‘Propaganda team’ uses contrived fight to derail 9/11 Truth movement

Ryan, Chandler, Legge and the rest would have us believe this is a picture of a plane crash.

May 21, 2012

By Craig McKee

It has been a very good year for the small but relentless group that wants evidence of a faked plane crash at the Pentagon on 9/11 taken off the table.
The group has scored a series of victories in recent months that have hurt the Truth movement and created a “lowest-common-denominator” approach to evidence and to building the case against the official story.
The clique in question includes Kevin Ryan, David Chandler, Jonathan Cole, Frank Legge, Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley, Chris Sarns, Justin Keogh, Michael Wolsey, Gregg Roberts, Erik Larson, and several others who have become “respectable” members of the movement (we know they are because they regularly endorse each other and cite each other’s “research”).
For a decade, we’ve seen an orchestrated and determined effort by this small clique to steer the 9/11 Truth movement away from the overwhelming evidence that no 757 ever hit the Pentagon.
The focal point of these orchestrated attacks in recent years has been the research by Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke of Citizen Investigation Team (as well as Rob Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth). CIT takes the position that a large plane approached the Pentagon on 9/11 but did not hit.
CIT’s critics claim that focusing on whether a plane hit the Pentagon has split the movement, but it is their attacks on CIT and Pilots that have done just that. Along with their CIT-bashing minions (Snowcrash, jimd3100, Arabesque, Brian Good, kdub, Jon Gold, YT, Jeff Hill, Adam Larson, and others), they have done much to poison the well of 9/11 truth.
Some of the CIT attackers have done credible research on the science of the World Trade Center destruction, some have attained trusted positions within major Truth movement organizations (including Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth), and some are just mean-spirited disrupters who do everything possible to inject venom into the debate while ridiculing “conspiracy theorists” at every turn.
In the last year or so, this anti-CIT “propaganda team” has succeeded in getting the two most visible leaders in the movement – David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage – to announce major direction changes. Griffin unveiled his “consensus approach” while Gage withdrew his previous support for CIT.
By creating a false controversy about whether a large plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11 the group has applied enormous pressure to these and other prominent members of the truth movement to get them to back away from supposedly “contentious” points in favour of those “we can all agree on.”
These less contentious points include the idea that no plane should have been able to hit the Pentagon, that Hani Hanjour could not have successfully flown the plane into the target, that Cheney and Rumsfeld lied about their whereabouts, etc. All of that is true, but evidence that no plane crashed is the most telling, the most powerful, AND the most likely to hit home with members of the public who are beginning to explore doubts about the official story.
The 9/11 Commission Report contends that Flight 77 flew on the south side of the Citgo gas station, knocking over five light poles and hitting the outer wall of the Pentagon without damaging the lawn and without causing significant damage where the wings and tail section would have hit. Leaving no major pieces of wreckage outside, the plane is then supposed to have ploughed through three rings of the Pentagon, leaving a round exit hole.
In their film National Security Alert, CIT effectively shows that the large plane that approached the Pentagon actually flew on the north side of the gas station, meaning that it could not have accounted for the damage path, including the five downed poles. Pilots supports this with research showing that a 757 could not have leveled out after the necessary descent and hit on ground level, nor could a plane flying on the north path have banked to hit the light poles and then the building.
In his latest book, 9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed, Griffin writes: “Unfortunately, this consensus has often been overshadowed by battles on secondary matters, especially the question of what hit the Pentagon. This battle allows the press to portray the 9/11 Movement as absurd, with members being more concerned with their battles against other “truthers” than with their differences from the government’s account.”
But who is starting the fights? Who has made this dispute so obvious and visible? It’s those who push the idea that a 757 really hit the Pentagon. Therein lies the real hypocrisy; they don’t want the movement to look bad, so they loudly and publicly attack anyone who doesn’t think a plane hit.
Griffin understands that the in-fighting in the movement has been detrimental, but he seems to see the disagreements as genuine differences of opinion rather than as a strategy by a small but vocal group to sink some of the strongest evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.
As outlined in Chapter 7 of his newest book, Griffin now says it is relatively unimportant whether a plane hit the Pentagon because it is clear that Flight 77 under the control of al-Qaeda could not have.
To his credit, Griffin has not withdrawn his support for CIT or the no-plane-impact position. While this must frustrate the small clique, they can at least celebrate the creation of Griffin’s Consensus 9/11 Panel, which has so far steered clear of the contentious Pentagon evidence.
So, why are these researchers so determined to steer us all away from the Pentagon? Is it because the Pentagon offers the weakest evidence or the strongest? Is it because some of them are operatives? Dupes? Or just misguided?  We can all draw our own conclusions. One conclusion I find inescapable is that their efforts are co-ordinated.
They’ve also gone after any other evidence that supports the faked plane crash scenario. The evidence that the data from the Flight Data Recorder was faked and planted, the ridiculous story of taxi driver Lloyde England and the impaled windshield that no one saw, and the account of April Gallop who climbed out through the hole supposedly made by the plane without seeing any evidence of a plane.
In short, they have accumulated a reason-challenged collection of arguments that comes down to the claim that we can’t PROVE a 757 didn’t hit. Legge, for example, says it’s perfectly reasonable that the default position should be that the official claims of a 757 impact are correct. Incredible.
Victoria Ashley in “To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show‘ ,  says it’s far-fetched to believe that it was all faked. Imagine, the light poles, the debris, the exit hole – all faked! But didn’t the perpetrators fake the destruction by plane impact and fire of two of the largest buildings in the world? That’s apparently not too elaborate but five light poles being left on the grass is too much to pull off.
Chris Sarns comes up with the brilliant position that faked evidence doesn’t mean a plane couldn’t have hit, too. In his piece “Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert,” he writes:
“If the internal directional damage was caused by explosives in a flyover, then it could be caused by explosives if the plane hit the Pentagon. … A plane could fly over or to the side of the light poles and still hit the Pentagon.”
Some of these people think it’s crazy to think so much evidence could have been faked, while others think it might have been faked even if the plane was going to hit the building anyway.
Legge writes, in an email to Griffin (quoted in 9/11 Ten Years Later): “[There is] a massive amount [of debris] inside the Pentagon and ample outside for the light parts, as seen in videos immediately after the impact, and no evidence whatsoever for truck loads of this material being carted to the site.”
He thinks we’d have seen truckloads of material being carted to the site if the debris was not genuine? Is he serious?
Legge says that any focus on the absence of airplane parts with serial numbers tying them to Flight 77 could backfire because the government might pull them out years later and make us all look stupid. Griffin rightly dismisses this suggestion, pointing out that holding back important evidence for years would harm the government’s credibility, not that of the Truth movement.
Jim Hoffman suggests in his 2006 paper “The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows” that the reason we don’t see major damage to the Pentagon facade where the wings and tail section should have hit might be because explosives were planted in the plane and were detonated right before impact or a “surface-to-air missile exploded on the aft starboard side of the jetliner just as the nose was beginning to impact the façade.”
The anti-CIT group has congregated at the fully compromised web site 911blogger. That’s where Chandler, Cole, Legge, Ryan, Hoffman, Ashley, and others have published papers attacking CIT and the no-757-impact position.
Other sites where their wisdom appears include 911oz.com and the laughable truthaction.org, which amounts to little more than Snowcrash and jimd3100 snickering and patting each other on the back every time they post an especially juicy and vicious attack on those who see them for the shills they are.
If those who appear more respectable were to occasionally condemn these more obvious disrupters, it might be possible to give them some benefit of the doubt. But they don’t. Ironically, even Gage and Griffin are attacked on these sites.
Griffin has carried this position over to his Consensus 9/11 Panel, which has stayed well away from any consideration of whether there was no plane impact. This fact is one major reason for the departure of members Paul Zaremka (dismissed), Barrie Zwicker and Shelton Lankford (both resigned in protest).
Here are events over the past year-and-a-half that show how this determined group has hijacked the agenda of the movement by deliberately splitting it over this issue:

  • October 2010: Kevin Ryan writes a piece entitled, “A dozen questions about Flight 77 and the Pentagon that might lead to justice, and one that won’t.” Ryan (who refers to the 9/11 “terrorist attacks” in a more recent paper) writes that the issue of what hit the Pentagon is the one question that won’t get us any closer to the truth.
  • January 2011: 9/11blogger posts, “The Pentagon: a Joint Statement by David Chandler and Jonathan Cole.” This paper attacks CIT and their research while stating that the Pentagon is a dead end for research because the government holds all the cards and the public acknowledges the military’s right to keep secrets.
  • February 2011: Richard Gage follows the Chandler/Cole statement with his similarly themed “Complete Withdrawal of Support” for CIT and their film National Security Alert. He later states that he wrote the paper “with guidance from others.”
  • February 2011: The Toronto Hearings into the Events of Sept. 11, 2001 are announced. Organizers announce that their intention is to avoid “controversial” subjects and stick primarily to the “safe” evidence of controlled demolition of the towers. Some Pentagon evidence is to be permitted but none from CIT.
  • March 2011: The Consensus 9/11 Panel is created (founded by Griffin and colleague Elizabeth Woodworth). It seeks to overcome the “controversy” that has split the movement by seeking an academic “consensus.” The object is to create a bank of points to counter the official story that can serve as a resource for the public and media.
  • September 2011: David Chandler and Frank Legge post a paper on 911blogger denouncing the flyover idea favoured by CIT.
  • September 2011: The Toronto Hearings almost entirely keep Pentagon research out. Barbara Honegger gets 25 minutes to review her position that explosives were set off in the Pentagon and that this happened several minutes earlier than what the official story says. Griffin gives a disturbing talk on the Pentagon which is devoted almost entirely to quoting Chandler, Cole, and Legge.
  • September 2011: Griffin releases his book 9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed. Chapter 7 of the book presents the evidence for and against a plane impact at the Pentagon. It quotes Chandler, Cole, Legge, and Hoffman liberally, although Griffin then makes his own very strong case for why a plane did not hit. CIT is not mentioned at all and Pilots for 9/11 Truth is only mentioned in a footnote. Zarembka, editor of The Hidden History of 9-11 calls these omissions “unforgiveable.”
  • January 2012: First-time screenwriter Howard Cohen announces that he is going to stay away from the most controversial 9/11 evidence so that mainstream media like Fox News will have less to attack once his film comes out. A mission statement for the film is released a month later that shifts the focus of the film to themes of “healing” and “forgiveness.” Cohen received pressure from Gregg Roberts (in emails I was shown by a reliable source) to leave out the issue of whether anything hit the Pentagon. Cohen was forthcoming about his approach to the film until after my interview with him was posted in March. Now he says there will be no more updates (although he contends that the reason has nothing to do with my article).
  • April 2012: Richard Gage of AE911Truth tours Canada, stating in the Edmonton Q & A session that the Pentagon was “attacked by a plane,” and the CIT’s approach was “not very scientific.” In my interview with him he praised the work of Frank Legge and his “extensive” research. He also admitted he wished he’d never gotten involved in the Pentagon issue in the first place.

In spite of the steps taken to marginalize the strongest Pentagon evidence there have been some bright spots. The site 911blogger was denounced in April 2011 by the 9/11 Truth Teleconference for its systematic banning of CIT supporters. Gage was strongly taken to task in a letter signed by 27 truthers for his withdrawal of support for CIT. And just last month, Gage told me in an interview that the withdrawal had caused dissension in the movement and that he would have been better to have stayed out of the Pentagon debate altogether.
Zarembka, Zwicker, and Lankford departed the Consensus Panel, questioning its shutting out of CIT and its “top-down” structure and “authoritarian” process. While this development brought attention to potential problems within the Panel, it also left it without three of its strongest voices on the Pentagon and 9/11 in general.
Several months back, I wrote that the Consensus Panel could not be timid in approving points that show the falsity of the official story. The cautious optimism I expressed then about what this body might achieve is waning quickly. They have a third set of points coming out soon, but expectations are likely to be low.
The challenge now is for the vast majority of the Truth movement to get the momentum back from the anti-CIT cabal. We have to decide whether to ignore them or go on the offensive. The accommodations made by Gage – and especially Griffin – won’t make this any easier.


      1. Thanks as well Sheila. I remember very fondly the day your article came out and the subsequent screaming and abuse I levelled at John Bursill over the telephone.

      2. Emmanuel Goldstein says – May 29, 2012 at 6:56 am:
        “Dr. Judy Wood presents overwhelming and irrefutable EVIDENCE that the World Trade Center Towers were “dustified” by a Directed Energy Weapon in her textbook WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?.”
        Listen Goldstein, Craig has promised a page for discussion of Judy Woods theories. If you intend to attend the proceedings will you do so in a straight forward manner, or just appear as the door to door book-salesman you have on former threads here?
        You have stated ad nauseum that Wood presents “irrefutable evidence”, but thus far have been unable to articulate even the beginning of a rational argument to that effect.
        If you feel you have become capable in the last few months, and have overcome your obvious former debating deficits, I think some would welcome your commentary when the time comes.
        However, if you have nothing but a sales pitch for the book. Let the comments here suffice, and leave the upcoming thread to a sane discussion.
        Thanks, ww

    1. Craig- You have a typo in the third paragraph. You wrote “Erik Larson” when you meant to write “Adam Larson”.
      I agree with your remarks about the “Consensus 9/11 Panel”. What people believe or want to believe has nothing to do with evidence. Case in point: Dr. Judy Wood presents overwhelming and irrefutable EVIDENCE that the World Trade Center Towers were “dustified” by a Directed Energy Weapon in her textbook WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?.
      Fetzer should change the name of the “911 VANCOUVER HEARINGS” to the “Debunking Dr. Judy Wood Party”.
      “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

      1. What I agree to is that it is disinformation by listing Erik Larson. Have you read the Forward he wrote in WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?

      2. Whoa whoa whoa,
        Different Eric(k) Larse(o)n, Mr. Goldstein. The Eric Larsen who wrote the foreward to Dr. Wood’s book is a completely different person than the Erik Larson who moderates 911blogger (loose nuke) and is a staunch opponent of many people and things “real truth” i.e. Kevin Barrett, DRG’s fake phone call theory, CIT, Pilots for Truth, no Pentagon plane crash, and has participated in the wholesale banning from blogger many people who support the above people and theories.

  1. Victoria Ashley in “To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show‘ , says it’s far-fetched to believe that it was all faked. Imagine, the light poles, the debris, the exit hole – all faked! But didn’t the perpetrators fake the destruction by plane impact and fire of two of the largest buildings in the world? That’s apparently not too elaborate but five light poles being left on the grass is too much to pull off.

    And Victoria is too smart to not get this.
    And why am I not surprised to learn of Gregg Roberts influencing Howard Cohen behind the scenes?

  2. While it seems irresponsible to register a decided strong conclusion about anything that one has not, at least as yet, personally and without bias examined evidence for and against (as CIT and some other groups and indivuals presumably have, although the unbiased part is sometimes in question), a good many of the manifold positions on this and that particular aspect of 9/11 could potentially split the movement if many Truthers construed the matters involved my-way-or-die determiners. The truth is, both CIT and the purported anti-CIT forces have that potential, simply because different people, intelligent at least in other things, have reached different tentative or set-in-stone conclusions. Some of these folks may be evil and even paid infiltrators — who knows for sure in many cases? But, some others simply arrive at what they have determined by a different route, or weigh different points of evidence differently. The point about plane, plane maybe, or plane no way being of less than existential importance for the movement and its “inside job” conclusion, I believe, in fact makes some real sense. Because, my observation is that, today, a very large majority of those who say “no plane, no way” conclude overall that 9/11 was an inside job, while a very large majority of those who conclude that a plane or other aircraft may have struck the Pentagon at some point also conclude overall that it was an inside job — which is the point of relatively more import. Of course the truth matters in the case of every aspect of the operation. But no one tells the whole story alone. And sometimes, unexpected new evidence sheds new light and justifiably changes minds, and none of us ought to become so rigid about what we have concluded as to leave no room for alteration of any of our conclusions caused by or to accommodate bits of new evidence, which will emerge.

    1. James,
      I agree with you that some may just innocently disagree with CIT. But my concern is that their efforts seem very co-ordinated, and the message is pretty consistent (although some details vary). If I disagreed with CIT, I’d say so, but I wouldn’t spend years attacking them and writing long involved attack pieces against their research. The reaction to what CIT is saying is over the top, in my opinion. It has a contrived feel to it. And they’ve got someone like David Ray Griffin – who agrees with CIT that no plane hit and that the damage trail was faked – moving away from what he believes to accommodate this small cabal. That’s what I mean by them hijacking the movement.

      1. I tend to agree with the view embraced by CIT and DRG, too. But, I seriously suspect all one can do is be truthful, positive, and straightforward in credibly presenting ones evidence. Little is likely to be gained by constant mudwrestling. Instead, put forward the best case, and the wise will judge correctily. And let them present whatever evidence they may have, even if none.

    2. James Hufferd,
      I’m afraid I have to disagree with you strongly. I spent a good month and a half or more arguing with Frank Legge in an email exchange on this subject.
      It is my firm conviction that Legge and others are indeed a contingent of moles, that had formerly ingratiated themselves into the movement. While I might parse Ryan out from these as being duped by the influence of Legge and others such as “the Austrailian” contingent, and others herein named by Mr. Mckee, especially Hoffman and Victoria.
      I think figuring this out quickly is essential, patty-cake is no game to play with ageneur , they must be outed and it must be seen as urgent.

      1. hybridroghe1,
        I’m not saying moles don’t exist. But, we have to make our case to the larger public. And the pchopatic enemy/system, our enemy, is making theirs by greater means and without scruples. So, our best hope is to make ours so consistently and persistently and convincingly that more and more people will notice and be brought along by the quality of our positive arguments, presented with distinguishing integrity — and not in constantly playing non-stop whackamole with legions and legions of infiltrators and imagined infiltrators. That’s THEIR game, and they’re past and professional masters at it. And they want to keep us occupied in such diversions — while they drag us down and all the public sees is a lot of mud-wrestling. We’ve got to defeat them by making them play OUR game — one of reason and science and impressing the jury with our EVIDENCE, not our ability (far inferior) to gage fight.

      2. James,
        I’ve been in this business for more than 40 years, and I will tell you a FACT: Your so-called “public” is by majority, a mass of TVZombie automaton lunatics.
        It is coming on eleven years now and the Truth Movement hasn’t even begun to make a dent in the thinking of these robots.
        Now you can point to “polls” and statistics all you want, but these always are answered by those who are hot for the truth, which is a small minority of the general public.
        If this was a population of serious, thinking people, they would have known long before 9/11 that the so-called government is nothing but a criminal syndicate fronting for a global hierarchy headed by the international banking cabal – that the Constitution has been dead since the 1930s, that the executive branch rules by fiat and that there is NO United States of America, but only Regions designated and ruled by decree.
        If you seriously believe you are going to have any impact whatsoever on the message put out by the Public Relations Regime, then you are living in a fairytale world not so unlike the rest of the Amerikans.
        There is an agenda that has been in effect for centuries that is now close to fruition. It is hidden in plain sight, it is only the credulity of a herd-like race that cannot see what is before their very eyes.
        So, why do I care? Why do I seek the truth and argue for it? Simply because it IS the truth and it is my assumed responsibility as a lucid thinking individual to seek, grasp, and speak such truths.
        Would I hope that the human race may someday awaken from it’s historical stupor? Of course I would. Do I reasonably think this is going to happen? Only when pigs learn to fly.

      3. Dear Mr. Rogue,
        That was one of several mighty fine postings and most agreeable. I like this passage:

        There is an agenda that has been in effect for centuries that is now close to fruition. It is hidden in plain sight, it is only the credulity of a herd-like race that cannot see what is before their very eyes.

        Sadly so.

        If this was a population of serious, thinking people, they would have known long before 9/11 that the so-called government is nothing but a criminal syndicate fronting for a global hierarchy headed by the international banking cabal – that the Constitution has been dead since the 1930s, that the executive branch rules by fiat and that there is NO United States of America, but only Regions designated and ruled by decree.

        One could argue that the Constitution was dead before 1930. Like in 1913 or so when they shoved the Federal Reserve and the income tax on us. Or like in the late 1800’s when they deemed corporations as individuals. In that same earlier time-frame is when the President of the United States changed from his role being responsible to the United States citizens into being the executive officer of CORP. USA — a corporation with job titles parallel to supposed elected public officials — and thus being responsible to its shareholders — the elite moneyed banking types.
        Because the source is no longer available, here’s a re-publish of an article on the subject: Critical History – The U.S. is a CORPORATION
        This being said, you were being a little hard on Mr. Hufferd. I find his postings also agreeable, even when he says:

        We have to make our case to the larger public. And the [psychopathic] enemy/system, our enemy, is making theirs by greater means and without scruples. … We’ve got to defeat them by making them play OUR game — one of reason and science and impressing the jury with our EVIDENCE, not our ability (far inferior) to gage fight.

        Our game is… to care. Our game is what Mr. Rogue says:

        Why do I care? Why do I seek the truth and argue for it? Simply because it IS the truth and it is my assumed responsibility as a lucid thinking individual to seek, grasp, and speak such truths.

      4. James,
        Hoping you don’t consider it merely a flame on my part, let me just expand on the very simple reasoning behind my response to you.
        The tug-of-war between the executive and the legislative branches over this issue is ongoing because there has been no definitive legal decision to resolve it. Both sides are traditionally loath to bring executive privilege fights to the courts for fear that they will lose, thereby setting a precedent that cuts against them. The courts, meanwhile, are reluctant to take executive privilege cases; the judicial branch’s general policy is to encourage the legislative and executive branches to negotiate and renegotiate. Only when there’s no room for accommodation will the judiciary intervene. Just one standoff similar to the current situation has ever made it to court, in fact.
        And it is also a fact the Executive Privilege is a Constitutional Myth.
        It is also a fact that it is unconstitutional for the president to wage war without a Congressional Declaration of War.
        Beyond any other, these two essential facts prove that the US government is ultra vires, thus illegitimate.

      5. Interesting comments Senor,
        I have looked at my post off and on all day, and I began coming to the same conclusion as you have – it seemed a little harsh. The only excuse I can offer is my passion, and my position that the truth – which must be surely recognized as a ‘Hard Truth’ – but that this truth must be said plainly and frankly.
        However as you will see, I came back with what I hope can mollify in some degree, with some factual information.
        I would note that I am cited as an adviser to a paper by Lisa Giuliani titled The US is a Corporation. It was published in 2003 as I recall. She is involved with Victor Thorn and they have a web site that has been going pretty strong for the last few years.
        I had some complaints about parts of the article, which had some real basic {I would say stupid} errors, but there are aspects that she got straight…even though the “valley girl” tone of her style wasn’t my cup of tea.
        I didn’t check your link yet….

      6. Mr Hufferd,
        Perhaps these quotes from Orwell will help you understand the meaning underlying, not only the Vietnam War, but all post industrial war:
        * “Once when he happened in some connexion to mention the war against Eurasia, she startled him by saying casually that in her opinion the war was not happening. The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, ‘just to keep people frightened’. This was an idea that had literally never occurred to him.”
        * “The object of waging a war is always to be in a better position in which to wage another war.”
        * “The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.”~George Orwell – 1984

  3. Very well said Craig!
    I would like to point out something in regards to the anti-CIT cabal for consideration. The vast majority of the cabal who you name are located either in the San Francisco bay area or in Australia. In fact one of the cabal “YT” also known as “Cosmos” lived in the bay area until recently when he moved away to of all places Australia or is it New Zealand or is it Narnia? In any case I hear through the grape vine that he has moved away from the bay area. Here is “Cosmos” in Australia talking about how much he loves John Bursill who as some of us know is one of the Australian members of the cabal:
    “Cosmos” founded truthaction which is now as you correctly point out a virtual ghost town and cess pit frequented only by a few of the most notorious disruptors anywhere such as the vile gangster snowcrash (I was so tempted to say Jabba the Hut LOL). “Cosmos” has been recently exposed as a fraud here:
    Truefaction Founder Yt/cosmos Busted As A Fraud Once And For All, the widow of “Uncle Mickey” has never heard of him
    The important point here that many are not aware of is that the bay area is literally the west coast capitol of the various alphabet agencies such as the FBI. San Francisco is also home to one of the largest if not the largest fusion center in the United States where all these agencies get together and cook up wonderful plans like COINTELPRO or Operation Mockinbird etc. Oh did I mention that there are Military PSYOPS units based in the Bay area too? Yep there sure are check out the Presidio PSYOPS units.
    Now to expand on the Australian connection let me just say that the CIA has been caught red handed literally fomenting the overthrow of the Australian government for starters. In addition to that Frank Legge is an “advisor” to “Cosmos” and the 911truthnews crowd who are all cabal members.
    It just seems odd to me the concentration of anti CIT cabal members in the bay area and Australia. If it were a legitimate disagreement about the facts regarding the pentagon wouldn’t those who dispute CIT be relatively dispersed in all areas of the USA and world? Perhaps only bay area truthers are smart enough to see through CIT’s clever ruse? Or could it be that a professional group of operatives is operating out of a base in the bay area?

    1. Adam,
      That’s really odd, isn’t it? I knew about the Australian cabal but I wasn’t aware that so many of the others were from the Bay area. Maybe they just all go bowling together and their opinions blend together. Does the CIA have a bowling team?

      1. I think they do have a bowling team called Cass’s Infiltration Associates or as their shirts read they are simply called the “CIA bowlers”. I hear “Cosmos” has a 135 average.

    2. @ A. Ruff: Thanks for once again highlighting the fraud known as YT/Cosmos. This is on topic, and actually complements the article, since “Cosmos” was pretty much the one name McKee didn’t mention, and Cosmos is definitely part of the “the cabal.” Though he hasn’t written any “original” attack “essays” against CIT, he wholeheartedly promotes the “work” of Sarns, Hoffman, etc.
      One thing that IMO makes a person a likely infiltrator is how passionate they are about certain things while remaining pretty noncommital the rest of the time. Cosmos, for example, was never too prolific a poster at 911blogger, yet, when a random 911blogger user submitted a blog entry regarding CIT’s 2010 Europe tour, who should be the very first person to pop in the door and title a comment with the following words:

      Bad news for Europe and 9/11 truth

      And then proceeds to slap down links to Hoffman’s and Ashley’s “work.”
      Cosmos doesn’t just limit his attacks to CIT. He’ll go after ANYONE prominent within the movement, such as DRG or Kevin Barrett. The only people he’s truly chummy with are LIHOPpers and OCT supporters. Snowcrash has been one of the most obvious provocateurs within the online community, and Cosmos has recently made Snowcrash a moderator at that forum. Thankfully, that forum is completely dead except for the circle-jerk.
      As Adam Ruff said at Pilots: Cosmos is a poison pill at minimum and a paid operative at worst.
      As I’ve said elsewhere, Cosmos reminds me very much of the fake 9/11 survivor “Tania Head,” who fooled everyone until inconsistencies in her story began to get noticed. Much like Cosmos’ fluctuation between “uncle” and “family friend” when describing Mark Rothenberg, Tania Head claimed to have lost a lover in the North Tower, and she fluctuated between “fiance” and “husband.” The more her story unraveled, the more she disappeared into the shadows, until she disappeared completely. It turned out that Tania was Spanish, was in Spain on 9/11, and was from a very wealthy family. The Survivors’ Network, at which Tania had risen to President, received an email one day from a Spanish email address, saying that “Tania” had committed suicide. However, the maker of a documentary about the fraudess (I think I just coined a new word) actually spotted her in NYC shortly after the 10th anniversary.
      Likewise, Cosmos has gone from being very active online and in the streets, to disappearing to an small island off the coast of New Zealand.
      Looking at some of those old 911blogger threads, I’m reminded of just what a vile, disgusting, fraudulent, hypocritical POS Cosmos is, and why it’s important to expose him. Adam Ruff posted a video of Cosmos giving a talk Down Under, and at 6:30 he clearly says, “I lost my Uncle Mickey on 9/11.” Now, after hearing that, listen to the wife of “Uncle Mickey” express ignorance of ever having heard of this “Cosmos,” who was sooooo close to Mickey that he was “like” an uncle.

    3. Hybrid, If you had to be around for 40 years to figure that out, you weren’t paying attention! Our job — as unlikely as you may say it is, since you’re one of the enormous crowd of follow-ons who say people are just, in effect, too stupid — is to turn around public opinion, in the same way that it WAS to force an end to the Vietnam War, and, possibly analogous, to begin to favor marriage equality. It CAN BE DONE. People are NOT stupid! The vast majority are capable of learning and knowing vast amounts about computers, auto mechanics, Bible quotations, WW II or Civil War history, or mathematics, movie lore, novels,, etc., etc., etc.They don’t THINK sometimes (or don’t seem to “You can’t wake up someone pretending to be asleep”) because they are trained not to. But, the CAN! The human mind is anything but stupid. People were tricked and brow-beaten by an intelligence we detest, but it was a phenomenal achievement. And our calling (and there are enought of us to do it) is to re-program people to actively think again, undoing the con job that’s been done on mass humanity, or cutting through it to get our information through. So, let’s not US be stupider than the programmers who messed us over were/are. Let’s beat them by learning how to reprogram, or un-program human beings. Because, as with the Vietnam War, once the voters and the soldiers are un-programmed from the same morasma we face today, they (we) are too powerful and get our way. We can’t win by your stupid mudwrestling against professional agent infiltrators. That’s not going to happen!

      1. “WW II or Civil War history, or mathematics, movie lore, novels,, etc., etc., etc.”~James Hufferd
        So you say the people are not stupid and are capable of learning these and other things.
        And so it is. Mathematics is of course necessary for the progression of a technological society. The truths here are essential for the success of the technocrats.
        But history???
        Tell me if you know why the Second World War was fought?
        Which side was correct in the Civil War? Was Lincoln the first dictator of the US? Or did he save the Union and destroy the Republic in the bargain? Was the US Constitution established by elite fiat? Did the Convention take place ultra vires? Technically it is so, it was a coup d’etat against the Confederation fought for by the Revolution under the terms of the Declaration of Independence.
        Do you know the genesis of the American Historical Society? That it is a construct of Austrian dialectical machinations? Do you understand the importance of the secret Anglophile network that acted as “stay-behinds’ after the Revolution? And how these monied elites created the major universities with grants of Tory corporatist grants?
        Or even further back in history to the “discovery” of this continent by ‘Christ’s Dove’ aka Christopher Columbus {Columb the dove that brought back proof of dry land to Noah in the fable of the Arc}…And the ancient charts…from whence did these come to this wayfarer and by what ‘chance’ all of these coincidental poetics of names of things and people such as our ‘dove
        and his ship the Mother of Christ, Mary?
        Do you yourself grasp what fable is lollipop history, as propagated in western ‘civilization’?
        And the academiacs who’s pedigrees are so steeped in this mythology as laughable as believing in the Roman Gods…
        Yes the ‘people’ are smart enough to read their orders. And thoughtful enough to the wiles of ‘authority’ to go along to get along. To not “bite the hand that feeds” as the elite mentality would have it.
        Try your mind on Bacon, and the New Atlantis…do you realize how long ago that “America” was conceived? And how long this continent was known of for such a conception to have existed?
        There are no mysteries in the Mystery Schools that are not in plain sight.

    4. Mr. Rogue,
      I don’t need to either agree or disagree with your low opinion of the U.S. public and electorate to maintain, as I do, that, regardless, that rabble is capable of constituting our final tribunal and the jury to ajudicate our woes against the U.S. system and its integral participation in the NWO. Because, if that dynamo (the U.S. electorate) can be harnessed, as derelict as most all of its members may seem to be or be, you have an irresistable force. The turning of the American public, including the rank-and-file soldiers, once achieved, brought an abrupt and even unseemly end to the Vietnam War that has rankled and embittered the right wing ever since. And we need to concentrate our brainpower and utmost efforts to achieve precisely the same result re the public image and opinion regarding 9/11. Once we get that straight and stop frazzling ourselves mudwrestlling over relatively minor details with each other and with the unbeatable champ agent provocateurs sent out to keep us tied in knots, the system will magically respond, because it fears the public with good reason, and we will win, just as the anti-war activistists did then.

      1. Mr. Rogue,
        I challenge you to read and absorb the volumes of history I’ve written, my recent Amazon and Smashwords ebook, Troublesome Country (coming out in a print edition from Progressive Press soon), having direct bearing on your remarks. Look them up, read them if you can read, and get back to me. OK, hot shot?
        James Hufferd

      2. Mr. Hufferd,
        You have staked everything to this opinion:
        “end to the Vietnam War that has rankled and embittered the right wing ever since…”
        Which is to my knowledge a most naive and stunted version of history. You speak of the “right wing” as though it weren’t a synthesized phantom – and obviously embrace “the left” as if it were any more real. And of course this illustrates your absolute ignorance of how the dialectic has effected your thinking.
        Left and Right is bullshit. Democrat and Republican is bullshit – ALL teams are owned by the Money Power.
        As far as I am concerned you are living in a myth, writing about a myth, and believing in a false paradigm. You are hoodwinked and playing THEIR GAME.

      3. Hufferd,
        I understand the ‘sportscaster view of history’ as well as anyone else. I had history classes in school on the Civil War, from teachers who could name every officer and every battle, from the opening shots to the final battles leaving the south a smoldering pile of rubble. And yet they had zero comprehension to what any of it actually meant. And when you speak to the ‘intelligence’ of ‘the people’ – this is the type of petty hobbyhorse bullshit you name “intelligence”. It will be of little consequence to angle for me in your shallow eddies with your skinny rod and reel and shiny feather hooks, I am in the deepest fathoms of the blue blue sea.
        “Hot shot” – you have no idea how funny that one came off to me, you’re still a diaper dumper drawing pictures of shit on the wall beside your playpen. So if you want to play Caustic Roulette, I warn you – I am a master.

        1. WW,
          I’m all for colourful writing, but I can do without “shit on the wall” snipes. Or Ocelots marking their territory. In other words, please skip the bathroom witticisms. I don’t like chopping that stuff out because then the paragraph doesn’t make sense, but I’ll do it if I have to.
          While I’m at it, I do want to create a comment thread where specifics of Judy Wood’s book (or her research in other forms) can be discussed rationally and debated. You’re welcome to participate. This will be tightly moderated, however. There will be no “WooWoo” comments and there will be no ridiculing or mocking unless you can back up what you’re saying with real information. I’ve heard plenty of ridicule where Wood is concerned but very little in the way of rational discussion. Some people may think I shouldn’t go there, but I am not afraid of hearing a serious discussion on anything. If she’s wrong, tell me why. I’ll introduce the topic, likely, with a short article, and then you can all have your say. Or not. I’ll probably produce a regular blog post shortly after the thread is introduced, so anyone who isn’t interested in that topic will have something else to comment on soon enough.
          Senor El Once can’t mandate anyone to read Wood’s book, but he can point out that an informed discussion is infinitely more valuable than one based on insults. I hope some informed readers do offer comments, for or against. We’ll see.

      4. Hi Craig,
        I got ya, and will be less “colorful” as I can manage, and you can post or not post my comments as you judge.
        As far as Judy Wood…I did not begin with the woowoo business, but ended up there after discussing her works for a long thread back some time back. I don’t even know if there is anything further to say on the subject for myself.
        I suppose I could revisit the past argument and refine some of my arguments from that, but as far as I am concerned she has nothing. But we’ll see what you come up with for your article, and what Mr. Once has to offer. Even though it doesn’t look promising that it will be anything ,more than what I have read from him before.
        As far as Hufferd…I can’t figure out what he wants from me, or why he has latched on and can’t seem to let it go. But when someone gets snarky with me…well, you know how I am. It’s like if someone comes up to me and tries to shove me – I will likely simply finish them off with a flying roundhouse kick and be done with it.
        Personally I don’t like any of this internecine conflict. Unfortunately this is where we have ended up – and we deal with things as they are, not as we wish they could be.
        Thanks for your advice and patience.

  4. Craig’s pattern recognition is important here.The recognition of a co-ordinated systemic campaign. This suggests either collusion or direction from above. The evidence is circumstantial but circumstantial evidence is accepted in courts of law — frequently. A reasonable person can now ask why those not named here as being involved in the co-ordinated sustained attack on CIT and its evidence, have failed so far to even recognize, let alone address the fact of this co-ordinated campaign. Reasonable persons can also move on to ask the “why” of the co-ordinated attack campaign on CIT and its evidence. Clearly some important secrets are at stake. My hypothesis is that they lie close to Dov Zackheim and his enablers. Years of obfuscation have served to delay addressing questions of provenance, questions about the upper cast of characters, and about the nature of the rogue networks involved. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that the nefarious activities of this band of disinformationists has slowed down history, even at a time of speed-up. Craig has done a great service in engaging in this kind of overview.

    1. Mr Zwicker,
      I have spent a goodly portion of my life studying a certain “entity” through the annals of both history and prehistory. As to your hypothesis concerning Zackheim and his enablers, I couldn’t agree more.
      I think that the synthesis being reached for is a narrowing of the list of perpetrators down to the US executive regime at the time of the 9/11 event – ie, Damage Control. Which will mean a very large modified limited hangout.
      As such, I perceive this to be evidence of a huge miscalculation on the part of the perpetrating parties. In other words, I see this as a contingency on the fly. They are playing a game of catch-up. Lot’s of cats are wandering about far from the bag.
      I have spoken to the use of the Delphi Method in quite a few posts on the previous thread. There, those with a larger view of the panorama of history I am laying out will see some indication of who is at the center of this operation, as they are at the center of the agenda for a New World Order.

      1. I think they’re just hired agents-provocateurs — the real centre (if you will) dispensing directives is a mile above their heads, invisible, and very probably completely unknown to them. See my forthcoming book.

      2. Yes James,
        I agree with you Zackheim is just a minion, of course. Just about anyone who is visible is just a mid level minion in the vast pyramid of power.
        Buy the way, you had quite a bit to say in the post below the video. And I don’t disagree with it in any substantial way, other than you do not take my meaning. I do not believe that the human mind is incapable, that it is not brilliant in many ways, or that most people are ‘stupid’. What I am saying is that they are ‘Enchanted’…and for a large part they love their trance. The joys of the base and petty are seductive. And when the deep understanding of mass psychology is attended to as Bernays articulated it, the system was synthesized to process and program the population by emotional cues and train them to addiction to the seductive programming attending to their desires with toys and games and circus and chocolates and sheer stockings and glamour and style and form and…no substance.
        You want to reach these people – so do I. But they cannot be reached by rational argument alone. They are trained by emotions, bypassing the critical facilities while watching TV which induces an alpha state wherein one is susceptible to suggestion. And this goes on from cradle to grave and has for generations.
        These enchanted ones need deprogramming – or shock and awe – and perhaps the coming austerity and the pain of that will finally catch their serious attention, {?}
        Now you speak to the anti-war movement and it’s ‘victory’ over Vietnam. It is not so clear cut, and I could make a strong argument that that was actually a synthesis that did not lead to anywhere but here, where we are today. But that would be a complex argument to make in the current situation on this thread. Nevertheless, I have attending reasoning to go with such an assertion.
        As cynical as I may seem, I cannot but work towards a saner world.

    2. @Barrie Zwicker
      As I have pointed out on the last few page of this site, the conclusions that CIT put forward as being ‘definitive’ and ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ are arrived at by an illogical and flawed assessment of the evidence. I think that is pretty obvious and no one here has put up a valid argument to dispute what I have said about it. As someone who has endorsed their conclusions and called them ‘reliable’ ,’conclusive’ and ‘undeniable’ I think you should read the points I raised as I think your reading of this CIT/anti-CIT controversy is coloured by a mis-apprehension about the very thing at the centre of it. Someone who thinks, for one thing, that something is undeniable is going to find it strange , and suspicious, that anyone else could deny it, leading to all kinds of mis-reading of the motives and actions of others.

  5. I think you’re being too hard on David Ray Griffin and ought to get his side of the “Consensus Panel” issue.
    Blogger is terrible- and as far as I know, David Ray Grififn has not participated in it for several years. All CIT supporters have been banned (me included).
    And as far as I know, Griffin endorsed CIT and has NEVER renounced his endorsement ~ therefore, I want to hear what happened in his own words if possible.

    1. Painter,
      I too would love to hear what DRG has to say but unfortunately, though I included him on all my e-mails to Elizabeth Woodworth on this very subject, he did not respond in any way. Ask him directly and post his response or lack of one here. Perhaps you can contact him and get an answer where I have failed. It is worth the effort in my opinion.

    2. Hi Painter,
      “September 2011: Griffin releases his book 9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed. Chapter 7 of the book presents the evidence for and against a plane impact at the Pentagon. It quotes Chandler, Cole, Legge, and Hoffman liberally, although Griffin then makes his own very strong case for why a plane did not hit. CIT is not mentioned at all and Pilots for 9/11 Truth is only mentioned in a footnote. Zarembka, editor of The Hidden History of 9-11 calls these omissions “unforgiveable.”
      That he quotes that ragtag of (Pentagon related) liars and flips CIT and Rob speaks volumes.

  6. “This battle allows the press to portray the 9/11 Movement as absurd..”~ David Ray Griffin
    And yet it is a long standing fact the “the press” has always portrayed the 9/11 Movement as absurd.
    This was the point Legge made to me consistently during our email discussion on the Pentagon. But I as pointed out to him, the general public thinks it absurd to claim that the twin towers were blown up – anyone caught in the mental vice-grip of the Public Relations Regime is already beyond the reach of reason anyway.
    Like many here, I would agree with Painter, that there have been powerful influences put to Griffin for him to have turned in this direction, as he has been, perhaps the most important voice to establish the movement in the first place.
    Accordingly he would be the prime target to get next to, to influence. And just as troubling he seems to be isolated and surrounded by the contingent we are concerned with here.
    Perhaps we should recall the relationship of Robert the Bruce and William Wallace. Intrigue is often not fully appreciated for decades, even centuries in some instances.
    One thing always to keep in mind though….’Certainty’ is a dead mistress.

  7. Excellent article once again Craig.
    I vote for going on the offensive and will email you privately with my suggestion.

  8. “Plausible deniability” would suggest that as long as a real plane crashing at the Pentagon is in play, then those alleged hijackers at the controls of the plane are responsible for the deaths of those investigating the missing $2.3 trillion [a rinky-dink coincidence].
    When the fly-over enters into the realm of being true, then everything deployed in the Pentagon destruction becomes proof of premeditation and motive.
    Great article, Mr. McKee. A shot right across their bow with the naming of names.

  9. I am curious as to whether anyone here is familiar with any of the other works of David Ray Griffin.
    He has, after all authored many books on theology and philosophy. Does anyone know what his ideas are on how to heal the world? What he thinks, “it all means”, etc?
    I can’t speak to this with authority, but I did read a comment on one blog several years ago, that suggested that Griffin is not at all opposed to some form of global governance. The reason this might be pertinent is that at times, some thinkers will feel that there is a higher calling to be attended to – and these types of thinkers are often the “peace makers”, of what I would call the Utopian ilk.
    Now, I have addressed on earlier threads here what I see as a core epistemic misconception as to the idea of ‘consensus’, which is deeper, and needs make no account as to the origins of the Delphi method and other issues I just spoke to in the last thread on this topic.
    An ancient aphorism may sum up what I am getting at here:
    “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

  10. Obviously the pilots know what they are talking about. The architects and philosophers ought to listen to them. I believe the pilots for 9/11 Truth when it comes to the Pentagon and what took place there.

  11. There is nothing to ‘disagree’ about with CIT. these people must ‘disagree’ with the witnesses.
    They existed for years and were not only interviewed by the military historians, but some were interviewed by the MSM. They were all accepted as genuine witnesses then. Now that the exact details regarding the exact placement of the plane in relation to it’s direction toward the gas station or in relation to which side of the gas station it was on (versus the light poles) has been corroborated, it is of immense concern to these supposed truth movement members, some of whom have never investigated the pentagon attack. And their concern is to undermine their damaging testimony.
    @ James Hufferd,
    Can you specifically detail something CIT or PFT has produced that one of these supposed truth movement members can realistically or fairly ‘disagree’ with that allows them to publicly dissuade other truth movement members?

  12. “When the Delphi Method was developed Rand knew the information would be deficient, the data would be ripe with intangibles and the model would be open ended or progressive.
    The experiment of 911 and it’s near interminable benefit to the shapers is so far beyond the empire-building, WOT trauma-based beta programming and monetary compendiums that the proof lies in the very fact they modeled the intangibles purposely into the event.
    If JFK has not exhibited this process to sceptics after a fifty year run, it’s a deficiency not only in judgment but scope. The assorted and growing masses are introduced to an assortment of theories by legitimate and psyoperators and the Delphi Method is diluted into ego’s, bandwagoneers and moles.
    The data mined must be infinite since email one and this trichotomy reaping many fruits for the analysts. A newbie would be best to go in blind at this point, but the event object, images and experience along with the MSM frequencies has already skewed the process.”~Puddy Dune, COTO

    1. We would have, for instance, to address the international public (world’s second, unconsolidated, superpower) a bit less jargony than this if we hope to elicit a favorable response:
      [The experiment of 911 and it’s near interminable benefit to the shapers is so far beyond the empire-building, WOT trauma-based beta programming and monetary compendiums that the proof lies in the very fact they modeled the intangibles purposely into the event.]

      1. Of course James,
        The remarks by Mr. Dunne are made to adepts on the site I mentioned after his name.
        I would perhaps read as ‘Greek’ to the man on the street. But as I remarked to above, simple unfettered reason [clear of all the programmed emotional cues] – such reasoning is ‘Greek’ to them as well. And again, not because they are ‘stupid’ – but because they are mind-f**ked.
        Have you never experienced the rage of some of these flag waving TVZombies when you dare to point out even the most obvious truths to them? Surely you have contact with the McDonald’s trademarked brainwave?
        They are all around you like grazing herds of sheep – Homo Vishnu Amerikanus.
        So yes I do recognize that the quote I gave is not the proper form of propaganda to reach them with. But we must not cater to them in bumper sticker phrases, and newspeak lollipop terms like their masters either. Capturing the attention span of a gnat is a constant redo repeat chore.
        I have met many extremely intelligent people that simple cannot hear any of this. They are simply locked into the paradigm. I would make note of Mr. Wright on this thread for the first time just a bit ago. I read Wright as a very intelligent individual. But he is locked in that conformist box, safe and sound from the raging thunder just outside. He has not idea what is really going on. The beancounter mind, with an utter lack of personal imagination.
        Convince him.

  13. A couple more observations:

    Legge writes, in an email to Griffin (quoted in 9/11 Ten Years Later): “[There is] a massive amount [of debris] inside the Pentagon and ample outside for the light parts, as seen in videos immediately after the impact, and no evidence whatsoever for truck loads of this material being carted to the site.”
    He thinks we’d have seen truckloads of material being carted to the site if the debris was not genuine? Is he serious?

    Well, first of all, there aren’t “truckloads” of wreckage outside or inside the building. Secondly, while we don’t have photos of “truckloads” of debris being brought in to be planted, we do have this suspicious image:
    Two bare-handed guys in white shirts and ties, with scraps in their hands. Are the removing it? Or are they PLANTING it, so it can then be photographed up close, to serve as ammo for the Jon Golds and Michael Wolseys of the truth movement to cite and say to our side: “SEE??? There WAS wreckage, you ignorant idiots!”
    I also want to take Dr. Griffin to task on one of his comments from his latest book:

    In his latest book, 9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed, Griffin writes: “Unfortunately, this consensus has often been overshadowed by battles on secondary matters, especially the question of what hit the Pentagon. This battle allows the press to portray the 9/11 Movement as absurd, with members being more concerned with their battles against other “truthers” than with their differences from the government’s account.”

    Okay, now maybe I’ve missed something. And I will humbly stand corrected if I’m wrong. Has there ever been a hit piece from the MSM which has cited the intra-movement squabble about the Pentagon flyover, as a means of portraying us as cranks who can’t even agree with one another? I can’t think of one. Most MSM hit pieces I’ve seen usually say things like: “These truthers believe explosives brought down the towers and that a missile hit the Pentagon.”

  14. “There is nothing to ‘disagree’ about with CIT. these people must ‘disagree’ with the witnesses.”
    Great post A. Right!

  15. All the CIT witnesses who could see the pentagon said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Several said the plane hit and then there was an explosion. This includes the witness closest to the impact. CIT, in so many words, calls him a liar but considers his recollection [years later and with no photo in front of him for guidance] of which side of the Citgo station the plane flew as accurate.
    CIT contends that these 12 witnesses were mistaken/fooled by a magic trick. That is by no stretch if the imagination the most compelling evidence that the official conspiracy theory 9/11 is false. On the contrary, it sounds absurd because it is.
    If you saw a plane full of people hit a building full of people, what would you remember most, the impact or the approach?

    1. @Chris Sarns,
      – the approach, obviously!
      Someone witnesses, for example, an accident that is due to several “coincidences”. The shock of being present at the maiming or sudden death of one or more fellow beings causes an involuntary closure of the witness’s eyes—perhaps for only a few seconds. The image that through the sight and through the physical brain is registered in the astral and the psychic brains is then quite incomplete, since these can receive an image only of what the witness has “seen”. Later, recalling what took place and what he or she experienced, the witness tries by thought to piece together the recorded fragments. As an “eye witness”, the witness should of course know what had happened, but not recalling20 closing the eyes21—perhaps at the decisive moment—the witness’s thought sets about reconstructing a plausible general impression: it happened in such and such a way. . . But with the constant repetition of such thoughts, new images assume—through the thought-channel, the cord—definite form in the astral brain. These images appear with every repetition of what the eyewitness has experienced, and, supported by the thought, they become steadily clearer until the individual becomes convinced of having seen the accident in every detail; and although he very well knows that his thoughts have dwelt at length on the same subject, still he is deceived by the train of images that his thought has composed. As a rule it is useless that another eyewitness unfolds the event for him as it has really taken place, for he will, in most cases, stoutly maintain that his is the correct version.
      Such uncritical thinking serves no other purpose than to push back the original exact but fragmented image received by the astral and the psychic brains and to produce a train of self-composed images having nothing to do with reality.
      If a more advanced or a high spirit is bound to the physical body, such self-suggestion will not be able to take place as the spiritual self will quickly survey the situation and understand that it has received that which has happened only in fragments. And if the individual tries to gather these fragments into a complete picture, he or she will likewise realize that it was their own thought which had filled in the gaps.
      Here’s an account by a witness named “Scarlet”:
      As I came up along the Pentagon I saw helicopters. That’s not strange. It’s the Pentagon. Then I saw the plane. There were only a few cars on the road, we all stopped. I know I wanted to believe that plane was making a low descent into National Airport, but it was nearly on the road. And it was headed straight for the building. It made no sense. The pilot didn’t seem to be planning to pull up anytime soon. It was there. A huge jet. Then it was gone. A massive hole in the side of the Pentagon gushed smoke. The noise was beyond description. … I called my boss. I had no memory of how to work my cellphone. I hit redial and his number came up. “Something hit the Pentagon. It must have been a helicopter.” I knew that wasn’t true, but I heard myself say it. I heard myself believe it, if only for a minute. “Buildings don’t eat planes. That plane, it just vanished. There should have been parts on the ground. It should have rained parts on my car. The airplane didn’t crash. Where are the parts?” That’s the conversation I had with myself on the way to work. It made sense this morning. I swear that it did. … There seems to be no footage of the crash, only the site. The gash in the building looks so small on TV. The massiveness of the structure lost in the tight shots of the fire. There was a plane. It didn’t go over the building. It went into the building. I want them to find it whole, wedged between floors or something. I know that isn’t going to happen, but right now I pretend. I want to see footage of the crash. I want to make it make sense. I want to know why there’s this gap in my memory, this gap that makes it seem as though the plane simply became invisible and banked up at the very last minute, but I don’t think that’s going to happen.
      – “skarlet”
      Please pay special attention to the last three lines!

      1. Sorry, forgot the footnotes 20 and 21 above:
        20) The shock can delete this memory.
        21) A sudden arising fear can for a moment paralyze a human being’s consciousness, so that the physical and astral brain cells are incapable of vibration. What is seen is therefore not recorded so long as the paralysis persists. Voids can also arise in this way and disturb the total impression, even though the eyes were not closed.

      2. Let me add what can be seen as empirical evidence most would be aware of as to the issues Tamborine Man just addressed.
        It is such a common matter that almost everyone has encountered, that is getting pictures that were taken with a flash, and having the subject or a subject in that picture found with eyes closed.
        This is a common reaction to a flash of bright light. Most drivers experience this with glints off the windows or chrome on other vehicles on bright days.
        So considering this as a natural reaction for anyone seeing the explosion at the Pentagon should be taken as a given, even if the witness is not conscious of doing so. However there are those who did mention such blinking or turning away.
        One must consider how compounded this eye reflex would be seeing an explosion of the magnitude of the one at the Pentagon…and those who didn’t turn away or close their eyes would have been momentarily blinded by such an intense flash, leaving spots before their eyes.
        Taking into account such things as this as well as the possibilities of actual impact from certain locations seems to leave the witness pool bereft of reliable witnesses to the actual impact. Which is only natural if once considers the overall testimony is of a plane on a path that could not possibly made the damage known in the aftermath of this event.
        The only possible conclusion is a flyover.

    2. Chris Sarns,
      Let us now investigate whether you have any original thinking beyond taking the lead of one of your mentors. Do you grasp the obvious error of this assertion? It goes beyond an absurd reckoning of the human psyche into a rhetorical dreamland as senseless as something from Humpty Dumpty.
      “One has to ask whether the traumatic image of the plane hitting the Pentagon, or the image of the prior path of the plane, would be more reliably held in memory.”~Frank Legge – Jan. 2011 ‘New FDR Analysis’
      This is a trick question that is counter to logic and psychology. Trauma is more likely to effect towards laps of memory or overemotional excitement that taints memory. Trauma as well leaves a victim liable to suggestion and prompts.
      Consider as well that these witnesses have hours – days – in some cases months to have established their own bearings {other than those traveling in traffic}. These people know exactly where they are in relation to their surroundings. This is set. For them to have this wrong would be to assert that they are lacking any lucidity at all.
      The incident is however a matter of split seconds. So the question of what “would be more reliably held in memory,” is clearly the first; their awareness of place and bearings. This is such a natural and self evident conclusion that the assertion made above is an obvious attempt to present the ambiguous as certain, and a certainty as ambiguous.

      1. HR1
        “Trauma as well leaves a victim liable to suggestion and prompts.”
        The witnesses didn’t have the luxury of a pause or rewind button. They weren’t looking at a raised perspective still from GoogleEarth. 
        They had a couple of seconds (fractions of a second in some cases) to decipher what they were seeing in a moment of a surreal, highly adrenalized event.
        If you’ve ever been involved in a traumatic event (God forbid), such as a car accident, or been caught up in an explosion (I have..twice), survival instinct kicks in and your brain goes into “automatic mode” (for want of a better description!). You take in the essentials visually and aurally.
        One witness, Penny Elgas, described seeing the events in “stages”, where there were intermittent gaps in her memory. 
        Cognitive dissonance kicks in to try and make sense of what is happening. Your brain literally “fills the blanks”. This is what these muppets (Hoffman, etc) term the “magic show”.
        Here’s an example or two

        Sepulveda said. “For a brief moment, you could see the body of the plane sticking out from the side of the building. Then a ball of fire came from behind it.” An explosion followed, sending Sepulveda flying against a light pole. When he regained his balance, he started running to the crash site.

        (that guy was on record as having been knocked unconscious)

        you could see the silhouettes of people in the back two rows. You couldn’t see if they were male or female, but you could tell there was a human being in there.
        Kim Flyler

        The plane rolled left and then rolled right. Then he caught an edge of his wing on the ground.” There is a helicopter pad right in front of the side of the Pentagon. The wing touched there, then the plane cartwheeled into the building.
        David Marra

        Then there are the clues to what actually happened (and which is more realistic)

        Instantly I knew what was happening, and I involuntarily ducked as the plane passed perhaps 50 to 75 feet above the roof of my car at great speed. 
        Mary Ann Owens

        it got so loud I ducked in my…(laughter)…is anyone out there? (laughs)… I, I ducked in my car it got so loud..
        Daryl Donley

        As I stood there, I instinctively ducked at the extremely loud roar and whine of a jet engine spooling up.
        I could feel the concussion and felt the shockwave of the blast impact the window of the Annex, knocking me against the desk

        All of a sudden I hear incredibly loud jet engines flying very low over the highway. I duck, I look up, it looks like a silver American Airlines, twin-engine plane and then boom. I couldn’t see from the bridges but then there was this plume of smoke coming up from the Pentagon
        Ian Wyatt

        It was huge! It was silver. It was low — unbelievable! I could see the cockpit. I fell to the ground…. I was crying and scared.
        Madelyn Zakhem

        Chris Sarns is like Jack Dunphy in “One flew over the cuckoo’s nest”. Fill the blanks..

    3. Who are the witnesses who counter the NOC witnesses Chris?
      “If you saw a plane full of people hit a building full of people, what would you remember most, the impact or the approach?”
      Mike Walters – couldn’t actually see the alleged impact zone (and is on record as saying as much) but claims that “the wings folded back”
      Timmerman, in the fraction of a second window of oppurtunity that he had to see anything, described the aircraft wings going forward after having described the “impact” on the lawn as taking the momentum out of the force of the alleged impact.
      Vin Naranyan (who angrily dismissed that any lightpoles were struck as it passed in front of him in an NOC trajectory on Rt 27) claims that the left wing drag along the lawn and that the aircraft nose “crumpled upward”.
      David Marra claims that the aircraft “cartwheel[ed]”.
      Lincoln Liebner reported the aircraft as striking a “helicopter” before his multiple stories morphed into the aircraft going into the building “like a candle into a birthday cake”
      Penny Elgas describes what can only be the NOC flightpath.
      Reality check:
      Traffic (Elgas was further down from this but to give an idea of traffic and the fact that she was watching the alleged impact through the passenger side of her car)
      Penny Elgas wrote a description of essay proportions in which she claimed that she saw the aircraft, which was allegedly travelling at cruise speed, “gently rock[ed] and slowly glide[d] straight into the Pentagon” (as it flew “4 cars” in front of her on Rt27).
      She goes into extreme detail of the alleged impact.
      “At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again — only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building.”
      Remember, the alleged speed of the aircraft at this point was 540mph (580mph according to Legge). 1.3 seconds from pole 1 to the Pentagon facade. 0.4 seconds to cross the lawn. The alleged full penetration to C Ring was said to be 0.8 seconds. At nearly 800fps, it would have taken less than a tenth of a second for the wings to impact from the nose strikes the facade!
      Now read her testimony again with the above in mind and watch the closest we have to an example of the visual physics of an aircraft impacting a building.
      There’s no time for a visible physical reaction at the OCT speed until the aircraft has penetrated.
      This part of her testimony should give a clue as to what any normal human being would do in such a surreal and highly adrenalized situation.
      It was here that I closed my eyes for a moment and when I looked back, the entire area was awash in thick black smoke.”
      I’ve listened to her interview with Jeff Hill and she struck me as a very affable, believable, genuine person, but there needs to be a reality check. 
      1. She describes the NOC flightpath which makes the directional damage impossible.
      2. Her very “impact” testimony contradicts the OCT and all that Legge has pinned his colours to.
      Now do your usual tapdance, insult and avoid a rational answer Chris.
      Exactly who among the NOC (not “CIT”) witnesses claim to have actually witnessed the aircraft strike the building?
      And can the air radt cause the directional damage from the witnessed trajectory?
      Bye bye now.

    4. Chris,
      I suspect this will be a sort of one time, hit and run, attack from you and that you will not engage in a legitimate discussion on this forum but will rather simply disappear. If however you do intend to stay and actually discuss this issue here I can assure you of two things right off the bat.
      1. Your opposition will not be gagged and banned from this forum like they have been elsewhere. You will not have the advantage of having biased and completely corrupt moderators silence us.
      2. You will not be able to employ disinformation techniques or disruption techniques here in order to avoid the discussion when you are cornered. You will have to answer the questions you are actually asked NOT the questions as you re-frame them to your own liking. I for one am THOROUGHLY familiar with all the dishonest techniques you use to avoid being cornered in debate. I will have none of it.
      That having been said I will be more then happy to deconstruct and expose your ridiculous, illogical, and impossible arguments against CIT’s witnesses here and now.
      First though why don’t you explain to those of us here, who are not familiar with you, what your position actually is before we begin? That way just in case you are doing a drive by trolling here none of us has to waste too much time.
      I would ask you to clarify a few points in your response about your position so that we are all crystal clear.
      1. Do you agree or disagree that CIT’s witnesses featured in the NSA video establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the aircraft flew North of the Citgo (NOC) Gas station?
      2. Do you or do you not contend that a the witnessed aircraft could have flown NOC and also hit the pentagon?
      I would like those two questions clarified prior to anything else. Chris keep in mind I want the answer to my actual questions AS I STATED THEM not as you may attempt to re-word or twist them ok?
      Adam Ruff

    5. Sarns:

      On the contrary, it sounds absurd because it is.

      Non truthers as well as people like Jon Gold make the same argument regarding controlled demolition at the towers. Your declaring it “absurd” does not make it so.

    1. If you had a leg to stand on Chris you would not have any problem engaging in a legitimate debate. If you were right about the pentagon you would have no problem winning such a debate.
      As I suspected though the best you can muster is a brief hit and run. Adios troll.

    2. But Chris,
      Have you no sense of parsimony and scope? You say simply that you disagree about what the witnesses would remember, with no attendance to your reasoning to such.
      As I said in preamble to my own remarks to you, that your understanding or lack thereof to what I was about to point out, would indicate if you grasped the intricacies of your subject or were merely reading from a playbook.
      At the time I posted my comment, I had no idea of the points others here would make. I did however sense that you might be a groupie to certain ‘authorities’ without a true sense of the issues or the science. And in the case of your mentors, the ‘science fictions’ and crank rationales they attend to.
      So are you so frail? Once challenged you prefer a quick skittle and prance, the classical high tailing?

    3. Pathetic.
      If Sarns does actually add any more comments he will do what he always does. Cling on to that phrase above like a dog blindly slabbering over a bone.
      How can you say that, when just two posts up I’ve listed a sample of totally contradictory “impact testimonies” that defy the alleged physics of any alleged impact and/or the OCT itself?
      How can the NOC witnesses be so blatantly, corraboratively “wrong” to the point of blithering idiocy regarding the flightpath (some of which couldn’t physically SEE the aircraft on the OCT path), yet are “spot on” describing a violent event that entailed a blastwave felt 3km away and a fireball that expanded halfway across the Pentagon lawn, allegedly over in a fraction of a second??

      1. Not holding out much hope for a rational debate with Chris Sarns…
        The following conversation at 911Blogger between Chris Sarns and Frank Legge needs to be read thoroughly. They are both quoted by Ruchard Gage in his retraction of endorsement for the NOC testimony.

        Frank and I are on the same side if not the same page. There is a lot of disagreement among those who say CIT/NSA is a fraud. That is to be expected. The difference between sincere people disagreeing and disinfo/disruptors is; sincere people disagree without insulting each other.
        You will know them by their deeds – unless you are willfully blind to it.
        Chris Sarns

        There is only one difference between me and Chris. He lists a group of people who were interviewed and say they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. I list a different group of interviewed people who say they saw a plane hit the Pentagon.
        What CIT cannot dismiss is this. A great many of the witnesses to the impact say they saw the plane on its way into the Pentagon. They did not just look round when they heard the explosion – they were following the plane with their eyes. Thus they saw the whole thing before the explosion happened. The “deception” had not yet occurred!
        Frank Legge

        I wonder however if you should rethink your argument about the impact. You say that the north path theory does not prove that the plane flew over the Pentagon because, given the CIT theory that explosives were used for the linear damage, the plane could have come from another angle and still hit.
        I think it is better to simply say that the plane came in straight, could not have climbed over the Pentagon, and hit it fair and square, as so many people say. In other words, keep it simple.
        Frank Legge

        You appear to suggest that if the plane had been blown to bits it could have come in from a different angle and not damaged the building in the direction of its travel. If it was blown up it must have happened at, or very close to, impact. It would still have had the same mass, the same average velocity, and hence the same momentum. It would have done virtually the same damage. The only difference is that the impact marks would have been somewhat blurred.
        I conclude that the directional damage is evidence that the plane did not hit from a different direction, whether blown up or not.
        Frank Legge

        You said “Keep it simple for the public.” What could be more simple?
        Arguing which flight path and what damage would have been done on the NoC flight path is subjective and NOT simple.
        Chris Sarns

        Yes, there is no plausible evidence for a flyover and plenty of evidence for a direct hit along the path past the VDOT tower, over the bridge, through the light poles. It is that simple.
        So that is why I wonder why you bother to discuss an alternative direction of approach. Its a complication and it is not needed.
        Frank Legge

        Look Chris the plane hit the Pentagon and hit the poles on the south side of the station. Who cares about the north side witnesses as their story is not supported by any other evidence.
        You and Frank are on the same page.

        Regards John (Bursill)

        I don’t give a tinkers damn about the flight path or the light poles.
        I don’t know what happened and I don’t care.

        My point is about the CIT claim that NoC = flyover.
        It does not!
        Their own witnesses say the plane hit the building. That alone blows the flyover theory out of the water.
        Chris Sarns

        Of course if explosives were used, as CIT claims, the plane could have come in from the north and hit the building.
        However, just because it could have done it, does not mean it did. To talk about it is a sidetrack. The real essential issue is whether the plane did the observed damage or explosives did it, together with overfly.
        You clearly believe there was no overfly so you must believe the plane came in straight, as Hemphill says, and hit the building. Why talk about the alternative direction of approach? Why not keep it simple?
        Frank Legge

        Does the above sound like a couple of researchers “brainstorming” over the evidence? Or a couple of wordsmiths discussing the best way to marginalize, sidetrack and completely ignore evidence that they can’t refute?
        Frank Legge to date hasn’tnamed a verified official path (or lightpole) witness.
        Chris Sarns, like Brian Good, plods in with his “NOC impact” crap, and that the official and undeniable directional damage hasn’t been “proven”!
        John Bursill was very telling when he said “you and Frank are on the same page”.
        Craig, if you’ve still got Gage’s or DRG’s earholes, could you email this post to them? Ask them how they could accept two totally contradictory approaches who are apparently “on the same page” as long as the aircraft went into the building? Is it a “scientific” approach?

  16. Keep in mind that Chris likes to ask questions but does not like to answer them. By asking all the questions and rufusing to answer any he controls the discussion and actually prevents legitimate debate. If you exchange with him make sure he answers your questions BEFORE you answer any more of his. THAT is how a debate works he asks you answer, you ask he answers etc. If he doesn’t answer your questions then in a legitimate debate format he has essentially conceeded that point.
    Most likely though he is just trolling so we spin our wheels.

  17. Craig McKee said: “…evidence that no plane crashed is the most telling, the most powerful, ..”
    Craig McKee said: “They’ve also gone after any other evidence that supports the faked plane crash scenario. The evidence that the data from the Flight Data Recorder was faked and planted,……… Imagine, the light poles, the debris, the exit hole – all faked!”
    Good heavens, Mr McKee what are you implying, that the government lied to us; that no plane hit the Pentagon and it faked all the “evidence”?
    Surely you jest? Whatever next, no planes in NYC or PA either ? 🙂
    Craig McKee said: ” But didn’t the perpetrators fake the destruction by plane impact and fire of two of the largest buildings in the world? ”
    So they wholly faked a plane at the Pentagon, but the crafty buggers instead resorted to using real planes to hit the WTC and just lied about the damage caused by those “real” impacts?
    Or are instead you implying no plane impacts in NYC [and by logical extension, Shanksville PA], is also “on the cards” for you? 🙂
    Regards, onebornfree.

      1. “Of course there were no plane crashes in NY, It’s very simple physics.”~Shallel
        Well then by all means, be my guest and lay those “simple physics” out for us here.

      2. Take any video of so called crash of Fl 175 and step through it frame by frame, it takes the same number of frames to fly nose to tail in air as it does through Steel STRUCTURE; there is no deceleration. F=ma=m(0)=0 No force was available to break plane or building. Therefore this is not a real world event portrayed in these videos.

      3. Shallel says:
        “Take any video of so called crash of Fl 175 and step through it frame by frame, it takes the same number of frames to fly nose to tail in air as it does through Steel STRUCTURE; there is no deceleration.”
        I would suggest that you read the thread before this one, Two quit in protest after Zarembka dumped from Consensus 9/11 Panel. Start around half way through after Jon Gold was axed.
        You will find that all the issues you are about to play here for us have already been addressed ad nauseum, and that the issue you just articulated as per the video is absolutely false.
        “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
        And as per Fetzer’s proposition above, his cup floweth over. He has shown a complete lack of knowledge of applied physics, and to be nothing other than a master at rhetorical obfuscation.

      4. “You will find that all the issues you are about to play here for us have already been addressed ad nauseum, and that the issue you just articulated as per the video is absolutely false.” I find no disproof of what I have stated in simple terms.
        It is a singular issue and I am not playing. Maybe you could help a brother out and explain why this is false. Science is not a democracy, nor a popularity contest. Dr. Fetzer has organized a conference centered on why science is taking a back seat to politics, within a truth movement that cares not about the truth, only it’s own image.
        Why are you so afraid to let researchers present any other explanation of the data than that sanctified by your controlled operative leaders?

  18. Narrowing Focus
    What are the possible intents for the narrowing of focus in the investigation of a crime?
    Are the excuses offered thus far by the 9/11 Consensus Panel adequate?
    I think it is obvious that this idea that ‘the public’ would find ‘certain aspects’ of the Truth Movement’s arguments ‘absurd’ is absurd in itself – as the public finds the entire idea of 9/11 being an inside job to be absurd. So I find this argument to be one of absurdity chasing the tail of another.
    A compound situation arises when those involved in this consensus panel rely on a ‘consensus’ of so few, while the majority of the movement itself is left out to merely rely on the judgments of this panel. And as there is this backlash taking place here and now, those in control of the panel have yet to address our concerns, but remain in their ivory towers pontificating.
    We begin to wonder what it might take to get some open dialog from them…perhaps pitchforks and torches?
    I for one am no longer willing to allow for the ‘benefit of the doubt’. I have had enough of this lack of transparency from the so-called ‘government’, and I am not about to accept it from self chosen leaders of the Truth Movement. If they choose to call this the Griffin-Woodworth Consensus Panel, that is fine. To abscond with the symbol and substance of the wider movement is not their private prerogative.
    ~Willy Whitten

  19. Based on his history, I don’t think we’ll be seeing any honest “debate” with Sarns.
    Chris Sarns would make Cass Sunstein proud, at least to a degree. (Though I bet even Cass would cringe, as Frank Legge did, at the promotion of NoC impact.) If Chris has not been functioning as a paid mole within AE911Truth to drive a wedge between WTC and Pentagon researchers, then the Cointelpro accounting office has saved a lot of money that might instead get redirected towards purchasing more Lockheed Martin missiles.
    When there is no corruptible comment ratings system like there is at 911blogger, whereby the infilTRAITORS can simply vote up the vapid, hollow and frankly asinine posts like Chris’ (first) two posts on this thread, as well as bury the solid refutations in avalanches of negative votes, the emperor truly has no clothes. Sarns’ intellectually bankrupt position is laid bare for all to see.
    Incidentally, blogs like this, as well as forums like 911oz, have convinced me that there is no need for a comment ratings system at all, either the “net total” kind like 911blogger, or the kind which shows total ups and total downs. A comment rating system, at all, fosters groupthink and stifles independent thinking.
    For example, let’s just imagine for a second that none of the moderators of 911blogger are infiltrators, but that many of the regular users are. If the moderators are busy people who don’t have time to read every comment, especially long ones, they can fall into the trap of looking at the comment votes and they can say to themselves: “Wow, look how Syed’s, Ruff’s and oneslices’ posts get voted down again and again and again. Clearly, the community doesn’t like what they have to say. These individuals’ presence here is clearly dividing the community and wasting everyone’s time, so perhaps it’s time to show these folks the door.” (For the record though, I think at least 2-3 of the 5 moderators of that site are indeed paid gatekeepers.)
    Back to Sarns: once he decided that it was the cool thing to hop onto the anti CIT bandwagon, he made attacking them his life’s obsession.

    I have been trying for nine months to get Richard rescind his endorsement of CIT/NSA but to no avail.

    And then, afterwards:

    Now that Richard Gage has rescinded his endorsement of CIT/NSA I am redirecting my focus back to WTC 7 and the Building What? campaign.

    Chris, if for 1 1/2 years, your main focus and passion in life was pressuring Richard to retract his endorsement, and if this passion was even greater than your passion for spreading the word about WTC7 to the public, I can only say this: if you are not a paid operative, you are at the very least an insane lunatic and belong in an asylum.
    One more thing Sarns. As you made it your no. 1 obsession to marginalize a piece of hard evidence that proves a staged inside job on 9/11, and vilify the brilliant detectives who uncovered this evidence, let me offer you a word or two which constitutes not a threat, but certainly a promise. If you ever accompany Richard Gage to another AIA convention, and if that convention is in my city or a close one, I intend to confront you and your disinformation, WeAreChange style, with the camera running. Should Richard motion for security to show me the door, I will be waiting outside.

    1. Well said Adam.
      Did you see this post?
      Shows just how bizarre the whole scenario is that a group of individuals with the exact same motives can completely contradict eachother on a public forum and still pat eachother on the back!
      On another note. In the last few years since this campaign has been wagered against the NOC testimony 24/7/365, what have these people actually done to push WTC7 to the fore? Investigations?
      I’ve been in a debate lately, and when I go look for WTC7 related research, I find the same stagnant, woefully lacking in detail blurbs. I know that there are MANY stones left unturned FOIA-wise (in private conversation) and avenues of investigation overrun with tumbleweeds. I’m a Pentagon “koolaid drinking” researcher and I’ve found more information that needs to be accessed (and is available) in just 4 weeks of sniffing. Information that you don’t need to be an architect or engineer to digest.
      What are they doing?? Sarnsy?

      1. Adios troll. – So are you so frail? – Pathetic – Cling on to that phrase above like a dog blindly slabbering over a bone. – Not holding out much hope for a rational debate with Chris Sarns – Chris Sarns, like Brian Good, plods in with his “NOC impact” crap – Most likely though he is just trolling so we spin our wheels. – Chris Sarns would make Cass Sunstein proud – Refusal to debate is an earmark of a disinformationist. – What are they doing?? Sarnsy? – I can only say this: if you are not a paid operative, you are at the very least an insane lunatic and belong in an asylum.
        And you wonder why I don’t want to “debate” y’all any more 😉
        There’s a striking similarity in the “debating” styles of CITers and JREFers.
        It’s the rancor, even more than the untenable theory, that is bad for the TM.
        The “enemies” page turned me off to CIT and your insults ended our friendship.
        You just kinda wasted my precious time. But don’t think twice, it’s alright.

      2. Chris Sarns says on May 25, 2012 at 3:23 am:
        Essentially nothing, is what Chris Sarns says.
        Remarkable Mr. Sarns; you claim that you have been ridiculed for no just reason, when it is pointed out that you have presented no argument- but then whine and moan about that, and still yet present no argument.
        So why do you choose to prove those who have ridiculed you to be correct?
        You note that there is “a striking similarity in the “debating” styles of CITers and JREFers”…and this of course is a comment on style, whereas the similarity of substance between “JREFers” is certainly on your table. Do not try to squirm away from my assertion – you know your position is essentially that of the official story as per the Pentagon, and is therefore the same as the arguments from Randi’s Forum. You know that Legge even sites Makey’s math in his Pentagon papers.
        So don’t you think that it shows a great lack of even the slightest grasp of tactics in argumentum to bring JREF up?
        Is this ‘pathetic’ response you have just made, one made to boost the ‘frailty’ of your position as if to say that your views are really correct, but it is just that your opponents are so “slick” in the use of rhetoric and argumentum, that a poor simple country lad such as yourself is overwhelmed by such ‘trickery’?
        Keep in mind, if you had a strong hand for debating these questions, all of the ridicule in the world could not defeat you. If you were indeed correct in your views you would have an invincible argument, for truth is indeed invincible – and all you have to do is discover what it is and present it as plainly and clearly as you can.
        Perhaps you should study Gerry Spence. His advice is sublime.

      3. Sarns

        It’s the rancor, even more than the untenable theory, that is bad for the TM.
        The “enemies” page turned me off to CIT and your insults ended our friendship.

        Says the guy who said this..

        I don’t give a tinkers damn about the flight path or the light poles.
        I don’t know what happened and I don’t care.

        JREF? Legge, Larson and his cronies use their literature and are applauded by those morons!
        Maybe that’s why people can’t stand your trolling, lying, illogical horsecrap and in the same breath claim that real evidence which you yourself acknowledge, is “bad for the TM” because you don’t agree with the only conclusion that can be reached. Ask Frank! Haha.
        You people need to be exposed and removed from that crumbling ivory tower you’ve built around your contradictory asses.
        There. Add my post to the list of excuses for being a coward.

  20. Update:
    I have the same comment as above; ‘Narrowing Focus’, posted on a comment line on Woodworth’s latest article on C2, so I am sure she is aware of the letter. I also put the URL address to this article and thread at the end of it, so she could pull up this page and see the article and commentary.
    My advice to all is that this be played out publicly.
    Unless perhaps Ms. Woodworth would agree to be interviewed by Mr. McKee, whom I am sure would be sure to address our concerns adequately.

  21. Moving on then. Chris Sarns cannot or will not debate the subject so in my estimation that fact alone amounts to an admission of defeat. If he had the truth on his side not only would he debate his critics but he would win the debate easily.
    In a larger sense Chris Sarns is an example we should all learn something very important from. Those who refuse to debate are suspect. Refusal to debate is an earmark of a disinformationist.

  22. I can’t help thinking that if someone wanted to discredit the truth movement as a whole they could do no better than just direct them to read the comments here, some of them are really are classics of the genre. Luckily most people don’t read blogs like this and are unaware of the kind of stuff that is presented. I could certainly imagine ,if I was someone who cared about the truth movement retaining any credibility or was trying to convince members of the public, how embarrassed I’d be if more people did read it, especially all the in-fighting and ‘you’re a disinformation agent ‘ stuff- the line under the photo at the top of the page says it all really.
    “Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.”
    Thomas Jefferson

    1. Your concern for the reputation of the Truth movement is truly touching. But if there is so little of value on “blogs like this,” then why do you read this one?

      1. Ha, Wright’s lack of originality is dangling like a participle from the ledge of an ancient grimoire…
        You will find the Jefferson quote he uses is copied from one of my posts to Senor in the thread just prior to this.
        And I suppose he is determined to remind and bring to mind the work of Sunstein, with his mention of “disinformation agent stuff”.
        This is a good indicator that “A. Wright” is likely not a name but some attempt at a clever moniker projecting ‘correctness’. I would suggest this person go back to counting beans.

      2. I’m glad a certain person is still reading my posts even though he is ignoring me.. I will in future make up my own quotes from Thomas Jefferson so as not to be accused of a lack of originality. Of course I purposely did use the same quote since it is I think particularly appropriate not just to the person who quoted it but to others posting here. I think too many people have lost touch with what is reasonable or plausible and that is the basis on which we judge evidence, which is really only a process of trying to maximise the probability of being right about something.

        1. A. Wright,
          We judge evidence by what’s plausible? Really? Tell me, is it plausible that a 757 can disappear into a hole that is too small to accommodate it without wings breaking off or other major pieces of wreckage being left outside?

      3. Of course A Wright, we all know what you think. We were instructed to think the same thing.
        We have simply chosen to think for ourselves instead.
        I wouldn’t advise your “making up” any of your own quotes for Jefferson, that would be a form of slander. Rather I would advise your finding the appropriate ones that he actually wrote or said.
        You might also consider parsing that which is “plausible” and that which is true.
        But again more to the point; what is your purpose here Wright?
        I am addressing you by the way, specifically because someone here told me I was told not to.
        You could say it is the natural rebel in me to do the exact opposite of what I am ordered to do. You can imagine what a riot it was for me while I was in the service refusing to be servile.

      4. @A. Wright

        I’m glad a certain person is still reading my posts even though he is ignoring me.. I will in future make up my own quotes from Thomas Jefferson so as not to be accused of a lack of originality. Of course I purposely did use the same quote since it is I think particularly appropriate not just to the person who quoted it but to others posting here. I think too many people have lost touch with what is reasonable or plausible and that is the basis on which we judge evidence, which is really only a process of trying to maximise the probability of being right about something.

        You talk as if we have all of the uncensored, verified “evidence” at hand.
        You might be happy in that fuzzy little denial bubble, Wright, but some of us have good reason to question solely the word of the corrupt military corporations and their puppets.
        Here’s a litmus test for you. Over 500 people were on record as seeing what could only have been a missile trail seconds before TWA800 was blown up. Radar data shows an unidentified object just before the explosion. There’s even a photograph of an oblong shaped missile in the air just before the explosion.
        So, did a missile strike TWA800 based on the evidence?
        Note to self – don’t feed the trolls…

  23. There is an old oath used in courts of law, “I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.” This should remind us that all truth is relevant, as it completes a whole, that must adhere to a reasonable unity. Which truths are the most important cannot be sorted out properly until all the truths possible can be discovered. It is especially the issues of controversy that must be attended to, not shuttled aside for the convenience of an early consensus.
    The dangers of narrowing discovery is in narrowing the field of perpetrators unduly, as at a certain point the cast of characters can lead to the inescapable determination that a whole system has become corrupted. The concept of a ‘few bad apples’ has been used as empty excuse too many times to make such an assumption.
    And even such a discovery as that, the whole system being a corrupt criminal enterprise, is not unique or out of place, in that this has been established on a penumbra of other headings.

  24. None of this surprises me. I see familiar names in this article. The same people have been misdirecting the public for many years now. The 9/11 Gatekeepers. We called them out for their BS many a time over the last decade. People told us we were damaging “the truth movement”. There has ALWAYS ONLY been a concerted truth EFFORT – NOT a movement, by a small circle of people. The rest is a PSYOP, by design. The same names, the same modus operandi, the same schtick. Some games just never change.
    I still contend to this day that no real truth movement will be damaged if it is grounded in objective reality. If it is based upon TRUTH. Alot of the same people mentioned within this piece have repeatedly tried to get everyone to believe the truth will hurt, damage or divide what is allegedly a genuine “movement”.
    And I say, if the truth “damages or destroys” aspects of the purported “movement”, then what is damaged or destroyed needed to be.
    The circle of truthtellers is still very small, as it always has been. It’s an effort that has been trying like hell to become a movement.
    The real movement that emerged over a decade ago – and has persisted – is the one to SUPPRESS information.from the public, by many of the most well-known individuals vho call themselves “leaders” of the 9.11 truth movement. All by design.
    When you speak out against them, they wage what amounts to a smear campaign against you.
    And because so few actually engage in critical independent thinking these days, alot of people simply believe what they read without questioning the veracity of the information – or who is saying it, and what the motives/ and underlying intentions might be.
    I said it many years ago, when this nonsense first began – and I maintain this is true today.
    The 9/11 truth movement, by and large, is a psyop and the information dissemination is being controlled by those who want to suppress certain information from the public, rather than expose all of the viable information available. This has been going on for over a decade. It’s called damage control. It’s called “steerage”.It’s part of a PSYOP.
    I’ve always suspected any group involved with this “truth-telling movement” that feels the need to establish a “steering committee”.
    These people are not of the mind to tell the truth and let the chips fall where they will. They just want to STEER you away from objective reality.
    Ask yourselves: Just who are they protecting? Who have they been protecting for over a decade? It might just have something to do with the information they refuse to allow the public to see and have worked relentlessly for the last ten years to keep hidden from view, the stuff they won’t allow into the public conversation, the stuff that never sees ink in their books and publications, the vaunted research, at their hearings and conventions, at their rallies and protests,, in their guest appearances on radio or TV programs, or scrawled on their signage.
    If truth damages or destroys this psyop they’ve deceptively labeled the “9/11 truth movement”, then it’s because it needed to be. There’s little truth to be gound in this thing that calls itself a movement. ALL BY DESIGN.
    The truth isn’t buried, but is still being suppressed by “consensus” of the most familiar 9/11 gatekeepers. I say, steer your own mind. Don;’t let them do the thinking for you.
    There’s more to the story than what they’re telling you.
    Now watch the smear campaign against me begin once again.
    Some things never change, especially the “wagon-circling” of the 9/11 Mafia.
    Sign me, Lisa Guliani, a genuine 9/11 Truther

    1. Hi Lisa,
      It has been a long time since I’ve last had a chance to speak to you. The last time was in 2003 just before the attack on Iraq. I had helped you with ideas on that article about the US being a corporation not a country. You cited me, Willy Whitten as an adviser to that piece.
      Interesting that you should show up here now…I just mentioned you in a post above. Do you have a search engine that scouts for when your name shows up on the web? Or is this one of those “coincidences” that a “conspiracy theorist” can never quite accept? {grin}
      Anyway, I had some minor criticisms of that article on US Inc., as I say minor. You may have already realized what they are. Overall I think the piece is a good start to get people to look deeper into those issues.
      I think the major misstep of the 9/11 movement has been how it has been led away from the issue of how it ties into the Zionist agenda. I think that perhaps this is not totally by intent of the many writers involved, but certainly managed and manipulated by hasbara influences.
      As you are surely aware, there are many levels of the depth of understanding of the people steeped in this synthetic culture. The embrace of Lollipop history, the deep seated ignorance sold by ‘official academia’, the MSM, the Hollywood Mind Control factory, etc., etc….
      I think there are many well meaning people who are simply lost…and we have a situation of the blind leading the blind in many instances. As you know, intent is one of the most difficult aspects to determine. Many ‘differences of opinion’ truly are innocent disagreements based on levels of knowledge, and reasoning capabilities.
      As I mentioned before: Certainty is a dead mistress.

    2. Thanks Lisa for a very well-written and truthful post!
      I’m pretty confident though, that virtually all other posters in this blog will as well recognize the Truth you spoke so succinctly, that you should have no need to worry about any ‘smear campaign’ coming your way from anybody here.
      (Oh well, There could always be an exception of course, as an odd one might pop-up perhaps from out of no-where or even now-here!
      But as we all know, no ‘village’ worth its salt, be it ever so idyllic or otherwise, can exist without the treasured and cherished “village idiot” romping around daily in their midst.
      Should be interesting to see who’s willing and eager to “publicly” assume this ‘coveted’ role in this thread from now on)!!

      1. Dear Mr. Tamberine Man,
        Mr. Rogue wrote:

        Interesting that you [Ms. Lisa Guliani] should show up here now…I just mentioned you in a post above. Do you have a search engine that scouts for when your name shows up on the web? Or is this one of those “coincidences” that a “conspiracy theorist” can never quite accept? {grin}

        It is indeed very rinky-dink coincidental that as soon as Ms. Guliani’s name appears here, so does she.
        Just because I’m a duped useful idiot on many things doesn’t mean that I’m eager to fill the role of “village idiot” with regards to Ms. Guliani. Although, wow, man, googling into her rabbit hole when Mr. Rogue first mentioned her really got my eyes spinning. She wasn’t kidding when she talks about smear campaigns [directed against her], because that fills the top slots of her google search results.
        Be that as it may, what she writes here is right on the mark. Kudos, Ms. Guliani! And I also like the orginal Corporation USA posting, which is why I brought it up.
        In fact, when she talks about truth “still being suppressed by ‘consensus’ of the most familiar 9/11 gatekeepers,” I just couldn’t help but see how fitting it is to Dr. Judy Wood.
        [Disclaimer: I’m only endorsing the nuggets of truth from Dr. Wood’s textbook. Dr. Wood’s work has some issues, but is still worth serious consideration.]
        The fitting aspect is that few “of the most well-known individuals who call themselves ‘leaders’ of the 9/11 truth movement” are even willing to go there [into Dr. Wood’s work] with in-depth good, bad, ugly reviews, while at the same time the sacred cow of super duper-nanothermite from those same “well-known individuals who call themselves ‘leaders’ of the 9/11 truth movement” is being slaughtered for being unable to address all of the evidence.
        Everybody, just hold onto your hobby-horses for a gosh darn minute!!! This thread won’t be diverted by my pogo-horse that is named Dr. Wood [beyond what I related above fairly to the topic at hand.]
        [Advertisement begin]
        Save your ire against Dr. Wood for Mr. McKee’s article on that subject in the near future. I’ve encouraged Mr. McKee to launch it around June 1 while I am still on vacation [which begins this Saturday morning] to give ya’all a weekend’s head start.
        In preparation, better order your requisite copy of Dr. Wood’s book so that we all can at least argue about the same page from seeing the same page. Better substantiate your “negative reviews” by having at least checked the book out of your local public library and peered in its crack, because they won’t be tolerated without it. [Yeah, yeah, yeah, big deal that Dr. Wood gets a disinformation label. The salient points will be: What does she get right? What remains of the truth?]
        Chop, chop, people! You don’t want to be left out of that discussion when it happens because you were too cheap to “steer your own mind.” As Ms. Guliani writes: “Don’t let them do the thinking for you.
        [Advertisement end]

    3. Lisa,
      Nice to meet you. I enjoyed reading your post. I think I can safely say that real truthers such as yourself are welcome here. This is the beating heart of the real truth movement here so it is natural that you showed up.
      Adam Ruff

    4. Hi Lisa,
      Nice breakdown on Alex Jones and Rivera. Especially at a time when they were “untouchable”.
      Rivera now uses 911Myths to bolster the Pentagon “impact” theory. Outdated, inaccurate media snippets (copied and pasted from the disinfobot “Arabesque” blog). Government loyalist literature. Government sources, etc.
      As for Alex Jones, he has always refused point blank to even acknowledge the NOC testimony, yet was happy to go along with his friend, Dylan Avery, in pushing the A3SkyWarrior (even though Avery was with the “investigation team” who went to Arlington in 2006 and was made aware of the NOC evidence.
      He was the first to introduce the Pentagon “honeypot” nonsense but had no qualms whatsoever about trying to put the word “projectile” into the mouth of April Gallup in an interview a few years ago.
      You have to ask yourself why in the 5 years of missile/projectile theories the powers that be (and their agitants within the “truth movement”)  were happy to let the Pentagon debate revolve and literally spin out of control around speculation and evidence void theories yet feel threatened by what these witnesses reported. And why well embedded “truthers” such as Hoffman and his crew were willing to expose themselves so blatantly to poison the well.
      I’m a “baby” towards 9/11 compared to most on this blog, but I can see comparisons between your situation then and the campaign going on now. And the usual suspects are still involved.

  25. When the official version of 9/11 is so very obviously untrue why would anybody believe any part of it. What’s the point of salvaging one part of the official version when the rest of it is a monstrous lie.
    Why would certain people wish to defend any part the official version is something I don’t understand. I used to be on John Bursill’s email list, he has either retired his list or he has removed me from it.
    Do I believe a plane hit the Pentagon; I certainly do not.
    Great article Craig, comments are great as well.

  26. I’m new to this whole forum posting bit, but I can not figure out why CIT and Ventura are the only ones who have [publicly revealed that they’ve] gone to the scene of the crime. Can a detective “research” a cold case simply by reviewing the files? I can not afford to, but why after all these years not one of CIT’s supporters done what they’ve done…gone to VA to interview/re-interview people? On things for sure, none of their detractors ever will. The link posting, article citing quasi Yu-Gi-Oh card for card ‘duel’ is asinine. The “academics” cherish the “peer reviewed” process yet none of them has ever bothered to replicate CIT’s findings. Equally absurd, none of either sides supporters have bothered to do so either. R.I.P gumshoe…

  27. The following response is from Gregg Roberts, which I am posting here with his permission. I do not have any interest in acting as a middleman for further discussion, so I do not plan to offer additional comments. Gregg is busy with his work at AE911Truth, and is also unable to respond further.
    “McKee tries to score rhetorical points by accusing others of “suppressing” relevant information about 9/11, as if 9/11 evidence on the Internet could possibly be controlled by a small number of researcher/activists. Yet he himself “suppresses” a key *undisputed* fact that contradicts his point of view. Or is he really ignorant of this fact, after all the time he has spent researching the issue?
    According to McKee, those who believe that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon are required to believe that it “ploughed through three rings of the Pentagon, leaving a round exit hole.” The implication, for those unfamiliar with the architecture of the Pentagon beyond the shape of its namesake, is that six masonry exterior walls must have been breached by the plane. But the light wells between the rings of the Pentagon reached down only to the roof of the second floor. So only TWO exterior walls had to be breached by the plane to produce the exit hole. (http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/punchout.html) And all the sneering about this idea ignores the fact that a long, rigid object has great penetrating power. An arrow shot from a bow will go through a bulletproof vest.
    In McKee’s world, being “determined” is bad, advice is “pressure,” discussion is “coordination” … and scare quotes constitute a complete refutation.
    How can anyone can think that it would be helpful to talk to newcomers about an issue that we don’t agree on among ourselves? Regardless of what problems there might or might not be with the 9/11 Consensus group, the core idea responsible for its formation seems indisputable. And people resigning in protest over the exclusion of the most divisive issue in the 9/11 truth movement from a panel aimed at identifying a CONSENSUS set of positions shows something other than level-headed, good-faith activism. Regardless of McKee’s fevered imaginings about why “what hit it?” is divisive, the fact remains that the 9/11 truth movement is strongly split over it. So how in the world does it belong on a list of what we all agree on?!”

    1. I don’t know if Gregg Roberts is consciously acting as a Pentagon gatekeeper or not, or whether he feels so much allegiance towards Vic Ashley that his reasoning goes out the window… BUT he is using JREF style obfuscation when he nitpicks at trivia such as:

      But the light wells between the rings of the Pentagon reached down only to the roof of the second floor. So only TWO exterior walls had to be breached by the plane to produce the exit hole. (http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/punchout.html)

      He is using rather similar logic to those “debunkers” who try to argue that the exact design of WTC7 made it unusually vulnerable to a complete structural collapse.
      The simple fact of the matter is: There is nowhere near enough debris, whether large or pulverized, to account for a 757, either outside or inside the building. The fragile nose of the plane is not going to survive intact all the way to the C ring in order to create that perfectly round hole.
      I have seen Gregg argue with people that April Gallop, who was in the “impact” zone and even crawled out of the hole left by the “plane,” has got it all wrong, whereas Frank Legge, from behind his computer screen on the other side of the planet, has got it all worked out correctly.

      the fact remains that the 9/11 truth movement is strongly split over it.

      Not in the real world. Every truther in real life I talk to agrees that no 757 hit. Go to the youtube linke for “National Security Alert” and compare the likes versus the dislikes.
      The “fact remains” that the people insisting a 757 crashed into the Pentagon is miniscule compared with those who can see otherwise.
      When I get home from work I’m going to check out this bow and arrow vs. bullet proof vest claim.
      Like Richard Gage and everyone else from AE who has tried to get the issue of what really happened at the Pentagon off the table, once cornered and challenged to substantiate their claims in debate, Gregg predictably says that after this one response, he’s “too busy” to engage any further.

    2. If Gregg Roberts doesn’t have the time to discuss the stuff that comes out of his mouth then why did this post come out of his mouth in the first place? So Gregg is going to do a drive by troll bombing just like Chris Sarns huh?
      Well Gregg I will repeat what I said to Sarns. If you had a leg to stand on regarding the pentagon you wouldn’t avoid debating the subject like the plague. If you had the truth on your side you would win such a debate with ease. But no, just like Sarns and all the other controversy manufacturers you don’t have the personal integrity to face the people you smear in open debate. You sir are no truther.
      Go drop your troll bombs somewhere else or man the hell up and face the real truthers who know based on the evidence that no plane struck the pentagon. The REAL experts on the subject like the citizen investigators who went there and spent thousands of hours compiling some of the best evidence of an inside job that we have. Face CIT Gregg, face the P4T Gregg, face us REAL truthers like a man or just shut your mouth.
      Drive by troll bombings are the mark of disinformationists.

      1. Dear Mr. Adam,
        Please keep encouraging Mr. Gregg Roberts to make an appearance here. I’ll have a couple of bones to pick with him, one of them being: FAQ #3: What’s Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis? written by Mr. Jonathan Cole, Richard Gage, and Gregg Roberts all of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. It did not reference anything from Dr. Wood’s textbook [which the authors probably don’t have], misrepresents and misframes her work, and consumes half its short space promoting nano-thermite [that has its own crippling issues.]
        [Advertisement begin]
        I’m hoping the two Mr. Roberts (Gregg and Keenan) will participate under Mr. McKee’s up-and-coming article on the subject of Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook. Early June.
        [Advertisement end]

      2. Señor
        This is your second post of “Advertisements for Wood’s book.
        So let me just give you a heads up; If and when such article as you promise in June finally makes it’s appearance – you will not step one millimeter forward with me with this nonsense about needing this book to parse whether this woman is anything more than a crackpot ‘scientist’.
        Let us leave it at that until then. Aye?

      3. Dear Señor Rogue,
        I didn’t make a lot of hay out of your blatant Dr. Legge misstatement with regards to when YOU established contact with him and what topics YOU TWO discussed. I chalked it up to a senior moment, Señor Rogue. With regards to the next little ditty from you, I am not sure what I should be attributing as the cause. Wrong prescription glasses? I can only hope that you are not falling back into old habits in the game of misstating and misframing my words.

        This is your second post of “Advertisements for Wood’s book.

        They were advertisement for an introduction article by Mr. McKee into the theme of Dr. Wood’s work. Big difference.
        Señor McKee rightly states:

        Señor El Once can’t mandate anyone to read Wood’s book, but he can point out that an informed discussion is infinitely more valuable than one based on insults.

        You reference a somewhat long thread (~300 entries), but I take issue with your rose-colored glasses assessment of it:

        As far as Judy Wood… I did not begin with the woowoo business, but ended up there after discussing her works for a long thread back some time back. I don’t even know if there is anything further to say on the subject for myself.

        My assessment of your participation is that you lacked the nuggets to go forth corner-to-corner, edge-to-edge in that whaskily wabbit-hole [textbook and/or website] to salvage the nuggets of truth and to acknowledge this evidence that has only a “crackpot scientists” to champion.

        You will not step one millimeter forward with me with this nonsense about needing this book to parse whether this woman is anything more than a crackpot ‘scientist’.

        Señor Rogue, you forget that I was once an accomplished Argentine Tango Dancer. Not one millimeter forward? Okay by me; dance backwards, sideways, and in circles. If you wear high heels while you are doing it, your gluteus maximus will be highlighted for the audience to admire.
        How many absolutely brilliant artists have you known who were, outside of their work, much-less-so as well-rounded human beings? Varying degrees of idiot savants, perhaps? ADD? What about actors and musicians? How many truly awesome ones weren’t also a bit self-destructive, full-of-themselves, and other negative attributes. I’m sure you could write tomes about the psychotic [?] and non-empathetic nature of those who rise up through the ranks of management and politics.
        Science and engineering attracts its share of, shall we say, socially challenged individuals. A “crackpot scientists” can actually be a good thing [for students, for research, for engineering companies, for DoD projects, but not as a dinner date.] Of course, your clever punctuation [“crackpot ‘scientist'”] was meant to put the doubt on her scientific credentials as opposed to quirks in personality that might display socially challenged attributes. Seems to me her PhD and post-doctorate work ought to have put that false notion to bed.
        What remains, however Señor Rogue, is the framing you put on Dr. Wood that focuses on her person rather than her work. And when nudged towards the work [dancing side-steps backwards as it were], you find fault with incomplete “sophomore efforts” [website] and refuse to look at the more polished “Señor Dissertation” [textbook]. And in your zeal to shut down serious discussion, you dismiss a wealth of evidence that leaders in the 911TM either lamely address… or don’t address at all… or rabidly deride as “woowoo” without even having sniffed the colored ink from her book’s crack.
        Such a lovely back-handed concession, Señor Rogue:

        I suppose I could revisit the past argument and refine some of my arguments from that, but as far as I am concerned she has nothing.

        Nothing? No, you have nothing: no thing. No book. No cache of favorite 9/11 pictures from Dr. Wood’s collection. Such is the foul framing. Why don’t you visit her new textbook instead of “the past argument and refine some of my arguments?”
        Señor Rogue writes:

        But we’ll see what you come up with for your article, and what Mr. Once has to offer. Even though it doesn’t look promising that it will be anything ,more than what I have read from him before.

        Yep, it’ll probably be a re-tread from me, all right, as I stand on Dr. Wood’s shoulders and tango us deep into the weeds with “nuclear-powered spire-based DEW” on the towers… [until someone convinces me otherwise.]
        Evidence with science and its proper analysis is what change me from my NPT tune. Same thing is probably true regarding your flip on CIT flyover.
        I have zero expectations of a Truth & Shadows discussion into Dr. Wood’s work flipping anyone into becoming a Kool-Aid drinking believer of her theories. I’m not even one, nor do I recommend becoming such to others.
        But I do have hopes that objective people will salvage the nuggets of truth from the evidence she presents and realize therein lies a crafty key to unlock greater understanding of the means and methods of 9/11.
        May 25, 2012 at 1:03 am

        This blog is certainly the most interesting 9/11 site I have ever experienced. Some of the most intelligent discussions I have ever encountered.

        Let’s keep it that way when Mr. McKee opens the gates to Dr. Wood-land next week.
        Have a great weekend and next week. I’m outta here!

      4. Thank you for your reply of today, the 25th of May Señor, and have a wonderful trip out west.
        I will keep in mind all that you have said. And remind that, “the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth” is indeed my goal. If you should succeed in convincing me of even a single “nugget of truth” within Judy Wood’s position, I will be delighted to acknowledge such.
        Happy trails,

    3. Hi Mike Bondi,
      I understand from what you have said, that Gregg Roberts is too busy to respond any further.
      I think then, that it is entirely irresponsible to make the allegations he just made against Mr. McKee if he isn’t going to stand to reason on the points he just made. This is what is called ‘sniping’ – and most of us who work the web understand that such activities are strongly looked down upon by serious people.
      I see it as very unfortunate that anyone from AE911Truth feels the need to become proactive on the issues raised on this board – but only to the point of a one longbow shot.
      Again, a lot of people in Truthville are getting very fed up with the “Ivory Tower Attitude” of these fancy dancy “experts”.
      This isn’t a ‘turf war’ this is an argument about reason and facts. From this note from Mr. Roberts I can tell he doesn’t have the slightest idea as to what our issues are. His bow went off half drawn and the arrow didn’t even reach the target.

    4. Seems silly responding to a one-off post but I’ll bite.

      The implication, for those unfamiliar with the architecture of the Pentagon beyond the shape of its namesake, is that six masonry exterior walls must have been breached by the plane. But the light wells between the rings of the Pentagon reached down only to the roof of the second floor. So only TWO exterior walls had to be breached by the plane to produce the exit hole.

      Gregg should go educate himself on what the “Flight 77” OCT according to the directional damage (apart from the fact that there are no verified witnesses on record who saw the necessary trajectory).
      He should go read this 2003 (yet relatively accurate) breakdown of the ASCE Report.
      What Gregg doesn’t say that the alleged penetration not only had to go through the reinforced kevlar and steel bar framed outer wall, but that given the dimensions of the aircraft and the fact that there are no marks on the lawn from the engines, the “first floor” penetration myth entails the entire upper half of the fuselage striking the second floor slab head on. Which is a far more daunting prospect. No?
      Now add into the mix the OCT “tilt” which would require a minimum 9 degree tilt.
      Throughout the inner damage path there are elevators, ventilator shafts and stairways. And of course, the walls. 
      Oh yeah, and multiple columns that were untouched on the path running up to the C Ring hole?
      (yellow – fire damaged and two of the green marked columns on the damage path should in reality be marked yellow too)
      Whether an aircraft could physically penetrate or not is not the point. As Adam Syed rightly pointed out, it’s the dearth of identifiable debris (apart from the alleged nosecone at C Ring and the scraps of alleged fuselage with lettering which would have been well into the building before the explosion of the fuel tanks), most notably on the exterior.
      The problem is the corresponding damage to the visible facade wall.
      Even the ASCE Report can’t explain the lack of visible marks that should have been caused by the extremities (wingtips, vertical and horizontal stabilizers)
      The exterior decorative cladding is 2 inches thick. So how did another aircraft leave  marks from the extremities on a steel framed skyscraper that day..
      …and not on the Pentagon facade?
      It’s far from the “arrow” analogy as you can get.
      Mike? Ask Gregg to use the same anology with an arrow on the multiple corroborated flightpath witnessed that makes the directional damage itself proof of an inside job.
      If he doesn’t respond, I’ll take that as acknowledgement that he needs to read up on the Pentagon before he childishly slips a “he says,she says” type note into an adult discussion

  28. There seems to a lot of consensus among the people posting here that ‘a plane did not hit the Pentagon’ , according to Adam Syed & Adam Ruff et al, why not form your own ‘Consensus Panel’? Do you need a licence? Do you have to get permission from someone? Barrie Zwicker I’m sure would be glad to join (why are Chris Sarns and Gregg Roberts etc. ‘accused’ of posting something and then not staying to debate it , but Barrie Zwicker posts one comment and doesn’t stay to debate but that’s ok) I love this idea of ‘gatekeepers’ suppressing information and holding back the truth from the masses, as if they could, as if anyone here doesn’t have the same opportunity to put their ideas across as everyone else does, either individually or collectively. It seems a bit like an bit of an excuse to me.

    1. It is a matter of the height of the podium, the power of the bullhorn in certain quarters Mr. Wright.
      You cite Barrie Zwicker, and yet, what does he have to argue for or against here? We are making his essential argument. And yet you cannot parse such, having that conformist beancounter mindset of yours.
      So what exactly is YOUR purpose here Wright? To mark the walls like an ocelot? What sort of progress have you made beyond that?

      1. @Craig McKee
        If anyone is trying to discredit someones evidence, CIT’s or anyone elses ,then they are advertising the existance of it to everyone. All of those people have then only to type ‘CIT’ into Google and there they have CIT presenting their information and their interpretations of it. It is up to CIT to then convince them , on their own website, that the evidence they present and their own interpretations of that evidence are more convincing. If they don’t succeed in convincing them then that is a failure on their part.
        If CIT think that other people can’t look at the evidence of an event and come to a different conclusion about that evidence to the conclusion that CIT come to, then they misunderstand the process of assessing evidence. When you say ‘discrediting valid evidence’ you are expressing an opinion ,about evidence that you think is valid -so it is wrong therefore to discredit it. Everyone doesn’t have to agree with your ,or CIT’s, assessment of particular evidence that you consider valid. Others can weigh up the evidence and find it unconvincing, ‘discrediting it’ ,if that’s the word to use, on the grounds that they don’t think it’s valid or convincing, or as convincing as other evidence that contradicts it.
        I have nothing to do with 911Blogger or anyone on it, I have said before I am not a ‘truther’, but am interested in the truth if that counts, and if I were them I wouldn’t ban anyone.

        1. @ A. Wright,
          If you repeat something often enough, people believe it whether it’s true or not. This crowd has repeated endlessly that CIT’s research is weak and misleading, they have ignored any witnesses who don’t agree with them, etc. This all happens not to be true, but a lot of people will believe it because all those respectable scientists are saying it.
          This small group attacks CIT and then claims there are divisions about the Pentagon. There are not. Most people have the sense to see that a plane crash was faked. When I say discrediting evidence, I mean that they are attacking evidence not because it isn’t valid, but because they want others not to consider it.

      2. Mr Wright, you write,
        “I have nothing to do with 911Blogger or anyone on it, I have said before I am not a ‘truther’, but am , and if I were them I wouldn’t ban anyone.”
        You say you are “interested in the truth if that counts”, which I find simply unbelievable. You have been around on these 9/11 blogs long enough to have heard enough evidence that any honest and lucid individual would find undeniable, that the government story is simply and utterly absurd. To claim yours is disinterested ‘opinion’ is, I think, obviously disingenuous.
        Everyone does indeed have the right to their own opinions – but this hardly makes opinions equal in weight as per reason and rationality.
        As is pointed out here, you have yet to make a single specific point countering evidences, but rely simply upon vague generalities and formulaic rhetoric.
        As it is the Pentagon in particular we discuss, choose any point and make your argument to it.
        I will stay out of the argument for a time to see how you do here with the others.
        On your marks, get set, GO.

      3. A. Wright

        When you say ‘discrediting valid evidence’ you are expressing an opinion ,about evidence that you think is valid

        Then name just one verified witness who supports the official path!
        The problem is that the testimony of the witnesses that you claim are irrelevant have never been countered. That the campaign waged against them, not CIT, has ranged from censorship to lies to labelling them liars to dumbass hit and run trolls like yourself, Chris Sarns, Brian Good and Gregg Roberts on these very blogs.
        An “opinion”? Grow some balls and debate.

  29. The reason Sarns’ and Roberts’ appearance here is different than Zwicker’s is that Zwicker was simply expounding upon thoughts already in the article, and his comment was supportive of the article as a whole By contrast, Roberts and Sarns came to “dissent,” and both engaged in a drive by sniping and disappeared.
    As far as suppressing information goes: you’re right, it’s the internet, it can’t be completely suppressed. However, it was suppressed and marginalized ***at the most heavily trafficked 9/11 truth sites.*** Less traffic, less exposure for the material. This blog most likely wouldn’t even exist if it hadn’t been for a systemic purge of CIT and P4T at 911blogger.

    1. It’s certainly fair to say that banning at 911blogger (including my own) certainly had an effect on how I came to understand the internal politics of the Truth movement. That and seeing National Security Alert woke me up in a hurry. But to be technically correct, the blog had already been created before I got up to speed on the purges.
      But it is completely fair to say that the interest in this blog has been affected by how many truthers became disaffected with sites like 911blogger.

      1. Thanks for all you’re doing. You’re the actual real deal that, for awhile, I perceived the webmaster of wtcdemolition.com to be. Then, he “jumped the shark,” so to speak, and in the end was only a marginal improvement over blogger.

      2. Let me jump in here to say that this blog is certainly the most interesting 9/11 site I have ever experienced. Some of the most intelligent discussions I have ever encountered.
        Although I read 911 blogger from time to time, I never logged in to participate. I was mostly concerned with the WTC event for years…I just assumed for the longest time that the Pentagon was obviously another stage show and no plane could have disappeared so completely.
        As a few of the regulars here know, I got into a long thing with Legge on an email exchange. As I was doing that I was also posting here, and didn’t want to say anything publicly that would spoil our relationship until I was through interrogating him. And whatever it is…I still am not sure, but he was spot on with his work on the WTC stuff…what turned him on the Pentagon thing..???
        Like I finally had to decide, the WTC thing was an ‘ingratiating’ period, the ‘sheep dipping’ and he was a mole all along. Or, he has lost his judgment, is getting senile, or something [???]
        But more than anything, it could be the ivory tower syndrome – because a lot of the so-called
        ‘leadership’ seems to have missed the train.
        Anyway, we seem in an interim period here, and the future is never clear. I just want to be involved and be part of how all of this shakes out.
        Again, thanks to Craig for providing a fair arena for all of this to take place in.

  30. Dear Señor El Once,
    you wrote:

    Just because I’m a duped useful idiot on many things doesn’t mean that I’m eager to fill the role of “village idiot” with regards to Ms. Guliani.

    It would probably never occur to the “village idiot” to go around searching for “nuggets of Truth”,
    so rest assured that you dear Señor would in my mind be at the far bottom of the list in this regard!
    Every time you mention the importance of the search for “nuggets of Truth”, it reminds me of a certain little verse i read a long time ago, and that i now feel like repeating here to you – and others:
    “Oh the inexpressible comfort of feeling safe with a person
    neither having to weigh thoughts or measure words,
    just blow them out chaff with grain, just as they are
    and a faithful hand will sift them, keep what is worth keeping
    and with a breath of kindness blow the rest away.”
    (Was it from T.S. Eliot)?
    Have a fantastic holiday –

  31. I’m thinking that if A. Wright has time to keep dropping round here to drop in his opinions, he should get around to responding to a request that keeps on popping up. In case A. Wright’s memory is poor, this is the gist of the request.
    CIT’s “flyover theory” which you dismiss is based on the evidence of multiple witnesses in multiple locations placing the plane north of the Citgo gas station – can you provide the witnesses to the offiical flight path which is very clearly marked by the downed lightpoles? Very simple.

    1. Chris Sarns hit and run dump. Check.
      Gregg Roberts hit and run dump by proxy. Check.
      “A. Wright” intermittent dump every few days. Check.

    2. Well KP,
      What we seem to find in A. Wright is a person who has learned by rote, the abstract formulas for classical reasoning, but is lacking in the imagination to put such formulas to use in concrete real world situation.
      Or it may be more specifically true that his imagination has been corrupted by the processing of the programming he/she has been subjected to, and has never overcome.
      It may sound counter-intuitive, but if you can make an opponent angry enough sometimes it will change their mind.
      This is a ‘reverse psychology’ technique that certainly works on women. If a woman ignores a man’s courteous advances, there are times when striking a chord of anger in her will be a beginning, for at least you have gotten an emotion from her rather than indifference. Of course such a tactic demands persistence and a clever path to mollification if one is to succeed.

      1. WW,
        I often look to your concluding paragraph with a mixture of curiosity and apprehension. In fact, there are times when it seems like you’re testing me to see what you can get away with. (I’m being somewhat facetious here, but not entirely.) Your current wisdom on succeeding with women by getting them mad at you is just the latest example.

      2. But Craig,
        It is a fact that this is not my own theory at all but can be found in ‘How to Succeed With Women’, and other advice journals on such matters.
        This is something I read when very young and have no current links to proofs to provide to you.
        But I didn’t make it up in wholecloth I assure you.
        And I certainly can see no profit to provoking you on purpose.

      3. “Luckily given your courting techniques, I’m not a woman.” A Wright
        Aha, finally got you to clear up at least one mystery as to yourself Wright.
        I will point out that I read this as advice in a book once in my youth. It doesn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion that I have actually ever purposely tried it. I never had a problem picking up women. I never had to rely on ‘techniques’ or Dear Abby type wanknoodle to succeed with women.
        I have however noticed that being indifferent to a woman’s advances will cause such emotional responses. And anyone who seriously denies that ‘Love and Hate’ are of similar emotional intensity is unaware of the lessons of life.
        Anyone who has experienced a woman climaxing under their lovemaking has surely noticed the imperceptible likeness to the reaction to great pain – the grimacing, the unsuppressed bellowing and screaming. Which is one reason that a child viewing parents having sex is so inadvisable, regardless of ‘moral’ reasoning. A child will think that daddy is hurting mommy.
        At any rate. This discussion has led too far, and this is my final comment to it.

  32. Well as OSS said above.
    Sarns = Troll
    Roberts = Troll by proxy
    I think that speaks volumes about their credibility. It also tells us Craig’s article is right on target.

  33. Speaking of propaganda teams, censorship and 911blogger, it should also be noted that the mods have also silenced some people who were outspoken in their belief that Israel’s Mossad pulled of 9/11, at least the WTC demolition portion of it.
    I person I’ve never seen before called “hankgeorge” left a comment at 911blogger today. I’ve taken a screenshot of it, because I’m wondering if the moderators will delete it. Or, it might simply get heavily down voted.

    1. Perhaps this is an issue we can get an article on up here to discuss.
      What about it Mr. McKee? I think this issue is certainly ripe for discussion.
      I would like to make some preamble to this when the time comes for discussion, as it can quickly be misconstrued by a certain superstitious ‘taboo’ that is inherent in anything touching on the subject. As I am well versed in studying this larger agenda, I have become well prepared to counter the misconceptions propagated by those who designed the agenda.

  34. So both myself and OSS have called A. Wright out here and still he won’t respond with a single witness. I’ve been asking this question for a couple of years now in many places – who saw a lightpole impale a cab and who saw a plane strike one of those downed lightpoles. If you don’t have those witnesses then your opinion is worthless, you just show you are such a biased thinker that you will believe any story as long as it suits your bias. Time to enter into debate A. Wright or disappear back to where you came.

    1. @KP
      While I am writing a reply I see that I have exceeded some time limit you didn’t set. If you have a time limit let me know in future. If you set a time limit though, I won’t reply. While I’m writing a reply you can think about a few questions.
      If no witness present at an event said they saw something does that mean it didn’t happen?
      If witnesses whose accounts were quoted in the media didn’t include a mention of seeing lightpoles being hit does that mean they didn’t see them being hit, or that they didn’t mention it? or that they weren’t asked?
      How many witnesses to the event were interviewed and ended up being quoted in the media?
      How many were never interviewed?
      Are you allowed to be a witness to a lightpole hitting your own car?
      Are any of the people who said the plane hit the building lying when they say the plane hit the building?

      1. The usual shimmy by A. Wright.
        People who were quoted as being “lightpole witnesses” were actually nothing of the sort.
        Lloyd England denies being on the bridge where “his lightpole” was situated. Repeatedly.
        The reason he denies this makes him suspect, whether you believe him or not. That and the fact that nobody corraborates him.
        Nobody here has denied the existence of people who claim to have witnessed an alleged impact. Search through this very blog and you’ll find them openly being discussed and nobody labelled them as “liars”.
        On he one hand Wright, you dismiss the validity of witness testimony, yet on the other you generalize the witness testimony available. No effort. No details.
        Name a witness who reported seeing the official path. Shouldn’t be that hard?

      2. Got it – you teach 9th grade level HS classes. Right Mr. Wright?
        Those are certainly ‘subject’ 101 level questions.
        Just a pre-reply reply to your pre-reply.
        Take your time Wright, don’t give your game away prematurely.

      3. A.Wright asks [among other questions]:
        [1] “How many witnesses to the event were interviewed and ended up being quoted in the media?”
        This is total a controversy at this point…a wide variety of counts are now present on the web.
        I have a spreadsheet created by a, Mark Roberts, sent to me by a third party that claims 182 solid witnesses to the event.
        23 witnesses who claim to have seen the actual impact.
        3 witnesses who claim to have seen light poles clipped {including the infamous Mr. England}
        14 witnesses who claim a North side approach – specifically. Of these several claim to have seen impact but couldn’t have because of obstruction of POV.
        [2] “How many were never interviewed?”
        WTF??? Surely you jest. I have the same reaction to a couple more of your questions…
        However, I meant this post as an aid for your ‘project’ – not a critique.

  35. Wow, so Chris Sarns actually came back to thrash and flail his legs some more?
    Good job, Craig, your article has really hit a nerve.
    I am making this post against my better judgement, because you like to use diversion (while hypocritically accusing your opponents of this), and you still have not actually answered either Adam Ruff’s first two questions, or OSS’s questions. However, I feel I must expose the absolute falsity of, if nothing else, your lies about my conduct at 911blogger. By the way, when readers of Truth and Shadows read this exchange, keep in mind that Adam Syed ended up (months later) being banned, while Sarns is still a registered user there to this day, with real time posting privileges (I believe).

    your insults ended our friendship.

    What insults were those? I was merely pointing out the ridiculousness of your “NoC fly into” theory, as Frank Legge did many months later.
    For those readers who are newer to the scene, here is where you started to come unhinged with me, Chris. I will reproduce the discussion here for everyone’s convenience.
    Starting with this comment: 911blogger.com/news/2009-10-26/adam-syed-discusses-pentagon-anomalies-and-national-security-alert-cincinnati-tv#comment-220555

    Which is it?
    “I am quite certain that CIT has not assumed the govt is telling the truth about the C-ring hole! It seems you actually agree with CIT that was most likely caused by pre-planted explosives. The fact that the damage from the E-ring leading to the C-ring is directional is not “assumed” nor is it required to take the word of the govt to determine this.”
    “. . . a plane on the north side of the gas station absolutely can not hit the light poles, generator trailer, or cause the directional damage to the building leading to the C-ring hole.”
    You said that a plane on the north path could not cause the directional damage and the hole in the C-ring. Now you are saying CIT believes that damage was caused by pre-planted explosives. You can’t have it both ways.
    “A plane on the north side of the gas station absolutely can not cause the directional damage to the building leading to the C-ring hole.”
    This is NOT valid argument for flyover.


    “A plane on the north side
    “A plane on the north side of the gas station absolutely can not cause the directional damage to the building leading to the C-ring hole.” – This is NOT valid argument for flyover.”
    Of course it is as agreed by Hoffman, Legge, Arabesque, Caustic Logic, Pilots for 9/11 Truth and everyone on earth who has ever published ANYTHING on this issue at all.
    Why is it so hard for you to understand, and what makes you think you know more than all of these people who have clearly spent more time researching the matter?


    You ignored the point again
    YOU are using “A plane on the north side of the gas station absolutely can not cause the directional damage to the building leading to the C-ring hole.”
    Your theory requires that the interior damage was caused by explosives.
    Therefore: You cannot use the interior damage as proof that the plane did not hit the building. That damage was the result of explosives in both theories.


    The fact that the interior
    The fact that the interior damage can not have been caused by a plane on the north side approach and was therefore most likely caused by explosives certainly is proof that the plane did not hit.
    This is getting silly Chris. I’d say you are using circular logic but you really aren’t using any logic at all.
    Whatever the reason it’s clear that you have a psychological barrier against accepting evidence that proves the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

    This was HARDLY an insult Chris. This was calling it like it is. Captain Spock would have told you your argument was “illogical.” My last sentence, likewise, was not a personal attack or insult either. Anyway, moving on:

    The interior damage and the hole in the C ring
    prove nothing except explosives were used.
    This does not in any way disprove a plane hit the building.
    You incessant personal attacks and insults tell us who you are.
    Attack the argument, not the arguer.


    I have not personally attacked or insulted you, Chris
    When I speak of “not using logic,” or when I speak of psychological barriers, or whatever, I am making a level headed judgement. Maybe I am wrong about your psychological barriers, but as of now it is my assessment.
    I am sorry if my attempt to cut to the chase and be firm has been misinterpreted as being mean-spirited.
    I have indeed insulted and attacked people on the internet over the past 10 years. When we were having dinner with Gage in DC I even alluded to such an occasion, and then promptly spilled my beer, remember? but certainly not you, and not in this thread.

    Look at the hyperlink in that above quote; it’s an example of when I actually attack someone. Compare that to our dialogue. Anyway moving on:

    Your opinion of me is irrelevant
    You have been very condescending and insulting. I do not care what you think of me so just keep it to yourself. Please keep your comments to the evidence.
    There is NO evidence of flyover!
    CIT’s own witnesses are evenly split, two for flyover, two for the plane hitting the Pentagon. Net zero.
    We agree that the he interior damage was caused by explosives. The plane did not make THAT damage.
    This in no way disproves the plane hitting the Pentagon.
    You are not qualified to say a 737 could not make the course adjustment I proposed. You don’t know the speed or exact flight path so stop making the claim that it could not happen.
    When CIT’s “evidence” is analyzed, there is only supposition. The witness statements, taken as a whole, favor a plane hitting the Pentagon. To claim otherwise is fruit loops.

    Note, of course, the glaring hypocrisy as you whine that I’m insulting you, yet in the next breath you insult your opposition by claiming that to believe in the occurrence of flyover is “fruit loops.”
    I don’t think I even need to paste more of the conversation for the readers at this blog to see that I was hardly insulting you. This conversation continued on for many more comments. I will fast forward to what finally led you to become totally unhinged:

    Question for the anti CIT group
    You all devote so much energy to disputing/disproving the “flyover theory.” Are you aware that this is only half of the theory? The other half, of course, is that pre-planted explosives in the building went off. Why have the CIT detractors not spent so much energy trying to cast doubt on this part of the theory? Have you ever watched this interview with Pentagon survivor April Gallop? CIT interviewed her a few years ago and it is the longest interview of Gallop in the public domain.

    Incidentally, that comment received a net of -4 votes. When you have people voting down a post that addresses the explosives and features a video of a survivor who questions the plane crash story, you know you’re on a site overrun with cognitive infil-TRAITORS. Moving on:

    I’m aware
    that flyover is the half baked part of the theory.
    April Gallop is credible, Roosevelt’s story is not and there are 80 witnesses that counter his story, unless you think there were two planes as he did.


    »”80 witnesses”
    You’re intellectually dishonest by your tired refrain about “80 witnesses.”
    I am quite disappointed in your intellectual rigor if you even THINK that printed quotes, unverified, carry anything like the weight that the first hand, interviewed on location.
    Objective scientists require evidence of greater strength to refute evidence. That would require 14 or more definitive firsthand south side witnesses from people with vantage points as good as or better than the 13 presented by CIT. To accept anything less exposes a confirmation bias against this evidence.
    Yes, the witnesses were deceived into thinking a plane hit. Don’t forget it is not a “half baked” notion. Most people in the movement agree that a large jetliner did not crash into the Pentagon and many people cite the lack of wreckage as what got them questioning the events to begin with, right along with the nature of the WTC collapse.


    Talk to yourself much?
    By your measure, the only valid statements are those recorded by CIT.
    That is not only intellectually dishonest, it’s absurd.
    The statements recorded by CIT have no more validity than statements made to the press. You seem to think Craig and Aldo are superior interviewers and their interviews are more valid than others. You then use this to hand wave 80 witnesses who saw the plane fly into the Pentagon.
    Your subject shift to south path witnesses is also intellectually dishonest. We are not discussing north side/south side, we are talking about witnesses who saw the plane hit the pentagon.
    This proves once again you will use any bullshit reason you can think of to deny witnesses who disprove your flyover theory.
    It is a tactic of the denier community to accuse the opposition of exactly what they are doing. With the long verbose subject shift posts and accusation of intellectual dishonesty while being intellectually dishonest, you are now using the entire denier playbook. CIT’s tactics and now your tactics have no place in the Truth Movement.
    I have had a belly-full of your mindless insults. I asked you politely to cease and desist but you continue unabated. If you relentlessly insult your friends, you will destroy that friendship. Last time, stick to the evidence and keep your opinions of me to yourself. Clearly we are no longer friends. Your relentless personal attacks have demonstrated your disrespect for me and they have destroyed the respect I had for you.
    Vaya con dios

    You sure do like that Spanish sign off don’t you Chris?
    I would imagine it would be clear to all reading this who had the cooler head and who was actually making the insults.
    Once again, relevant to post considering the body of the article.
    Vaya con dios!

  36. To Gregg Roberts,
    I find your response to my article very interesting indeed. The most interesting thing about it is that you don’t fundamentally dispute the argument I make. You don’t deny that there has been co-ordination or pressure, but you give them nice terms like “discussion” and “advice.” My favourite part is where you suggest that I’m equating “determined” with something bad. Well if the act the group is “determined” to carry out is bad, then…
    You spend more time discussing the thickness of the walls in the Pentagon than you do the primary point I’m making. I think I know why. By the way, what actually made the round exit hole?
    Now, on to consensus. This is where you repeat the same false claims we hear over and over from your crowd:
    Oh my God, we can’t tell newcomers about the Pentagon because we can’t agree among ourselves!!
    Rubbish. “The Pentagon” and the lack of evidence of a real plane crash there is one of the things that convinced me that 9/11 was an inside job. The only reason it might not have that effect on some now is because of all the nonsense coming from you and your fellow advice-givers.
    You talk about “good faith activism.” That’s a good one. Not only has CIT evidence been excluded by the Consensus Panel, it hasn’t even been presented to its members for consideration. How do we know consensus can’t be reached on something that isn’t even considered?
    You wrote: “Regardless of McKee’s fevered imaginings about why ‘What hit it?’ is divisive, the fact remains that the 9/11 truth movement is strongly split over it.”
    That was sneaky. I have no “fevered imaginings” about what hit because I know that an airliner didn’t. Nice try. The 9/11 Truth movement is strongly split over the Pentagon? NO, IT IS NOT! You and your small group of colleagues are a tiny minority who want people to think a real crash occurred.
    *By the way, you point out that an arrow would go through a bulletproof vest. Would it make a difference if the arrow were hollow? Just a thought. When plane crashes happen anywhere else but the Pentagon, the plane doesn’t end up looking very “rigid” as you say this plane was.

    1. By the way, what actually made the round exit hole?

      Excellent question… was it created by the nose, as Rumsfeld alleged, or the landing gear, as Popular Mechanics alleged? Or, most likely, was it NEITHER?

      1. Cubic Sphere,
        According to Legge, the round exit whole was created by ‘hot air’…his own {grin} – actually his proposition is that it was directional “pressure” from the “flow” of the directional blast caused by the explosive entrance of the aircraft. {a weakly and absurd argument – but his}
        However, the actual photo evidence indicates it is a “cut-out” as painted right there on the wall in the photos available of the “exit hole” – I would therefore propose it is not an “exit hole” at all, but a hole made by the jackhammers of a crew wishing to enter from that direction, or possibly another staged aspect.

      2. I would note as well that the punchout hole is NOT at the crash angle – and is jogged decidedly to the right.

  37. And so to the problem of parsing the Pentagon witness statements, we have shown that it is not sufficient to merely accept that testimony in a vacuum, but to analyze the merits of it in the surrounding context of the event. One of the most essential being the witnesses POV, their position in relation to the Pentagon, distance from, and obstructions acknowledged.
    It is equally necessary to determine the reasonableness of their statements in view of simple human limitations to visual acuity.
    As per our assertions as to the psychological and physiological responses to:
    1.a bright flash, and 2. the effects of trauma.
    What argument is there available to counter with? Can it be denied that these are well developed concepts of both scientific realms? Do our opponents accept these as valid scientific principles? If so, can they make a successful argument that these principles are misapplied by “opinion”? As I anticipate this here, it be must realized that this counter argument can be determined a fallacy by the very scientific and rational reasoning that the concepts are themselves constructed of.
    As I can see it, only a novel approach will have any effect on our argument, and in this case, novel would mean synthetic, some rhetorical spin of the wholly fantastical.~ww

  38. Now, if it is argued that I have prejudged any argument to be made before even hearing it. Let me show how this is fallacy as well. It is simply verifiable that the prior MO of the counter commentators on this thread has already been such fantastical rhetoric. I am simply predicting/anticipating more of the same as framed by them themselves.
    But now to congeal for the sake of brevity:
    It is the key proposition that the plane witnessed approaching the Pentagon did not, and could not have hit, considering the post incident damage and path thereof.
    It is inherent to such an assertion that the perpetrators would have necessarily anticipated witnesses beyond their direct control, that they must devised some means of distraction or masking the event. Thus the principles of stage magic become apropos; taking into account the very aspects we speak to as per physiological and psychological responses.
    The most simple answer would be a flash/smoke bomb, preliminary to the main concussive blast to destroy that section of the Pentagon. The brilliant flash, would cause the human reactions detailed here, the smoke would act as a screen for the plane to melt into as it flew over the building.

    1. HR1,
      Well said.
      What’s incredible, I mean totally mindnumbing, is that multiple corroborative witnesses contradict a flightpath that is physically defined within feet and inches and the onus is shifted on to those who present this evidence to explain why some people claim to have seen the plane crash into the building. It’s them who should be explaining how the directional damage was caused from this trajectory! Even those who are quoted as “impact witnesses” at minimum, don’t contradict the NOC testimony. Many describe it to a tee. Particularly those who were caught in traffic on Route 27 in front of the Pentagon.
      Albert Hemphill, Penny Elgas and Sean Boger are the best examples IMO.
      The first claimed to have a great view, yet even when the official flightpath was e-mailed to him, after hearing lies about Craig Ranke, and after Jeff Hill successfully pulled his head out of the “rabbit hole”, he still insisted that he saw the aircraft where he originally stated. 
      The second even mentioned the Citgo by name in her first online testimony (which was actually an essay on an event that should have been over in 2 seconds). She described what could only have been the NOC path.
      The third had, for me, along with the Citgo witnesses, the best view. Sitting face on with the Annex at the heliport. The official path wasn’t even in his line of sight. In fact, he was more or less facing Hemphill straight on.
      Add to the mix William Middleton who couldn’t physically see the official path (along with Lagasse) and whose comments about the aircraft flying partially over the ANC carpark can’t possibly be due to “perspective” or “parallax” errors.
      It’s up to A. Wright, Sarns and Legge to explain the contradictions? But they won’t. Because they can’t.

  39. On a relative note, when trawling through the south tower impact photos, I came across these two quotes from two of the photographers. Read the quote then look at the images they caught.

    “I saw this plane coming from south to north. I made a few pictures, and the plane happened to be in them. I made one shot quickly, then all of a sudden I saw a fireball. Everything was in complete silence at this distance. I went inside and turned the TV on. People were screaming that a second plane had hit. I never thought about the plane I had seen. It just wasn’t in my mind.”

    His image:

    “My camera was trained on the towers when the second plane came into view. The picture I took of the airplane should be in the repository. As viewed from the north, the plane appeared to vanish. When the building erupted in flame, I still had this “disconnect” in my mind and at first refused to believe the plane I’d just seen hit the building. After a few seconds when the sound wave reached us, it was fairly clear that was what happend [sic].”
    “After my first shot of the fireball, I was frozen like I was in a trance. Everything seemed to be happening in slow motion. When the sound wave reached us (it sounded just like in the movies, only not so loud—then again, I was probably 2 miles away)….it brought me back to reality and I snapped this picture.”

    His image:

    “My friend took this shot on 9/11/01.
    As he tells the story, he was in northern Brooklyn the day of the event. He took out his camera and snapped shots after the first tower was hit. He was busy taking extra shots with his Nikon when he saw through the viewfinder that the second tower was on fire/smoking. He saw in the saved image, this picture below. Apparently this shot was published in the center page of Time magazine’s special edition regarding 9/11/01.
    Really sad to think that those folks in the plane died in about 1 second after the shot

    His image:

  40. Aman, George – Annex – Cemetery
    “This witness had a good view but appears to have underestimated the distance to the plane, as do most witnesses. He said “…right over the parking lot, then ‘whamo!’ to the…” **He was then interrupted by Craig who should have asked him if he saw the plane hit the Pentagon but did not. It seems he has learnt not to ask this question as others, like Lagasse, Turcios and Brooks, when asked, said it did hit.**”~SPREADSHET by Mark Roberts
    So, what is this biased commentary doing on the spreadsheet? Aman was “interupted” in what way by Craig? Did he just say “shut up I don’t want to hear that part”? I’m sure he didn’t, but we are left with this comment on the spreadsheet that is meant to influence our thinking on Aman’s testimony, and more so on Ranke’s intentions.
    Now this is from a witnesses spreadsheet I was emailed from Frank Legge. The ‘author tag’ on the spreadsheet reads, Mark Roberts – although Legge told me he had done this work [???]
    And it is this very type of thing that is found so often in the work of these people who take every opportunity to slice a chunk of flesh out of CIT that tends to our assessment of them as dishonest brokers.
    What is this comment meant to imply? :: “This witness had a good view but appears to have underestimated the distance to the plane..”
    Did the witnesses POV perhaps indicate a north path if we consider where he said he saw the plane…and therefore from the bias of the compiler this must be blunted by obvious subjective bias? Notice the length of the paragraph above, that has only SEVEN WORDS of actual witness testimony.
    I have had this spreadsheet for close to two months now…and the more I look at it the more useless it seems. It is badly arranged, the categories seem arbitrary, and testimony is sacrificed for the authors commentary in many places. The biggest deficit however is being able to determine exactly where the witnesses were during the event.

    1. HR1
      Legge and Sarns, especially the latter, always insinuate that CIT “lead” and/or “censored” any witnesses that mentioned the word “impact”. Sarns even claimed that he was “misled” even though the interviews in their entirity are available. And the hypocrisy of Legge when you look at him using Jeff “Shure” Hill as a source given what he did with Hemphill!
      Hill’s first efforts revealed more NOC witnesses, so he changed tactics. 
      1. He establishes that he is not a “conspiracy theorist”
      2. Sets out what these “conspiracy theorists” are allegedly claiming (i.e. flyover) thus putting the interviewee on the defensive.
      3. He mentioned Craig Ranke by name. Adds insults and lies (particularly Lloyd England, Albert Hemphill and Daryl Donley)
      4. He bumbles along laughing and ridiculing flyover, yet fails to ask details on the flightpath (he learned his lesson). This keeps the interviewee on track to describe what he “should” have seen.
      He never challenges interviewees bar Roosevelt Roberts’ wife who he harrassed.
      5. He makes sure to leave any further investigation poisoned.
      Legge always hops, skips and jumps past the descriptions given between the Navy Annex and the Pentagon facade. He has to.
      As for George Aman
      His position:
      When Aman mentioned the (ANC) “parking lot”, Craig even asked him “what parking lot?”
      Compare his testimony to Middleton:
      A: When I seen him, if this is it here, I would say… [William Middleton draws flight path]
      Q: Ok, so…
      A: Well, this is our parking lot, right here.
      Q: Yeah, so…
      A: That’s— It came right over the parking lot.
      Q: Oh, it looked like it came right over the parking lot like that. Ok.”
      Just look at the path Middleton drew and the path Aman described, then look at the official path. Chalk and cheese.

      1. Thanks OSS,
        I remember Aman’s map now…I’d seen it before in a group shot of them.
        I have to say the case in sewn up. And the monkey biz gets stranger by the minute as to how anyone could seriously doubt it…which brings el topo to mind. Aye?
        I’m curious as to what Wright is going to come up with – and just as curious as to why he would bother.

      2. OSS,
        It just occurred to me who Mark Roberts is as well…
        Well I’ll be. Damn he’s that guy mixed up with JREF who has made several videos that Albury Smith uses in his flim flam posts.
        Ha ha ha….and THIS is where Legge got his spreadsheet and it’s commentary from…oh my.
        That’s why Frank said it was a spreadsheet “he” had done. What an SOB.
        Curiouser and curiouser …. a doormouse? a mole? The Mad Hatter hisself???

      3. HR1
        Yeah, “Gravy”. Author of “WTC7lies”. I’ve torn his witness list apart. I’m trying to update and make the debunk of it more readable.
        Legge and Eric Larson have many friends at JREF. that’s why Sarns is full of crap when he says that any of us use “JREF tactics”. His friends are JREF scumbags.

      4. Well OSS, and the rest of the forum,
        I think it is quite obvious that this page, and the two proceeding it, are being perused by those on the other side of the fence. They MUST be aware of this.
        Where is their champion?
        We have had two drive-by shootings that haven’t even dented the facade here, and nothing else.
        Do they have NO ONE with the combination of balls and brains to address this forum?
        And then there is the tardy Mr, Wright…WTF Wright? Are your hands shaking so hard you can’t manage to get the bullets in your gun? Did you suddenly realize you bought a box full of blanks?
        I have to say, this has become a theater of the absurd…the opposition have turned to phantoms in the mist…..

  41. @ onesliceshort:
    As Elaine says to Jerry in “Seinfeld” concerning her presumed orgasms in their previous relationship: “Fake!, fake! fake!” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLg1k4I9fqk
    You certainly appear to live up to your moniker 🙂 . Every one of those 3 photos you linked to is an obvious, blatant fraud. [Just as the one at top left of this blog allegedly depicting the initiation of WTC2’s collapse, and titled “An Explosive Event” is.]
    Just comparing the lighting conditions between,say, the alleged first photo you link to and the others linked to should be enough for anyone prepared to open their eyes and really look/consider. [And why anyone would believe a photo that has appeared in Time magazine is in any way real is simply beyond my ken- TIME magazine, Time Inc., for heavens sake!]
    Just as at the Pentagon and Shanksville there were most likely no plane strikes/crashes in NYC that morning [as with the Pentagon planes may or may not have been in the area] .
    The images and videos depicting plane strikes in NYC are all provably fraudulent, every pixel in every one of them is derived via computer animation software, including all fireballs, all entry holes, all buildings, sky, birds, trees, light poles,smoke , shadows, people etc. etc.
    Extensive analysis of the alleged 911 “live” imagery can be viewed here: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802&sid=55a891d4ed1d003513d4e161fc7a8b1d
    regards, onebornfree

  42. “Extensive analysis of the alleged 911 “live” imagery can be viewed here…”
    You mean anal y sis, don’t you onebornfree?
    Hilarious, uproarious, pandubious nonsense.
    Waterfalls???…do you have cataracts my man?

  43. As my expertise is in philosophy, epistemology, and sociopolitical reasoning, my analysis contains such aspects. I am not an adequate mathematician without assistance beyond HS stuff. And of course I am not a pilot nor aerodynamic engineer – which would necessitate such hard sciences.
    This is preamble to what I am now about to say about Legge.
    I see his flirtations with JREF in the same amoral light as that of CIA, and Western Inel as a whole in their Project Paperclip – using the EXCUSE that these ‘scientists’ and ‘intelligence experts’ were the “best in their fields” technically.
    Holding such trust in immoral characters such as these is beyond excuse – holding up such obvious psychotics as “geniuses” is the height of surreal absurdity, and can only promote vile and inhuman paths from that point forward.

    1. HR1
      Read through Sarns’ logic, excuses for, and denial of working (indirectly or not) with these people
      There’s no difference between them and JREF. The question you have to ask is why they would expose themselves to openly having such ties. It’s hardly for the higher quality of information. They both spew the same nonsense.
      I remember a time when “truthers” had to dot their i’s and cross their t’s.
      From Sunstein’s paper

      “….we will suggest below that if the hard core arises for certain identifiable reasons, it can be broken up or at least muted by government action.” …. “We suggest a role for government efforts, and agents, in introducing such diversity.  Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.”

      The above is a joke. As if this hadn’t been done since the internet highway was opened and that they had just thought of this concept recently.
      Gregg Roberts’ piece on Sunstein’s essay:

      “In a different sense of “wasting no time,” the authors do not mention any evidence cited by 9/11 skeptics in support of their beliefs. Where the correctness of the official story of 9/11 is not merely assumed as a backdrop, it is supported by fallacious arguments. One is a brief reductio ad absurdum suggesting that distrust in the official story of 9/11 would require an unreasonably wide and deep distrust of all the authorities that support the official story – as if people could not reasonably agree with authorities on many things, while disagreeing with them on a few.
      According to the authors, those who reject the official account of 9/11 are simply uninformed, not (as a rule) crazy or stupid. The problem, according to these authors, are the various ways by which beliefs get erroneously adopted and retained, such as “crippled epistemologies,” “conspiracy cascades,” “group polarization,” and “selection effects.”
      Gregg Roberts

      For the record, I’m not accusing Roberts of anything. Not even Chris Sarns. But all we can judge eachother by is the truth. And of the validity of our claims through cross referencing information that has been obtained by ourselves.
      Do you see the hypocrisy? 
      Whether it’s hard ass stubbornness, ego, contradictory blatant lies or a cointelpro operation, they’re all the same to me. I’m suspicious of all information unless I can verify it for myself. No matter who the source.
      I honestly don’t believe that these people know what the hell’s been happening for the past 60 years, what lengths the perps will go to, how gullible the public generally are, or that denial and propaganda are the main weapons in their arsenal. 
      Or just how absurd it is to paint a Pentagon flyover as “beyond the realms of reality” or “out there” but claim to speak for people like myself who believe in CD of the towers. They don’t see the disconnect?
      John Doe 2? Nope.
      500+ witnesses to a missile before TWA800 blew up? All wrong.
      JFK? ….
      The motives for all three of those ops are open to speculation but the evidence that the perps can’t physically censure contradicts the official stories. End of story. 

      1. OSS says:
        “I honestly don’t believe that these people know what the hell’s been happening for the past 60 years, what lengths the perps will go to, how gullible the public generally are, or that denial and propaganda are the main weapons in their arsenal.”
        And here we open the biscuit to view the crux of the matter {as Zappa would say}.
        As Senor and I chatted about a bit upstairs, the length of time…”60 years” – as far back as 1933, or to 1913 and the founding of the Federal Reserve…all tends to an agenda much older, in fact ancient. The seeds of this go all the way back to Babylon and ancient Egypt.
        “A whale of a tale I’ll tell ya – a whale of a tale but true…”
        Perhaps if we ever get the story up here on the Mossad connection to 9/11, we can open the discussion up to this longer view/

      2. When I say 60 years, I’m thinking more of the period of the endgame envisaged by the military and corporate fascists of psychological global warfare. The formation of the OSS and the “cold war” chess moves. Setting up of global fascist dictatorships. Controlling the “enemy within”.
        The era of communications technology.

      3. Yea OSS, we are definitely on the same page there, the postmodern era is unique as per this arena of “high tech”…
        Craig I am glad to here you are interested in bringing this conversation forward.

  44. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31018
    The Politics of Language and the Language of Political Regression
    By Prof. James Petras – Global Research, May 24, 2012
    This is a perceptive article wherein Petras describes the dialectical language of Newspeak, and how it is a synthetic language spoken by both “Left and Right” resulting in a checkmate of stale and stalled conceptualization.

  45. That there are those who claim that planting the “evidence” of aircraft parts at the Pentagon is too far out to even consider are lacking more than simply in imagination, but in historical precedent. The fact that a good many drug convictions rest on planted drugs by arresting officers has been discovered by the legions. That FBI “informers” and double agents have provided most of the so called “al-Qaeda terrorists” with bombs and bomb making materials is too well known to have to mention. And yet the idea that a military structure that has the known policies of “need to know,” “chain of command,” and the enforcement of secrecy pledges with huge penalties for breaching such is beyond their comprehension.
    Added to this is the fact that not a single item has been identified by standard ‘Aircraft part numbers protocol’ nor the standard procedures for aircraft crashes carried out – for the first time in over 20 years, the planes from 9/11 all exempted from standard procedures. It is also a fact that there is no public access to the ‘chains of custody” for any item in the whole 9/11 case.
    When these issues are added together with the witness testimonies, as further understood from Citizen Investigation Team’s work, the emergent truth that an airplane couldn’t possibly have crashed into the Pentagon becomes increasingly obvious.
    When all of these dots are lined up, the stubborn intransigence of the of a certain centralized cabal of “9/11 researchers” becomes more than baffling – it becomes suspicious.

  46. Basically Chris Sarns thinks it is possible for the airliner to come in north of the citgo (NOC) gas station and still hit the pentagon. He is wrong for two reasons.
    1. There is no evidence whatsoever of an impact along the NOC path. The only “evidence” we have is photographs of the hole in the pentagon facade and photos of the downed light poles along the south path. The hole is too small of course and there is no visible damage from the 6 ton engines or from the verticle stabalizer either. Those facts alone are fatal to the theory that a 757 struck the pentagon in the first place. In any event a plane coming in NOC could not have cleared the obstructions (light poles, trees etc.) along that path and dipped down to strike the pentagon at the observed hole. It is according to the experts at P4T aerodynamically impossible for an airliner to do that. PERIOD. The experts have spoken on this issue and Chris Sarns is NOT one of them. Neither is Frank Legge by the way.
    2. A second major issue with the NOC impact scenario aside from it’s aerodynamic impossibility is that it MUST involve staging of the downed light poles which could only have been struck by an aircraft along the south of citgo (SOC) path. The FDR data suplied by the government MUST also be fraudulent in this scenario as well because it clearly and precisely defines a SOC path. Therefore even if Sarns fantasy scenario of a NOC impact were true the government is still guilty of planting the downed light poles and fabricating the FDR data. The government is still guilty of high treason in other words even if Chris were right. Why would the government open themselves up to this considerable risk if the plane actually did come in from a NOC path and hit the pentagon? They could have simply not staged any light poles and they could have presented the genuine FDR data and that would be that. So in the final analysis the staged light poles and FDR data are also fatal to a NOC impact scenario because they simply would not have done that had a plane actually struck the pentagon.
    Chris bases his entire scenario on the fact that many of CIT’s witnesses believe the plane struck the pentagon and they all agree it was NOC. In order to believe this Chris has to totally ignore the fact that such a scenario is impossible aerodynamically and he MUST believe that misdirection (the big explosion) could not have fooled observers into believing the plane struck. In other words Chris has to discount totally what magicians have been doing for centuries when they vanish elephants in front of peoples very eyes. Here is Chris Angel demostrating very well how I believe the pentagon misdirection actually worked.
    Note the smoke and how it was used. Also note all the witnesses saying afterwards how incredible it was that he made the lamborghini vanish. So Chris are the witnesses in this video to be taken at their word that the car actually vanished or should we consider the evidence that such a thing is impossible? Tell me Chris what should we believe huh?
    P.S. This whole debunk of Sarns has been done many times before by people better then me and yet Sarns refuses to face the fact that he is wrong. Whatever his reasons are for clinging to this obviously false scenario I don’t know or care. He is spreading disinformation on purpose while KNOWING it has been proven to be disinformation. No real “truther” would do that.
    P.S.S. The fact that Chris refuses to debate the pentagon reinforces the fact that he is KNOWINGLY spreading false information. Knowing he cannot survive a legitimate debate he is reduced to doing little more then any troll would do. He throws poop all over the place and hopes some of it will stick. Despicable.

    1. Yes RuffAdam, so correct; there is a very good reason for the term “Smoke and Mirrors”.
      I became interested – make that fascinated with special effects when I was pretty young, around 12 years old. So I have been studying such things for a very long time.
      CIG as a cure all, didn’t come along until the end days of my career, and that was fascinating too, until it sunk in that all of the thrill of thinking up novel ways of doing effects had come to an end.
      At any rate, early film effects began with those used for live stage productions, and the foundation principles were the same for both stage and screen being well established in my mind gives me, perhaps some advantage in picturing the event at the Pentagon. But anyone who has seen a real master stage magician live should appreciate such a thing as well.
      I know some of the people who see Criss Angel are braindead enough to think it’s “real magic”…
      I’ve met Criss, and a big part of it for him, and most top notch pros such as he is the projection of personal charisma. “Wanting to believe” is a big part of believing. Another part is ego on the part of the one who is tricked…in thinking, ‘well I’m too smart to fall for a trick – therefore it must have really happened’.
      So if we are going to be reasonable, we are going to reject the possibility that an airplane disappeared by Magic at the Pentagon on 9/11. And that is the only alternative left once all of the integers are laid out as to the facts of this matter; the plane either flew over the building or vanished into thin air.

    2. Adam. Well said.
      The sickest of all is these people demand to know exactly how the Pentagon op was pulled off as a prerequisite to accepting the NOC evidence.
      Let’s look at the documented positions of some of the most persistent and vociferous online entities that have been fighting tooth and nail to muddy the waters regarding the Pentagon.
      Sarns, Good, Bursill  and Jeff Hill are all on record as giving validity to the NOC witness testimony. And all of them are the outmost “critics” and disinfo merchants whenever it’s discussed. On top of that, Frank Legge, Richard Gage and indirectly DRG quote two of them, while one is a gatekeeper’s Igor.

      I think your witness testimony that you’ve got is definitely um, you know, courtable and it would be very interesting to see anything go to the court because then we would be able to ask for more data
      Like I said I think the north side approach you know has got validity, I think that it is a valid hypothesis.
      Ranke: But they (Hoffman, Wolsey et al) have not put out any definitive evidence contradicting that the plane was on the north side.
      Bursill: No they haven’t, I agree, I agree with that.
      John Bursill

      Craig claims that the plane approached the Pentagon a hundred yards north of the official flight path, missing the famous downed light poles. If so, he’s established that the damage evidence at the Pentagon (maybe even the C-ring hole) was planted and faked. Good stuff.
      email from Jul 14, 2009 to sf911truth googlegroup
      Brian Good
      I’m not going to debate the north side approach. My position has always been that the north side testimony is very interesting and persuasive, as is its implication that much of the Pentagon damage was faked. Why would I want to refute my own position?
      We can argue about the implications of the north side approach. Your belief that the north side approach proves flyover is irrational, unjustified, and extremely discrediting to the truth movement. I know I’m not the first person to tell you this.
      March 11th, Artists for 911 Truth forum

      If you mean all the damage, yes. A plane hitting the Pentagon on the north path would cause the damage to the first two floors. We agree that the interior damage and the hole in the C ring were caused by explosives. We agree the light poles were staged. The generator damage was not caused by the airplane. The fence post is bent out away from the building. 
      If you disagree, just state your reasons.
      Also know that I am ready to scrap everything I believe in a heartbeat if someone presents conclusive evidence of something else.
      Chris Sarns

      “Jeff Hill claimed that he initially thought all of the north side witnesses were liars and that there was no plane at all.
      He claimed that he has switched his position and now believes that the witness evidence we present proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a plane and that the plane was on the north side of the gas station.
      He claimed that this does not prove a flyover and that he believes it’s possible for the plane to almost completely disintegrate leaving virtually no debris after approaching relatively slowly from the north side of the gas station, and transitioning to the south side while causing all the physical damage including to the light poles, generator trailer, the E-ring hole and the C-ring hole while performing a double banking maneuver. Pilots for 9/11 Truth have shown how this is impossible due to the required bank angle and drastically impossible and immediate roll”
      A summation of Jeff “Shure” Hill’s debate with Craig Ranke

      Now if you want to see something really bizarre and very enlightening read this thread at TruthAction where Richard Gage is being totally trashed by the same cohorts that demanded his retraction of support for the NOC testimony.
      Start here:
      And guess who’s defending the validity of the NOC testimony? A poster who goes by the name “truebeleaguer”. AKA Brian Good.

      “Jimd was doing the same thing with the Pentagon. The presence of so many witnesses contradicting the official flight path should be investigated. My bet is that we’d find they perpetrated a hoax. But I would prefer to have an investigation instead of making final judgments based on a bet. The assumption that a dozen corroborating witnesses are wrong simply because you find them inconvenient is irrational and stupid. (And YT, I am not “discussing CIT’s points”, I’m talking about the process of knowing.)”
      truebeleaguer aka Brian Good

      You couldn’t make this shit up.

  47. Epiphanies on Parade a Neural Cascade
    Realizing that the Medium is the Message is a core point in getting what goes on in the postmodern ‘high-tech’ society. Even though the concept has been around from the early 1950s when McLuhan first began writing and speaking on the subject – it is not openly considered by the mainstream, because it reveals too much as to what the mainstream media is all about and what it’s underlying agenda actually is.
    Once one ‘gets it’, has that epiphany as to how it is the medium itself that is the message, a whole new level of understanding is available. A large part of grasping the the underlying basic core of this ‘message’ is as McLuhan himself reiterated, it is a continuing massage., it is “Process”. Just as the medium is the message; the process is the agenda. When all is in an endless process of becoming, it never actually is.
    This is the trap the Palestinians are caught in with the “Mid East Peace Process”, which has been going in circles for the past 60 years. This is the key to the power of the New World Order centered in the UN. It is the revolving “resolution”…the perpetual revolution the never ending story, from the land of Nod, to the land of Oz.
    In the paradigm of the dialectical, the Process is the Agenda – not reaching the solution. It seems a spiral as natural as DNA, but it is an illusion as there is no depth – so it is merely a going in circles on a flat plain. Around and around the playing board.
    All of this has bearing here, on this very topic of the Pentagon event. We have been set on a turning wheel of process; ending back at ‘GO’ where we began, wherein it was ‘obvious’ that no plane hit the Pentagon. Like a “Reset” button was hit for the ten year anniversary. This is essential for the agenda of the current system, the Process Must Proceed.
    Most of those involved in this have little to no understanding of the parts they play in this process. It is only in bringing this process to the forefront of our consciousness that we can begin to determine such things and to make the conscious effort to break the bonds to such a game—to step away from the game board and make our own path to where we want to go.

    1. Very insightful WW. I agree with you and think it is time we quit playing this game. The CIT and P4T evidence is conclusive and it proves beyond all reasonable doubt that a plane did not strike the pentagon. The detractors have come up with nothing to refute that conclusion and they have lost whatever credibility they once had. It is a done deal, we can ignore them and move on to the next step which is getting this information out to the public in a massive way. We neither need nor require the approval of DRG or Richard Gage to take this to the next level. In my estimation they have made themselves irrelevant on the pentagon issue, sad but true. As for the rest of the detractors, I think we have shown they are at the very least dishonest. I think we have also compiled enough evidence to conclude that some of them are dishonest on purpose. WW is correct, engaging with the detractors further is only slowing us down, which is without a doubt their true goal.

  48. Chris Sarns? What’s your opinion on this thread at TruthAction?
    Don’t you see what this campaign was all about?
    They’ve moved into your territory now.
    Maybe you’ll realize now why there’s so much “rancour” when you have to stomach the same bullshit directed towards CD as has been flung at the NOC evidence. Evidence which you acknowledge.
    I’ve no qualms about defending the evidence for CD and the debunk of NIST using the same sources that would label me pondscum. When will you realize what the hell is going on?
    @Craig or anybody who has direct cintact with Gage or DRG, could you please forward the link to that thread?

    1. OSS,
      That is an amazing conversation going on at that site. Especially the comments of Orphia Nay, such an obvious shill packet.
      What is the POV of the administration of ‘TruthAction’ – is it normally a JREFesque table setting? Or was it a truth site that experienced infiltration at some point?

      1. IIRC, TruthAction has always been a LIHOP haunt. Founded by a liar, frequented by gossips and shills.

  49. “Indeed. I’m seeing more and more posts by snowcrash, kdub, jimd3100 and shure there and at 9/11 Blogger, and they’re saying what needs to be said in the absence of debunkers. I think JREFers and these truthaction posters can agree on a lot of things.”~Orphia Nay
    What a “compliment” – aye?
    The commentators a JREF are all academiacs who have not only never gotten beyond their programming, but don’t even know it exists. They are the deepest of the enchanted TVZombies.
    And here in Amerika Inc. they are legion.

    I know you’re still lurking.
    Here is your anti-CIT buddy Zombie Bill Hicks recently (remember, this guy claims to be on the side of 9/11 truth):

    But I just wanted to point out that this is not occurring in a vacuum. The Charlatan Gage is making a living off of bullshit. Speaking engagements for the functionally insane pays the bills.
    And we’re supposed to thank him for his selfless duty to the cause.

    Here’s your anti-CIT buddy “SnowCrash,” who your other anti-CIT buddies Frank Legge, Jon Cole and David Chandler cite as a legitimate authority on the issue of what really happened at the Pentagon:

    Wait, last I checked, weren’t you still defending Richard Gage?
    Like I said, you’re one miserable troll, Brian.

    More from Snowcrack:

    Correct, you’re still letting Richard Gage bullshit you.
    Besides, you were vociferously defending CD, making a laundry list of embarrassing logical and scientific mistakes (adding the Pentagon very recently, and now you’re antagonizing even more people who can think straight and appreciate honesty) for which you were called out repeatedly and you persisted… because you’re a miserable troll and a lying piece of shit.

    Here’s your dear brother in arms, Pentagon plane crash hugger Jon Gold:

    Here’s a little something for Richard and his friends (and feel free to post this on 911blogger.com). When the September Eleventh Advocates endorsed your organization, that wasn’t a means for you to bring in income to your organization. It was an honor, and one that should NEVER have been taken lightly. Your actions over the years have been insulting and an embarrassment. Shame on you. Keep on dragging them through the mud.

    I could keep going on but OSS is absolutely right, after going after the NoC evidence, the same cast of characters is going after Gage and AE in particular, and notion of controlled demolition in general.

    1. Hey Adam,
      I predicted this a while ago – the method is blindingly obvious and at a simple level it is the pigs and “Animal Farm”. Hence you end up with so called 9/11 Truthers who actually believe the official story in its entirety.
      Time is running out now, the Houla massacre is being breathlessly hyped in order to be a catalyst in Syria which was starting to stagnate – this is the final push before military action is taken, much easier to take military action when the unwashed public is begging you to do it to save the children – just go to Facebook or Twitter if you want to know which way Syria is heading. The only reason they have taken so long to wage war in Syria is because they know it isn’t an easy win like Libya was – and they know it might hasten an Iran conflict so they need to be ready before they start the war.
      Meanwhile 9/11 has conditioned us to accept the ritual slaughter of civilians in far away countries, we may wring our hands about it in guilt but we know we are doing it for their own good. News media full spectrum dominance is almost complete so the story is consistent wherever you look (so it must be true right?). Not only is protest actively discouraged but with more decisions being devolved to multi-nationals like NATO and the UN, it is hard to know who to protest to.
      It is all very depressing …..

      1. KP, I know exactly how you feel mate. I know that there are external forces at work in Syria (as in Libya). It shows the power of the media, when they can (rightfully) magnify the mass deaths of children and at the same time trivialize the murder of others.
        Warning: images of dead children
        And true too KP, since 9/11 our “shockandaweometer” has been almost completely numbed. Until you actually look at the casualties above instead of the numbers.

      2. As the think-tank white papers say, “The road to Tehran is through Damascus”…
        And of course this has been the agenda from before the ‘Grand Psyop’ of 9/11.
        “The United States and its allies” is the euphemism used by ‘critics’ to describe what is in reality the centralized world governing process. The United States is simply the garrison state of the real power ‘behind the throne’ {as is said}, and that power has been known for centuries as “The Money Power”, a cabal of powerful international banking fraternities who have held a monopoly on such power since the battle of Waterloo.
        Real {road, or path} Realty {the concept of owning the lands that path leads to and through}
        Reality {the concept that the concept us true}
        Hey I can’t count the number of ‘Injuns’ I killed when I was playing ‘Cowboys and Indians’ as a kid…Nor the number of ‘Japs’ and ‘Krauts’….we all daydream as serial murderers as kids in this psychotic society.
        It seems so few ever grow up

      3. OSS,
        The victims are very real and it sickens me. The Houla massacre is also very real, the perpetrators of the massacre are uncertain but it is being used to ramp up the Syria story into “something must be done”. The public is then left to assume that it was the Syrian Government who did it even though the beneficiaries are the so called rebels and the Western powers – even though the massacre was conducted in a rebel held area at close quarters.
        But we all know the power of the media-fuelled incident being used to serve “their” purposes.

  51. You got noticed Willy!
    And Adam…
    I know they’re reading this blog. We’re on to you scumbags.
    Snitchjackets?? All they do over there is gossip and plaster over gaping holes in the OCT (I’m referring to Legge/Stutt, Snowcrash).
    Jimd, Snowcrash, (ex) 9/11 family member Cosmos, Jeff dumbass Hill, Brian Good and a bunch of negative ass snipes and cowards. Bet your ass I’m going to “snitchjacket”.
    Funny thing is, could you imagine the roles were reversed? If Craig Ranke lied about his “uncle” dying on 9/11? Or if Adam Syed was at the head of a nasty ass NPT campaign and now pushes the OCT? Or if I lied about having a brain tumour to back out of a debate? Or if Adam Ruff used a racially offensive video to laugh at a 9/11 victim whose baby was partially braindamaged (and Jon Gold, self proclaimed defender of 9/11 victims, the silence was deafening on that one).
    As I said. Scumbags. You’re time is up.

    1. “I’m not surprised this thing is friends with the fat one.”~Snowjob
      Has anyone here any idea of what this is reference to?? Who’s “the fat one”?
      Why don’t they speak to issues? Is that all they got is muppet show videos and blather about those of us – that they are clearly afraid of confronting face to face here?
      The chatter there is so reminiscent of ‘The Amazing Rancor’ at the ‘James Randi Ego Forums’ [JREF], where a collection of dogmatic technocrats prove day after day that they have an understanding of the architecture of modern political power as jejune as any pre-schooler.
      Where truth is twisted into the “twooth”, and the lies and distortions of the military industrial complex are praised in the language of Newspeak, as vile and ridiculous as that of O’Brien in the novel, Nineteen Eighty Four
      Where bloody empire is defended as the ‘natural order of things’ by the shallow epistemology of a goon squad promoting the bankrupt theories based on ‘might as right’, and ends justifying means.
      Where arrogance has ripened into hubris as base and demented as any voodoo-cursing witch doctor. And where stark proofs are offered as to just what it means to be so well adjusted to a psychotic society.

  52. May 29, 2012 at 2:05 pm Shallel says: “Dr. Wood was invited to the conference, but sadly she declined to respond.”
    May 29, 2012 at 2:31 pm Craig McKee says: “I asked her to participate in my “36 truth leaders” collection of 9/11 awakening moments. She declined that as well.”
    Dr. Judy Wood is a forensic scientist. She is NOT part of any organized “9/11 Truth Club” nor does she wish to get in lock-step with the dictates of such a group’s gatekeepers who have carefully cultivated the “9/11 truth movement” into a “9/11 truth cover-up” operation. Dr. Judy Wood HAD BEEN listed on the “Patriots Question 9/11” website on both the Professors and the Engineers listing UNTIL it became known she had filed a Federal qui tam case against the contractor of the NIST report for science fraud. Check the internet archive and you will find her listed there until well after she filed her case in April 2007.
    Without public support for her case, the judges were free to sweep it under the carpet with little fear of public outrage. In fact, in their written decision, they acknowledged the law APPLIED to Dr. Judy Wood’s case and that they were IGNORING the law so that they could dismiss the case. Apparently the “9/11 Truth Movement” has no interest in accountability. It appears to have been designed and lead that way. NO ONE has been able to refute ANYTHING in Dr. Wood’s textbook. WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? includes much of the evidence that was submitted in her Federal case. That is, the cover up and ridicule of Dr. Wood’s work protected the perpetrators and set them free.
    For those of you ridiculing Dr. Judy Wood and the people that support her, how does it feel to know you have been actively participating in the cover up of 9/11???

    1. I have total respect for Dr. Wood ( except where it come to the known fraud, JK Hutchison) was at her appeal trial, which was disgusting. No court will try a case like hers fairly. Her work is quite brilliant and will be discussed at the Vancouver Hearings, without her, since it is so important.

    2. Hey Craig,
      Can’t we save this crap until the dedicated thread to Wood?
      How many irons do we want in the fire here?
      Just my opinion of course. If you figure we might as well have a preamble to blend us into the next thread…well it’s your blog. But I see this as fragmenting what should rather be a summing period for what this whole thread has been about up to this point.

    3. Emmanuel,
      I will be happy to debunk Dr. Wood again on a thread dedicated to that subject. You are quite wrong when you say “NO ONE has been able to refute ANYTHING in Dr. Wood’s textbook.”. I have refuted several items myself but as I said that discussion is for another thread. This thread is NOT about Dr. Wood or about NPT. I am dubious about the reasons these two topics have popped up on this thread suddenly. I will just leave it at that for now.

  53. KP says:” ….. Hence you end up with so called 9/11 Truthers who actually believe the official story in its entirety.”
    Very true.
    However it is just as true that the most vocal [and often the most obnoxious- we all know who they are 🙂 ] “truther” posters here and elsewhere accept as gospel at least some parts of the official narrative, and are mostly fighting amongst themselves over what are [for them] their own unquestionable assumptions, versus others supposed “idiotic”unquestionable assumptions- almost without exception all assumptions from all sides being assumptions that some part of the governments story they happen to believe “has” to be true [because_they_ happen to believe it, of course 🙂 ] .
    Thus we have [for example] the disturbing/amusing spectacle of “truthers” here saying that although all of the Pentagon evidence of a plane crash there was/is provably fake, that all of the video footage and photographs for NYC or even Shanksville, that support the official story must “still” ” be genuine” [because it’s supposedly “impossible” to fake all of the network footage, victims, or whatever ] .
    Even more unsettling perhaps, every one of these “truthers” admitted personal experience to date has consisted of being confronted by a never ending stream of lies from the government vis a vis the official story, [perhaps on a daily basis, for 11 years, or from whenever they started their own investigations ] , and yet almost every last one of them _still_ clings frantically to the idea that “some part” of the official story “must” be true [of course it’s the part they currently irrefutably “know” to be true 🙂 ] .
    They all seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that, procedurally speaking, any real honest 911 investigation should have started with the automatic assumption that absolutely every part of the official government story, and any so-called “evidence” proffered to support that story [ from any and all sources, regardless of how “scientific” or “reputable”, “trustworthy”, or whatever] , is at best mostly inaccurate, at worse a bold-faced lie, until proven otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Which realistically means that all non-cross-examined, non verifiable [at this time], so called eyewitness testimony” that appears to support the governments official story in any way , shape or form; regardless of source – whether it be in the form of verbal testimony or in the form of photographic or video “evidence” [for example, _all_ broadcast network footage and _all_ amateur videos or still photos] , must [or “should” in a sane world 🙂 ] , at the outset of an individuals investigation, be automatically assumed to be at best “highly suspect” [if not downright fraudulent] until proven 100% reliable “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
    Sadly, in all private 911 researchers/investigations [with a few notable exceptions], that all important initial, pre-investigative assumption that absolutely every part of the official story was not to be believed in any way, shape or form, until proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt, has never been made – never even hinted at, in most cases.
    And so we are left with the rather humorous spectacle of 911″ truthers” endlessly squabbling/fighting over which parts of the governments never ending string of lies is actually “true” [in their own minds eye, that is].
    “False In One False In All”
    There is a very good antidote for all of this of course, but it will always be conveniently ignored for various reasons from researcher to researcher [depending]. That antidote can be illustrated via this simple question [addressed to nearly all 911 researchers]:
    “If you have been lied to by the government and the media even once [let alone repeatedly], why would you still cling to the idea that some part of the governments story is still incontrovertibly true? ”
    Or to put it another way :
    ” if, to date, you have been repeatedly lied to by the government and the media [sometimes on a daily basis], when do _you_ personally get to the point of “going back to the drawing board” and “starting from scratch”; which in this case would mean the automatic , pre – new investigation assumption, that everything the government and media tells you or has told you in the past is most likely a lie, or at best severely distorted, until proven otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt.
    This question is basically no more than an application of the standard legal doctrine known as “false in one false in all” or “falsis in unum, falsis in omnibus”. See :http://www.fff.org/comment/com0307i.asp
    So just how much of the official fairy tale do you still believe as incontrovertibly true , KP Hmmm? [all of the network videos and related stills derived from it ,at the very least, I’m guessing.]
    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. Well Onebornfree, the government and the media both insist that there is a city called New York on the eastern seaboard of a continent that is named North America. They even claim there is another continent across the ocean called Europe, and that people speak different languages over there. Even more ludicrous is that there are “Asian” peoples who speak even weirder languages.
      Of course all of this must be a hoax. We know that beyond our own borders, however far we have personally traveled, that “thar be dragons”, and it is all a lie told by the powers that be that there is anything but here.
      Agreed Onebornfree?…I mean that all extends from the proposition you just put forth.

    2. Onebornfree,
      Not once did I quote the official narrative when discussing NPT (again off topic). I listed all of the main problems I had with NPT here:
      Point out where the OCT is entertained in any way.
      If you can’t, retract that statement.
      If you’re claiming that the scores of documented, identified authors of videos and photographs and witnesses to an aircraft are part of a major op which on closer inspection makes no sense on an operational and logistical basis, CONTACT THEM. The majority of them are listed in the phone book.
      Until you do, keep your insinuations to yourself.

    3. “So just how much of the official fairy tale do you still believe as incontrovertibly true , KP Hmmm? [all of the network videos and related stills derived from it ,at the very least, I’m guessing.]”
      What amazes me is that you think that it matters what I believe, it really doesn’t. I focus on the Pentagon because it is the easiest way to prove inside job. One taxi driver with a dodgy story and no witnesses and 20 witnesses who say something else happened – that is EASY!
      So are you suggesting it is easier to prove that everything in NYC was faked? You may be right and even if you are, IT WAS A HELL OF A CONVINCING SHOW THEY PUT ON!
      I don’t care about proving how everything was done on the day of 9/11 – I care only about exposing the story as a fraud to break the multimedia spell that holds large portions of the world in thrall.

      1. Hi KP,
        I had been reading about the “Libyan rebels”. I don’t mean to go too far OT but thought I’d drop this link about the Houla massacre.
        Syria has always been a slippery CIA friendly haunt. They (a Syrian intel “informer”) allegedly had indirect connections to setting up the Lockerbie bombing (Mossad/CIA) and had no qualms about allowing their airstrips be used for the first Iraq invasion just a few years later. The US had the same undrground relationship with Syria as MI6 had with Gaddafi.
        Put it this way. They know that NATO is dying to move in on them, so why give them a “reason” on a plate? Those women and children were executed at close range. It makes no sense at all.
        As usual. the innocents pay. It’s so disgusting.

      2. OSS,
        As you say:
        “Put it this way. They know that NATO is dying to move in on them, so why give them a “reason” on a plate? Those women and children were executed at close range. It makes no sense at all.”
        It can only make sense in one way can’t it? All the ABCs of a Western Intel false flag op.
        NATO is essentially the Fourth Reich…from the time of the P2 Lodge and Gladio “stay behind” werewolf operations, to this current op in Syria – which also involves al Qaeda working hand in glove with NATO just as went on in Libya.
        All at the direction of The Imperial Godfather and the NWO agenda.

  54. Since we all are aware that the kids over at ‘TruthAction’ are keeping tabs on this thread, I would like to invite kdub to come on over and explain exactly what he means by; “ZIHOP racist”.
    That is one of those soupy sales terms I haven’t heard before. Surely he/she/it isn’t referring to some new pancake treat…?
    Bring your syrup on over kdub, if ya got any yarbles.

  55. NPT has been debunked. This thread is about the contrived controversy surrounding the pentagon and CIT. Can we stay on topic please.

    1. ruffadam says:
      “NPT has been debunked.”
      Yes it has, and thoroughly so. For any of those who were not here for the festivities, that discussion is available in full, some 860 comments, on the thread just prior to this one:
      ‘Two quit in protest after Zarembka dumped from Consensus 9/11 Panel’.
      If that isn’t enough to satisfy your appetite, perhaps a diet is in order.
      I also agree with Adam that the attempts to zing us into Scatterville here should desist. All the aspects of the current topic are convoluted enough without the input of such static.

  56. Now I should think it clear to our critics at the tea party in Wonderland, that this forum is open and fair debate. That if they were to take the opportunity to present their case, in clear and concise language, and they would refrain in setting up looping carousels of illogic – that they have a chance to make an attempt to prove their case.
    The fact that they addressed my comments and used my name in print at TruthActivist, plus the fact that this is evidence of their lurking, means that they are well aware of our challenge to debate.
    Furthermore; if they should counter that I should join in a debate at their homebase, I can only say that I am not going to jump through any of their hoops. This is a WordPress blog – where just about anyone has immediate access.
    You know the address, if you have the cajones, bring it on.

  57. Of course they can’t stay on topic.
    The goal is to always try and connect CIT to no planes and space beam dustification.
    It’s the same reason why Judy Wood declines to make any personal statements or get involved in interviews or truth functions.
    One word: disinformation.
    Craig, as much as you value free speech you have to consider whether you value the sanctity of the CIT evidence more.
    Craig, surely the constant mentioning and bringing up of no planes/space beam dustification/Vancouver hearings alongside CIT cannot be incidental.
    If you notice, they don’t discuss the important CIT findings. They carefully find a way to give the impression they agree with article and CIT, while carefully interjecting the disinformation about no planes/space beams/Vancouver hearings.
    It’s amazing this is continually allowed.

    1. If you are saying that Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook is about “no planes/space beam dustification/Vancouver hearings” is disinformation, I fully agree with you. Actually, that is one of the easiest ways to identify those who are promoting disinformation. Individuals who claim that Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook is about “no-planes” and/or about “space beams” and/or about “Vancouver hearings,” you know they are someone who promotes disinformation. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
      Dr. Judy Wood has made numerous presentations and given quite a few interviews, (including TV interviews). I understand that this bothers the gatekeepers of the controlled “9/11Truther Movement”. Why do you think that is? If what evidence Dr. Judy Wood presents in her textbook is so meaningless, then why are so many in the “9/11 Truther Movement” obsessed with trying to “debunk” it? That appears to be activity that would be done by those wishing to cover up the truth. And even though there are many who are oddly obsessed with trying to debunk Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook, none have succeeded to do so. That is, despite trying hard, they have all failed to refute anything in her textbook.
      Dr. Judy Wood proved the official story was fraudulent years ago. She even got NIST to admit to her that their report was a fraud. That is why she made a federal case out of it. Dr. Morgan Reynolds filed a federal case about the lack of plane evidence. Other than these two courageous people, why has no one else has filed a federal qui tam case?
      Again, anyone who claims that Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook is about “no-planes” and/or about “space beams” and/or about “Vancouver hearings,” have identified themselves as someone who promotes disinformation. Thank you for expressing your observations and critical thinking skills. 😉

      1. There will be a thread posted soon that will address the substance of Dr. Wood’s research. So please hang on to your comments on this subject and submit them there. Thank you.

      2. Craig, seeing fit to post another one of Goldstein’s jabberwhacks – I hope you will allow this answer through as well:
        Emmanuel Goldstein commits a gross error of comprehension when he says:
        “Again, anyone who claims that Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook is about “no-planes” and/or about “space beams..”~EG
        The term “space beams” is a common phrase for, “directed energy weapons” operational in Earth’s orbit. Any object in orbit around Earth is considered in “space”. Directed energy weapons produce directed wave/particle energies that are commonly known as ‘beams’~ww
        “Plaintiffs theorize that what actually occurred was that the Twin Towers disintegrated after being struck by the United States military’s secret laser-like weaponry. All three plaintiffs explain that these “directed energy weapons” “are operational in Earth[’s] orbit, at high altitude, low altitude, at sea and on land, ranging in lethality…” – Case 1:07-cv-04612-GBD Document 136 Filed 06/26/2008 Page 4 of 16

  58. KP said: “What amazes me is that you think that it matters what I believe, it really doesn’t. I focus on the Pentagon because it is the easiest way to prove inside job. One taxi driver with a dodgy story and no witnesses and 20 witnesses who say something else happened – that is EASY!”
    KP, I am primarily interested in why people think what they think. Definitive conclusions reached inevitably follow from initial assumptions, always. Wouldn’t you agree?
    Very often [most often!] the initial assumptions made to reach those “definitive” conclusions remain unquestioned and are, out of convenience, hastily reached [for example, the assumption that the network footage of the events that morning was all actually “live” and in “real time” – “irrefutable”, “logical” “definitive” conclusions are then reached by the persons making that assumption, based on that initial, unquestioned assumption of the authenticity of the network footage.]
    In your own case,for example, you make the unquestioned assumption that the fraud at the Pentagon is “the easiest way to prove inside job”.
    Maybe it is , for _you_. However, others might disagree- for example, many might claim that it is easier to prove fraud in the instance of WTC 7. [By the way, I’m not personally claiming that it is, or is not easier to so do].
    Bottom line, if you were also to mistakenly assume [although it is quite “normal” to so do], that “everybody” [or most] _”should”_ agree with your own initial assumption [i.e. that its easiest to prove fraud at the Pentagon], and you consider yourself part of a larger “truth movement” [as many do], you will be drawn into inevitable and direct conflict with those who have made different assumptions, and remain convinced, for example, that it is easier to prove fraud at WTC7 than anywhere else.
    This is what is continually happening, day in and day out, within the 9/11 “truth movement”, and this is what causes the type of conflict that Mr McKee has documented in this article.
    Everyone who believes themselves to be part of a “truth movement” assumes that everyone else “should” see things the same way that they do, and do what they say, and think what they think. All pretty much a waste of time, if you ask me.
    And so it goes 🙂 . Regards, onebornfree

    1. Onebornfree,
      You clearly don’t have the lucidity to distinguish between assumptions and determinations based on reason and fact. You have never stood to reason nor debated your position. Because you obviously don’t have any idea of what you are talking about.
      You say, “All pretty much a waste of time, if you ask me.”
      But the thing is Onebornfree, nobody has asked you.
      You also say: “Everyone who believes themselves to be part of a “truth movement” assumes that everyone else “should” see things the same way that they do, and do what they say, and think what they think..”
      This is more of either your misperception, or purposeful bullshit. What we are looking for here is something you have never offered Onebornfree – REASON AND RATIONAL ARGUMENT. All we ever get from you is schizo-yank twirlybird nonsense.
      Personally I think you’re a fog machine. You always toss in your bullshit when the sharpest points are being made. I see that as a ‘timed distraction’ technique.

  59. “I am primarily interested in why people think what they think.”~onebornfree
    “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
    And as per Fetzer’s proposition above, his cup floweth over. He has shown a complete lack of knowledge of applied physics, and to be nothing other than a master at rhetorical obfuscation.
    And so just what was the essential message from Onebornfree’s last comment? I see the frame as exactly: Creating enough uncertainty so that everything is believable and nothing is knowable.
    Onebornfree has a very curious MO as a profile:
    On the one hand he spreads a lunatic theory generated from Shacks incoherent, and technically incompetent Clues Forum, regarding digital fakery. On the other hand he spins these simi-lucid, mind numbing carousels of twisted and misplaced legalisms. This is a schizo profile, one personality formed of utter idiocy {the Shackian side} and the other personality capable of writing convoluted psychological warfare text {the latest commentary, and another a bit above on this thread}.
    The quote I open with from Onebornfree may be the most honest and upfront admissions he has made on this blog, as it is a study on how and why people think as they do that is the primary mission of those who’s mission it is to manipulate thinking.
    So the fact that his main mission is that of erasing all the visual evidence of 9/1, and a secondary mission of insisting that “nothing is knowable” – indicates a purposeful disinfo mission here.

    1. I think it’s about time you calm down quite considerably dear hybridroque, as you are by degree slowly revealing your true self to even the most long-suffering of the readers to this thread!
      Your pathological desire to be ‘noticed’, would of course stem from a person of no particular intelligence. Had you possessed any kind of self-awareness, you would’ve been aware of the ‘danger-signs’ and pit-falls long ago and restrained yourself, but alas! It seems like you’re drastically going the other (same) way with even more intensity than before. What a shame!
      Your self-satisfaction together with your over-the-top over-estimation of your own ‘intellect’, will of course also be seen as a sure sign that ‘reason and rationality’ cannot possibly be something you’ll have some understanding of.
      Quoting people out of context, is no indication of an intelligent mind either. ‘Mean-spirited’ is
      probably a better term.
      Bringing “Hegel” into a debate as a means to negatively describe fellow truthers, is very unintelligent, especially if you claim to have an interest in, and understanding of, ‘philosophy’ yourself! Here you’re caught in a serious contradiction, as obviously if true, you should have known better! As it is, your so-called ‘understanding’ can best be described as mediocre, and really nothing more.
      And no. NPT is far from ‘debunked’. That’s just wishful thinking on your part.
      Those who yell and shout the loudest, and those who use “applied physics” to further their cause,
      do not carry “the Truth” within them, and therefore can never be right. It’s an impossibility.
      Letting the Truth come to you, you need to stand back, quietly looking for “the pure and the simple”. You’re doing exactly the opposite, which is foolish in the extreme!
      I could go on a bit further in same vein, but being quite familiar with the laws of ‘Cause and Retribution’, together with the sentiments expressed in “The Golden Rule”, i now, as a mere subordinate, ‘quiveringly’ awaits what at this time may come my way, for humbly speaking out against the ever present “Authority”!

  60. Tamborine man,
    I see a lot of assertions made in the post you just made, but I see no substance – only ire to the fact that I would speak “unkindly” of your pal Fetzer.
    You mention Hegel as a passing belch but put no substance to your remarks.
    You propose that I need to “calm down quite considerably” – as if I were in some state of agitation. I am not, I am in quite consideration.
    If you don’t agree with something I have said – speak to it. I have explained my remarks in every post made. You have explained nothing but that your sensibilities have been bruised.
    If you feel that I have quoted someone “out of context”, then you explain exactly how that is. And I will explain exactly how it is you don’t understand framing and deconstruction of subtext. Because I already know what you merely allude to but don’t have the guts to come out a say.
    Don’t give me any of your generalized squall Tamborine – you have a problem – you speak to it specifically.

  61. Hi Craig,
    Are you aware of this study? ::
    WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millett
    If so, are you aware of the problems within the study?

    The pentagram has magical associations, and many people who practice Neopagan faiths wear jewelry incorporating the symbol. The pentagram has associations with Freemasonry, and is also utilized by other belief systems. A pentacle is a pentagram with a circle around it.
    Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa and others perpetuated the popularity of the pentagram as a magic symbol, keeping the Pythagorean attributions of elements to the five points. By the mid-19th century a further distinction had developed amongst occultists regarding the pentagram’s orientation. With a single point upwards it depicted spirit presiding over the four elements of matter, and was essentially “good”. However, the influential writer Eliphas Levi called it evil whenever the symbol appeared the other way up.
    The Order of the Eastern Star, an organization associated with Freemasonry, has employed a point-down pentagram as its symbol.
    The Pentagnon was designed by the American architect George Bergstrom (1876–1955), and built by Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, general contractor John McShain, the building was dedicated on January 15, 1943, after ground was broken for construction on * September 11, 1941. General Brehon Somervell provided the major motive power behind the project;[1] Colonel Leslie Groves was responsible for overseeing the project for the Army.
    Exactly 90 years after the ground breaking ceremony the Pentagon was broken on September 11, 2001.
    Doncha just love them ‘magical’ coincidences/associations???

      1. Lol…Yea that would be 60 years – sorry, it’s a typo. Thanks for the correction, yes 1941, right up there in my comment.

  63. Craig, I posted this here because it relates to Cognitive Infiltration and I also posted it on the next article because it relates to Dr Judy Woods.
    “Conspiracy theory – exploring the outer limits with Damon Crowe”
    In this week’s show we plunge into murky waters with Damon Crowe, as we look at some fringe conspiracies, analyse breaking news and speculate on the outer limits of deception. We take a fresh look at the concept of “cognitive infiltration”, a term coined by Obama advisor Cass Sunstein, to describe ways in which government might use deceptive techniques to infiltrate and influence anti-government activist groups and conspiracy theorists. News covered in tonight’s show includes the ongoing extradition saga of Julian Assange and BBC hoax coverage of the Syrian conflict.
    Please enjoy this interview with owner of 911oz and Truth News Radio Australia, Hereward Fenton, and awesome Australian 9/11 Truth Activist, Damon Crowe, concerning cognitive infiltration of the Australian 9/11 Truth Movement. Please note this interview is much more relaxed than the usual format.
    The discussion regarding cognitive infiltration of the Australian 9/11 Truth Movement starts in Hour 2 as follows:
    4:00 – “John Bursill is an agent” briefly mentioned.
    7:40 – Discussion concerning cognitive infiltration of the Australian 9/11 Truth Movement.
    9:40 to 10.40 – Discussion concerning Cosmos the Fake.
    26:45 onwards – Dr Judy Wood, Dimitri Khalezov (“The Third Truth”), nano-thermite, problems with peer reviews, John Bursill, cognitive infiltration.
    Response from John Bursill (aka The Great Defamer):
    My statement regarding the accusations and comments made by Damon Crowe:
    “Very disappointed that I have been accused of being an agent of the state on a regular podcast/radio program I appear on, Truth News Radio Australia. One of the shows sponsors, Damon Crowe has decided this is evident by my dedication to sticking to the facts and rejecting theories that he and others hold as true based on their beliefs or “gut feelings”?
    Everyone who knows me, knows that I care deeply about Truth and Justice. Having devoted many years now to the campaign to expose the lies of 9/11 and the War on Terror has cost me much indeed; including the break up of my family, over 50,000 spent (I earned doing overtime nightshifts), great damage to my career and literally tens of thousands of hours of my time.
    The fact that someone who considers “his gut instinct” a good basis for his accusations might give you an idea of the sort of paranoid thinking we are dealing with here. Damon, please consider the damage this does to my reputation and the fact that it will lead to a further fracturing of the truth movement, which you say is the aim of “leaders” like myself?
    I will be getting legal advice on the matter…”

    1. Yes, but only if that same hand is employed to punch somebody smack on the nose.
      On the other hand, Truth by itself can harm nobody; and least of all cause a ‘nose-bleed’!
      (Cf. Señor El Once). :o)

  64. Anyone who goes out of his way to prove that an investigation is not needed is by nature of the act trying to hide something. Another point is their relentless criticism of anyone who doesn’t agree with them. These are most likely the same people that shouted for an investigation into the Monika Lewinski affair. Here are just a couple of figures.
    Amount of money allocated for the 1986 Challenger disaster investigation: $75 million
    Amount of money allocated for the 2004 Columbia disaster investigation: $50 million
    Amount of money allocated for Clinton-Lewinsky investigation: $40 million
    Amount of money allocated for the 9/11 Commission: $14 million

Leave a Reply

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