with this statement is that there is a helipad landing light that was untouched beside this alleged “damage” and 6ft tall spools to the immediate right.
The other major problem with this, and it can be seen in the ASCE image I posted earlier…fuck it, I’ll post it again (I know how you love my “spammy” posts)
..is that the left engine can be seen to have had to have struck the foundation. This is according to their own “hypothesis”. There is no physical evidence of this.
As for the right wing, based on this sole witness ( a PenRen contractor no less), here’s the part of the quote that should stand out
The “right wing tip”? From the OCT trajectory? Nah.
Wasn’t the “right wing tip” about 25ft agl given that it was allegedly in a “tilt”?
Good, the NOC trajectory that you claim to have no problem with makes the generator impact impossible. Even by the wingtips.
You call that an attempt to explain the facade damage vs the 757 dimensions??
Hypothesis? Whitewash and half arsed speculation to explain away what they couldn’t square with a “757 impact” more like. Even worse than NIST.
Sorry for the “spam” but you need to be educated on this. Just doing my bit.
Do you have a point? Why should anybody care about the yards and yards of confusion you heap on the issue when the fact remains that you claimed that ASCE did not even try to explain the facade damage discrepancies and the report shows that they did try? You’re just blowing smoke.
I see you’re trying to divert this conversation into one of your fairground smoke and mirrors parlours.
The “hypothesis” you keep referring to, does it mention the vertical and horizontal stabilizers? The most damning neglection to address regarding “the facade vs 757 dimensions”?
No. (and why do you think that they shouldn’t be included in the discussion?)
Did the ASCE Report claim as you say that the left wing “struck the ground?
Is it physically possible for the left engine to cause the alleged damage?
Did they claim that the right wingtip “struck the generator”?
Can this be so on the OCT trajectory? Could it physically create the witnessed damage?
There’s no difference whatsoever between the complete dodge the NIST Report did on pinpointing the cause of the collapse of WTC7 and the ASCE “hypothesis”
So no, they did not address the “facade vs 757 dimensions”.
I’ll keep going until you address just one of the valid points raised in every post.
Another physical debunk of the ASCE “hypothesis” regarding the lack of damage to the facade from the right wing.. Just for you Good.
Make some effort in your next post.I’ve lots more. (Can’t wait until we get round to the stabilizers – if not, I’ll post those anyway)
Why would you expect a 50 foot horizontal stabilizer to leave marks when it goes into a 90 foot hole? If you want people to take the time to look at your stuff, you have to try to make sense.
The ASCE report suggested that the left wing hit a “ground level ventilator”.
Good, stop displaying your ignorance. Please. The horizontal stabilizer? Seriously?
Here are a couple of hints:
The column hanging on the second floor is column 14.
Make sense now?
If you want anything else cleared up just give me a shout.
You seemed to be implying that the horizontal stabilizer should impact the facade. When asked a direct question about why you think a 50 foot stabilizer should leave a mark when it goes into a 90 foot hole, you become insulting, change the subject to columns, ask rhetorical questions, and refuse to answer.
You’re a waste of time.
You asked why there there would be a problem of a 50ft horizontal stabilizer entering a 90 ft hole.
I showed you that the problem is that the “90ft hole” is on the first floor, while the horizontal stabilizer would be in line with the second floor (at an angle too) where there is a 20ft hole.
There, is that better?
Got it now?
Admit when you’re wrong or have no clue man. It will be easier for me to educate you on this. Again, if you need everything spelled out in detail tell me. I don’t want to be accused to “spammy posts” again. Make up your mind.
Your analysis ignores the fact that the keel of the plane hits a concrete floor that’s on the ground. This takes away your angle. Unless you have evidence that the keel penetrated the floor and the 757 dove into the ground?
This is how you guy maintain your illusions. Some guy does a half-assed analysis and you believe him because you want to. And then you overstate your own case, and other people believe you, and they go around defeating your argument. This is why it’s necessary to adhere to journalistic and scientific standards.
The only question is why no marking from the vertical stabilizer. And the amazing resistance you guys have shown to finding out what structure exactly holds a vertical stabilizer onto the airframe and how strong it is in the axial plane leaves me with little interest in the matter. What you’re supposed to do with a hypothesis is test it. You’re not supposed to label it incontrovertible truth.
Good, you’re very cocky for a guy who has failed miserably on this blog!
You want to play games and twist my words Good? Read my posts and links some time.
There is no evidence thet “the keel penetrated the floor”
My “angle” is taken away??
Okay. More lessons. Pay attention.
The ASCE Report and obstacles demand that the aircraft strike at the second floor slab yet completely penetrated straight through to the C Ring exit hole on the same trajectory.
Of course there should have been major buckling of the lighter frame. Maybe even a slight rotation (given the alleged claims about the generator and the vent wall) but there is no physical evidence of it on the facade. There is no recognizable debris on the lawn or by the facade. The OCT burned their candle at both ends to make the plane and lack of debris on the lawn “fit”.
The aircraft allegedly penetrated in full.
Now if there is no debris on the lawn (bigass stabilizers) or marking on the facade. you’re left with the option that the extremities somehow folded and entered or detached and desintegrated in the fraction of a second before “striking” the facade (a la ASCE).
Which are you claiming?
Oh yeah, I remember you asking me to bring the stabilizer specs to you…for what?? Do your own legwork you arrogant tool.
The ASCE Report itself can’t explain the lack of damage that should have been caused by the vertical stabilizer. They don’t mention the horizontal stabilizer. They claim that the aircraft fuselage penetrated the facade and “desintegrated” before travelling its own length in distance. That it travelled 50ft before being “pushed down” fully into the first floor (that statement alone is bizarre). This was allegedly within a fraction of a second.
Given all of the above, you’re claiming that the horizontal stabilizer’s trajectory was somehow altered to enter the first floor within the fraction of “0.8 seconds” claimed to “penetrate” through to C Ring? The horizontal stabilizer would have been pushed up if anything. As should the aircraft frame itself.
Basic physics Good.
Keep making a fool of yourself Good. I’ll just mop it up for you until I get bored.
Yes, it appears the plane penetrated the second floor. This increases the likelihood that it failed to penetrate the first floor. This means the keel skids along the floor, leveling out the fuselage so the horizontal stabilizer goes in at the first floor. So your expectation that the stabilizer should leave a mark on the facade is unreasonable.
Your untrue claim that there is no recognizable debris on the lawn discredits your case. Look at the pictures again. You are the one making extraordinary claims. I’m just cleaning up your bullshit. I have no need to prove anything.
Don’t tell me about basic physics. Your analysis and communications skills suggest you never had any schooling in it.
Good, I think our conversation is pretty much coming to an end. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.
Your original claim was that the horizontal stabilizer would have no problem entering a “90 foot hole”. Be honest. You thought that the aircraft was low enough! Stop spinning this out!
When it’s pointed out to you that the ASCE Report and alleged physical damage preceding the facade and the facade itself demands that the aircraft would have had to have struck at the second floor slab you change your position to some half-arsed spin which defies the law of physics and logic itself (no change there then).
You’re claiming that the trajectory of the latter 100ft length of the aircraft was somehow lowered or buckled but didn’t touch the Pentagon lawn.
That when the lighter aircraft frame encountered resistance, it was directed downwards (again avoiding the lawn), At high velocity. That’s what you’re trying to say, isn’t it? Did you watch the video I linked to??
Can you actually envisage what you’re trying to say?? It’s ridiculous.
You’re also insinuating that if you had the specs of the vertical stabilizer,that you’d work your magic on that baby too, no? Even though it’s part and parcel of the OCT that the ASCE Report totally failed to address.?
You’re no different to the duhbunkers who fill in the “missing pieces” of NIST’s claim that fire brought down WTC7.
Stop twisting my words on the debris, Good.
Here’s another riddle for you Good.
If as you say, the horizontal stabilizer actually somehow did manage to defy physics and lower it’s trajectory to neatly fit into that “90 foot hole”, how, after having supposedly been struck by the left engine, left wing (and fuel tank within it), did the following column manage to avoid being completely severed by the “trailing stabilizer”?
Deep breaths please.
There’s no conflict between the plane hitting the second floor and the horizontal stabilizer going into a 90-foot hole, as I have pointed out. So first you say hitting the second floor should make the aft end flip up (no it shouldn’t) and then you say the aft end should hit the lawn. You sound like Rumsfeld telling us where the WMD are: “They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
You overstated your case entirely. You claimed “The ASCE Report … didn’t even try to explain the facade damage vs the dimensions of a 757.” It turns out what you meant was: the ASCE report did not explain why the tail left no mark. But you provide no information to support your notion that the tail should have left a mark. Unless you can show us that the tail was constructed robustly to resist fore-and-aft loads (and can you explain why it would need to be?) you have no case at all. And yet you make strong claims.
You make silly claims about laws of physics, but you show no knowledge of those laws. What laws of physics exactly are defied if the keel of the aircraft breaks through the second floor, then skids along the ground floor imposing a lateral vector that necessarily brings the tail down?
Why would you expect the horizontal stabilizer to be capable of severing a column? It didn’t have any fuel in it. It was built for rotational loads, not fore-and-aft ones except to the degree that the drag of the elevators impose them.
I’m different from the debunkers. I’m interested in the truth. I’m not emotionally defending an untenable position and inventing facts to support my foregone conclusions. YOU are no different than the debunkers. Like them, you jump to conclusions, invent your evidence, abuse anyone who disagrees with you, overstate your claims, and pretend to knowledge you do not possess. Like them, you discredit your own claims.
If you bother to examine the construction of the tail, you see why it leaves no mark. The structural core is in the center of the tail. The forward part of the tail thus represents a “crush zone” like that designed into the front end of a car. When the tail hits, the aluminum at the front six or eight feet of the tail crumples up, cushioning the facade when the skeletal structure hits the wall.
Exactly where did you “point out” how the horizontal stabilizer could physically enter the first floor when the right hand side would have been at least 20ft agl a fraction of a second after the alleged “impact”???
The lighter structure of an aircraft would most certainly buckle upwards, especially if it encountered not only a reinforced wall and columns but the floor slab! It’s your dumbass shimmy answer that it would be deflected downwards that requires the entire length of the frame to somehow avoid dragging across the lawn. Your pet “theory”.
Here, see how your “explanation” of the tail structure stands up. Remember that this is at altitude against what you called “hollow box columns” (or words to that effect):
Deflected “downward”? Haha.
As for the ASCE Report, you have no argument.
1. There are no markings on the facade that correspond to the vertical or horizontal stabilizer.
ASCE omits the latter and doesn’t attempt to explain the former. Because it can’t. End of story.
A column that would have been in the direct path of the left engine, left wing and “trailing horizontal stabilizer” was not cut through. Here it is again Good.
2. Column 18AA and half of the slab between 18AA and 17AA don’t show any damage that should have occurred given the claims about the right wing.
3. The ASCE Report simply claims that the left and right wing outer portions somehow separated just before “impact”. I’ve shown both claims to be totally inaccurate.
They claim that the right wingtip struck the generator based on an alleged witness that claimed to have been diving for cover 0.4 seconds before the explosion (OCT).
The same witness was used to uphold the even more dubious claim that he saw the left wing strike a vent structure when there were two obstacles either side of where the engine was claimed to have struck.
And you’re apparently satisfied with that explanation? My original statement was that the ASCE Report didn’t attempt to explain the facade vs 757 dimensions. They didn’t. That was no “attempt”, it was a total dodge. Suits you though.
Let’s not forget the NOC trajectory either Good eh?
That really throws a spanner in the works of the alleged damage, no?
Keep posting Good. I’ll post what you actually said about the “SOC damage” at 911Oz in the next post 😉
oss, your subjective notions about physics are quite imaginative-and so incompetent I have no interest in your insights from your photo-gazing.
Horizontal stabilizer leaves no marks because it goes into a 90 foot hole. Vertical stabilizer, as I pointed out, leaves no marks because the crushing of the non-structural forward edge of the tail absorbs energy and cushions the impact of the tail skeleton.
Even if you had something, you guys have so thoroughly polluted your own nest there’s no point in trying to salvage anything there. Sometimes I think that maybe there really was a smoking gun in the Pentagon story–which is why Aldo’s wrecking crew had to be sent out to make sure nobody paid any attention.
In other words, you’re going to ignore all of the valid points I raised and intend this “debate” to go round in ever decreasing circles. What utter bollocks you’ve been reduced to Good. Even for your “standards”
Craig? Do you see how any “consensus approach” would be impossible when those that Griffin is pandering to, hide behind morons like Good and Snowcrash? Or is anybody actually reading this crap that Good pushes? If so, why is it/he tolerated??? And what’s your (or señor el once) opinion on the garbage he is posting here?
Okay, I’ll leave you with this coup de grace Good.
You posted as “Watson” at 911Oz (don’t bother to deny it – I can prove it) and waffled the same illogical bile there about “NOC impact”.
Just in case you try to deny that you posted as “Watson”, who said the following?
You said the exact same thing on one of Craig’s blogs not so long ago. And there’s much more but I can’t be arsed.
You’ve panned this out without actually saying anything or answering any points yet you claimed the exact opposite about the “SOC damage” at 911Oz.
Good. You’re a disgrace and a very easy opponent. Your strong point is that you are an enormous bore.
Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,
Interesting set of questions.
As long as you keep engaging Mr. Good, he’ll keep throwing crap out there to get your goat. Tolerated by Mr. McKee or me? More like, ignored. Although you’ve been dispatching Mr. Good rather handily, a point comes — as evidenced by your links — when it all becomes here one grand Merry-go-round that tries to take everyone for a ride.
Particularly when the postings from Mr. Good are short, thick on faulty conclusions, and thin on substantiation, letting him have the last skewed word can spare everyone another spin on the pogo horse.
While your last two paragraphs have elements of truth, they reflect badly on you most of all. Shows that he got under your skin.
As for the next posting that “out’s” Mr. Good as Watson somewhere else? The confuse sentence is weak but probably true. Stronger is the fact that Mr. Good has never denied the alias ASS-ociation that I recall. Doesn’t really matter, as far as I’m concerned.
What matters to me is that your links end up being obsessive. Were I to follow each and every one, I’d ride the backward facing pogo horse on yet another few turn of the Merry-go-round but in someone else’s amusement park.
You’re being played. Which is why it is sometimes important to get off. Please don’t interpret that to mean leave the forum. No, no, no. But it does mean to leave alone and to move on to other minutia or other topics.
Señor el Once,
I have much more evidence that Good posts as “Watson” at 911Oz. I stopped myself in my own tracks and even said that the so called “debate” was going in “ever decreasing circles”.
The point was that Good has been posting incessant nonsense on this blog, yet at another forum, he claimed the exact opposite.
I wanted an “outside opinion” from somebody and yourself and Craig came to mind. Not for moderation or demands, just to know that somebody else was reading his crap.
My links are “obsessive”??? I’m backing up what I claim. Always do. It’s mainly my own work and I know how tedious it can be for some these days to actually do a bit of legwork, watch a video over 8 mins long or God forbid, read.. The majority of the “links” are actually images if you’d bothered your arse to click on them.
Fuck it. Later.
I’ll definitely give you that opinion over the next day or two. I’ve been under some time pressure this week, so I haven’t be able to. But Senor el Once makes some very strong points about the advisability of debating with Mr. Good.
Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,
Agreed on many fronts.
First and foremost, my choice of the word “obsessive” may have been inappropriate and offensive. My apologies. No time to rack my brains in finding another word.
Yes, you do back up your claims.
The one sliver of applicability, however, is that you are dealing with and reacting to Mr. Watson/Good to the degree that he is obsessive about posting incessant nonsense. Sometimes such nonsense is best to “tenuki” (e.g., leave alone, let stand/fall on its own merits to astute future lurker readers) rather than engaging.
On a given theme, one brief post with links to the past Merry-go-round ride as justification about why you’re not going to ride the broken pogo horse for another spin may suffice. Chances are good if you contemplate it well, that his response to that, however nonsensical, can be left alone as final proof (in your favor) and punctuation to the thread, whereby you’ll have to take it on faith that intelligent future lurker readers will see it as such.
Yeah, and my arse got blisters from clicking on the minority of the “links” that went to full-fledged historical discussions on other forums that for full in-context appreciation required not just scrolling up, but paging many screens backwards and many screens forwards from the entry point.
Mr. Good on at least two occasions with me has made an astonishing argument, paraphrased: “they did X, because they could, and they’re not going to cough up memos, videos, tapes, etc. to prove or disprove anything because they can.”
The because they could/can argument is a very deep concept. Yet it meekly explains to me why exotic weapons (ala cold-fusion powered DEW) and video fakery (ala control of media) were deployed: because they could. In fact, their presence in their arsenals and at their disposal make it practically a necessity that they would be deployed rather than an option: to prove the concept, to prove they could, and to prove they could convince sufficient numbers of people of whatever the hell they wanted, and opportunistic bought-and-beholden leaders will pom-pom cheer for it whether or not they were informed before or after of its true nature.
Just an add on to expose Good.
Brian Good = Watson
So now you’re changing the subject again–from facade marks to columns, and then to the width of the hole. And you seem to think that facts — such as the fact that a 90-foot hole much better fits a North of Citgo flight path than it fits a South of Citgo flight path — somehow only belong to certain people.
Seňor Once, what oneslice does is post obsessive linkspam and imagespam he’s obvious got cached somewhere. Only the mentally defective are influenced by such nonsense. When I started internet activism in 2004 I noticed that the favorite argument of the Bushbots who could provide no other defense of their hero was gossip about me. One of them went as far as to post lists of 50 or 80 internet identities that he believed were me. Once again, only the mentally defective are impressed. Keep it up, oneslice!
In the [nearly] words of “country?” supergroup Alabama- “Troll On!”
Fair enough Craig. Sorry for the abruptness of the last post. Maybe Good did get “under my skin” but I’m certainly not “obsessive” about him. If somebody fights their corner on what they believe regarding 9/11, fair dos. But when it gets to the point that somebody is posting under different names arguing from both sides just to have a swipe at individuals (honest, hard working researchers) and the truth itself, then the only path is to expose that person.
I intended to show Good up for what he is regarding the Pentagon on the physics of the alleged damage itself, which has always been in question and which originally raised the valid questions about what actually happened there for years before the NOC evidence was unearthed.
Good bit the bait. He’s full of crap.
Maybe I should just ignore him, but it’s hard to stomach blatant disinfo merchants playing games when so much is at stake.
OSS, you follow the CIT playbook of Bluster, Bluff, Bullshit, and Bully.
Honest researchers who have the facts on their side have no need of such tactics–and would be ashamed to use them. You make the amusing assertion that you “always” back up what you claim–when you haven’t backed up here what you claim. You didn’t back up your claim that ASCE did not even try to address the lack of expected marks on the walls, and you didn’t back up your claim that the aircraft should be deflected upward when it hit the second floor. Instead you post a lot of distracting linkspam which will only fatigue, not convince, your readers.
You’ve been operating this way for years and you haven’t learned anything about picking persuasive points or persuasively presenting your points.
Hi Mr Boz,
Same old, same old huh?
I’m gonna frame that last post Good. Being accused of being a bully by the multiple personality, sexual harrasser of Carol Brouillet and lone (nasty ass) campaigner against Willy Rodriguez.
Am I being “obsessive” in pointing out that this guy is an emotionally unstable negative force on everything he touches regarding 9/11? His “wordsmithery” is finely tuned due to years of bullshit and trolling. It doesn’t fool me for one second.
Willie Rodriguez is proof positive that there were explosions prior to impact and CIT prove a major flaw in the OCT op itself on the Pentagon and he devotes his time and multiple socks to confusion and attacks on these very same people. Hmm..
Sorry if it “looks bad on me” to go down this road but maybe it’s because I know him more than anybody here?
Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,
Phil Jayhan of Let’s Roll Forums (and champion of the hollow tower theory) also has a campaign against Willy Rodriguez.
Whereas I do not agree with the nastiness, I do have to agree with the claims that Mr. Rodriguez could not have done everything he claimed to have done. He probably borrowed parts of his story from others.
Explosions in the tower’s basement timed with the aircraft impact is validated by other sources, even the videos of firemen arriving.
In other words, now you won’t even try to defend your ludicrous claims about the Pentagon. You think you can bully me with a bunch of girly gossip. Several years ago Carol Brouillet reacted with hysterical denial when I exposed some of her friends as bigots and liars. Everyone in the truth movement is familiar with the phenomenon of hysterical denial–and can recognize the signs: Accusing the truth-teller of irrationality, impugning the truth-teller’s motives, inventing supporting data, mistaking one’s opinions for facts.
At the time, Carol believed that exposing her friends was negative and destructive. It was destructive–to her friends. It was a good thing for the movement to call out discrediting elements for what they are. I never tried to cause trouble in Carol’s marriage, and if you knew how to read you could see that she didn’t say that I did. I considered Carol’s stable home life to be one of her greatest assets as an activist and a candidate, and I wasn’t going to do anything to threaten that.
Oh yeah, I believe that he may have exaggerated his role but his testimony on pre-impact explosions have been corroborated.
Good, I’m done educating your ass son. Give it up.
Officer Lim backs Rodriguez and his story: Lim’s a liar too isn’t he Good?
And yes, I am reading that scumbag Screwloosechange “blog”.
Lim and Rodriguez joint interview:
Reunion between Lim and Rodriguez:
William Rodriguez answered you on that blog didn’t he Good? Just a couple of months ago. And you crapped your little cotton knickers.
He even offered to arrange a meeting between yourself, him and David Lim, didn’t he Good? A chance to clear some accusations up.
You ran away. Again. Didn’t you Good? Just as you did with Craig Ranke.
Actually, Der Spiegel reports that Officer Lim refuses to comment on Willie’s story. See the story “Superhelden-Epos eines Putzmannes”. I didn’t run away from Willie or from Ranke. Willie refused to find a neutral venue for a debate, and Ranke refused to allow time to promote one. Ranke is the one who suddenly withdrew the challenge–and this after I kicked his ass in five different venues.
Of course none of this has anything to do with your ludicrous claims about the Pentagon, and only shows your inability to defend your irrational claims.
Carol’s accusations were not the least bit serious. She offered her opinion that my actions were destructive, but she didn’t show how they were destructive. She complained that I attacked her when I never did. I only attacked her friends. And they badly needed attacking. The closest I came to attacking her was to ask her “Carol, what the hell are you doing?” in a meeting and then convince an overflow crowd to deny her request for funding and promotional aid to Kevin Barrett’s very ill-conceived effort to paint the truth movement as a bunch of cop-killing, torturing vigilantes.
You had your chance to meet Lim and Rodriguez together in New York and you’re quoting a German newspaper??
As for your bs on Craig Ranke’s offer of a debate..
You refused an audio debate.
And your preconditions for a textual debate?
Dance away Good.
Is this relevant to “consensus on the Pentagon issue”? Bet your ass. Look at the type of person being dealt with. Chris Sarns uses the same twisted logic. And Richard Gage quoted him on his “retraction” alongside those who push the Pentagon OCT to the letter (Legge, Hoffman, Ashley).
I was busy in San Francisco on September 11th, propagandizing among the opera crowd. There was no reason for me to fly to New York. There is no reason to think Rodriguez appeared with Lim in New York.
Yes, I am unwilling to engage in real-time debates with liars. So first you bring up the issue of debates, and then you question its relevance. And then you wonder why people consider you a waste of time.
You’re so easily exposed Good.
First you claim that everyody is a “coward” and “runs away” from you. Then when the facts are spread before you (and anybody reading this blog), you revert back to “why should I debate with liars”.
You’re blowing smoke out of your ass about the damage to the Pentagon facade, when in the link to the Craig Ranke challenge you claim that you have no problem with the NOC evidence. You even spammed reams of nonsense about “NOC impact” to me at 911Oz. Even though the ASCE claims about the generator, vent structure, lightpoles and internal damage cannot be caused by an aircraft on the NOC trajectory.
Seriously Good. You need help.
OSS, your tendency toward overstated and untrue claims is counterproductive. I didn’t claim everybody was a coward. I have pointed out that Nike Ranke has fled from debate with me five times and apparently was afraid to show up at the Santa Cruz “Deep Politics” conference, and at the Conspiracy Con for two years running now.
I debate with liars frequently. Most of the people I debate are liars. That’s why I debate them. I prefer to debate like a real man, on the record, and not in real time, because real-time gives the advantage to those who invent their facts, and it also gives liars the opportunity to lie about what happened in an hour-long exchange that nobody is ever going to bother to listen to after the fact.
A NOC flight path to impact is much more consistent with the facade damage than the SoC flight path impact is. The 757’s125′ wingspan much more easily fits into a 90′ hole at 90 degrees than it does at 45 degrees.
The damage to the generator could just as easily have been faked in connection with a NOC impact as a SOC impact, so your claim that the damage precludes a NOC impact is typically, for you, irrational.
The objective of disinformation is not to convince you of one point of view or another, it is to create enough uncertainty so that everything is believable and nothing is knowable. – James Fetzer