July 15, 2013
By Craig McKee
It won’t be a debate, but the issue of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 will still get a hearing at the “9/11: Advancing the Truth” conference, scheduled for Sept. 14-15 at the Sheraton Pentagon City in Arlington, VA.
Instead of the formal three-way debate that was planned, we’ll now see three one-hour presentations followed by either a 30- or 60-minute panel discussion that will feature questions from the audience, according to chief conference organizer Matt Sullivan of DC 9/11 Truth. He says that those invited to speak on the Pentagon raised concerns about the debate format, and this led to the decision to modify it.
Each presentation will cover one of three distinct positions: that no large plane hit the Pentagon; that a large plane did hit, although not necessarily Flight 77; and the hybrid view of researcher Barbara Honegger, who says no large plane hit but that a smaller craft crashed near the heliport several minutes before the alleged impact of Flight 77.
The main question that remains is who will present in support of the position that no large plane hit the Pentagon. Organizers have invited Craig Ranke of Citizen Investigation Team, and they are awaiting a decision from him. Despite his photograph appearing on the conference web site as a participant, Ranke confirmed in an interview this week that he has not yet decided whether he will accept the invitation. He notes that he was invited considerably later than other potential participants.
If Ranke declines the invitation then organizers will have to scramble to get someone to represent the no-impact position. While there are others who could do this, none would be better suited to the task than Ranke, who was part of the team that found evidence that the large plane that did approach the Pentagon was travelling on the north side of the former Citgo gas station (located across the street from the Pentagon), not on the south side as required to account for the damage path.
The other two participants for the Pentagon session have been confirmed: Honegger (who is part of the organizing team behind the conference) and retired NASA executive Dwain Deets, a member of San Diegans for 9/11 Truth and once a CIT supporter, who will explain his perplexing conversion to the “pro-plane-impact” position.
I engaged in an exchange with Deets on Facebook about the reason for his conversion and emerged none the wiser. I do give him credit for being willing to defend his new position at the conference since several others from the pro-impact/anti-CIT camp have declined invitations to participate. This is no surprise given that CIT has issued numerous debate challenges to their critics that have gone unheeded.
Sullivan confirms that plane–impact supporter Kevin Ryan will likely not speak at the conference because “he doesn’t want to be associated with the Pentagon debate.”
Again, no surprise there. Ryan is part of the small but vocal group that wants us to ignore some of the most damning evidence that 9/11 was a false flag operation – i.e. evidence showing that the Pentagon was the scene of a faked plane crash.
While the Pentagon session is the one that intrigues me the most about this conference, there are a number of other speakers and topics that should prove fascinating.
Here is the rest of the line-up, which is still subject to change:
On Saturday morning, Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth will be honoured, along with the 2,000 signatories of the AE petition, for their contribution to the cause. Gage will speak briefly but will not make his usual controlled demolition presentation (although he will be doing that at another event in the city the same week).
The Saturday morning theme is: “What We’ve Learned,” which begins with a session called “Manufactured Terrorism: Then and Now.” This will feature radio host Kevin Barrett, a co-founder of the American Muslim Political Action Committee; Webster Tarpley, author of 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA; Peter Janney, author of Mary’s Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace; and MD Rabbi Alam, founder of the American Muslim Political Action Committee, who will speak on his experience as a Muslim in America since 9/11.
In the following session, attorney and investigative journalist Barry Kissin will talk about the connections between 9/11 and the 2001 anthrax “attacks.”
The theme for Saturday afternoon will be “Breaking New Ground.” It will begin with Russia Today’s Abby Martin being honoured, although she is apparently only permitted to make brief remarks because of her contract with RT (Is it just me, or is there a contradiction in this?).
Sullivan says there are two purposes in bringing Martin to the conference.
“We’re honouring her because she has gotten [9/11 truth] on to mainstream television, which is very difficult to do,” he says, “but also in the hope that she could interview some of the people we’re bringing into town.”
Frankly, despite the potential of added publicity for the conference (and despite Sullivan earning full marks for honesty), the idea of honouring Martin – who launched into a memorable and offensive “anti-conspiracy-theory” rant on RT following the Sandy Hook shooting – leaves me cold.
While she says a lot of thing we all like to hear – like you can never trust the government, the Iraq War was based on lies, and the U.S. is becoming a police state – she also trots out many of the same lines we are used to hearing from the mainstream media to discredit “conspiracy theorists.” She says that some automatically believe every bad thing that happens is a government plot. She accuses them of:
- engaging in “fear-mongering paranoia”
- being in it for the money
- making outlandish claims without any evidence
- wanting to keep people afraid of their government
In her rant, she said:
“I think it’s time for everyone to stop jumping on the paranoid fear train of government black operations when anything happens in this country. Before making outrageous conspiratorial claims such as the government is staging every single mass shooting to pass gun control legislation it helps to have a thing called evidence. So yeah, just stop. All of you. Stop.”
How far is that from, “Let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories…?”
It’s not just that her language is so similar to what the mainstream media use against us, it’s the mocking tone she employs. Of course, she says she is only criticizing those who jump to conclusions before any of the facts are in, and there is some truth in that. But she also dismisses the many valid questions and contradictions about the shootings.
Her statements on the air about 9/11 are also much more cautious than what she said prior to working at RT. In 2008, she was interviewed during a 9/11 truth march about whether 9/11 was an inside job and said this:
“Absolutely it was. I know that because I’ve researched it for three years.”
But on a recent show about false flags through history, she said about 9/11:
“I myself have many questions about the attacks, seeing as they were used to create perpetual war abroad and a police state her at home.”
Many questions? I guess when a pay check is involved you can’t afford to be quite so certain.
The Martin session will be followed by “Motive, Men and Means: follow the money – and other fingerprints.” The speakers will include Mark Gaffney, author of The 9/11 Mystery Plane and the Vanishing of America and Black 9/11: Money, Motive, and Technology.
Barbara Honegger will speak on “Targeting the Pentagon” (not to be confused with her Sunday presentation) followed by a talk by investigative journalist Wayne Madsen.
The day’s program is scheduled to finish with the appearance of Shanksville, PA residents who will report on the alleged crash of Flight 93, although Sullivan says this is still a work in progress.
On Sunday, we have the Pentagon presentations and panel discussion (under the theme “Understanding the Pentagon Attack.”)
I strongly suggest the organizers change this title because the word “attack” – especially where the Pentagon is concerned – clearly suggests an external enemy. This was a staged attack, not an actual attack, and it did not come from an external enemy.
In the afternoon the theme is “Unexplored Aspects and Consequences of the 9/11 Lie.” Kevin Barrett will moderate, and there will be an as-yet unnamed speaker on “The diminution of liberty in the U.S. and U.S.-sponsored terror abroad.” This will be followed by Isa Hodge, the Operations Chief of the American Muslim Political Action Committee, who will speak on “The entrapment of young Muslim men.”
The final session features civil rights icon and comedian Dick Gregory and is called: “From JFK to MLK to RFK: The official story is always a lie. What are we the People to do?” (That title is a major mouthful.)
“He is very funny, but he’s been a political and social activist his whole life, and he also has an interesting take from the black community perspective,” Sullivan says. “ It should be very entertaining.”
Gregory received considerable attention when he stated that he received a call from a friend the night before 9/11 advising him to stay out of Manhattan the next day.
The conference winds up with a “conference statement and resolutions” followed by closing remarks from Sullivan and Barrett.
One proposal that has been discussed among the organizers is the innocent-sounding “conference statement.” Organizer George Ripley is a proponent of the idea that such a statement should include a demand that the government release all the evidence it has been withholding (such as the Pentagon video). Without the evidence, he believes, we can never be sure of what really happened.
Ripley said on the monthly 9/11 Truth Teleconference call on June 26 that demanding the evidence “will put us in a unified position coming out of this, and it will put the ball in the government’s court with respect to the evidence.
“I want to post the demands on the front door of the Pentagon and say listen you sons of bitches, the ball’s in your court. Why are you keeping this information from us, from all of us?”
While I agree that evidence has been suppressed (and tampered with and faked), I couldn’t possibly disagree more strongly about making this demand – especially as a “conference statement.”
The government will simply never provide evidence of its own complicity in the crimes of 9/11. It has and will continue to refuse to release evidence on the grounds of national security. But worse than that, we’d be virtually assured that any evidence released would be inauthentic. If the government releases doctored evidence, the onus will then be on the Truth movement to prove that it is bogus.
We may not know absolutely everything about what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11, but we do know enough to prove that it was the scene of a faked plane crash (thanks to CIT, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and others). And this is why the Pentagon is the key to unraveling the official story of 9/11, because there is only one group that had the access and the ability to fake a crash at this location.
For more information about the conference, and how to get tickets, check out the web site. If you buy your tickets by August 11, you’ll get the early-bird rate of $125 for the two days or $75 for one day.
For the record, I accepted the originally proposed debate format for the Sunday Pentagon session and was actually looking forward to it, but was told that Craig Ranke/CIT wouldn’t participate in a debate. It’s ironic if he still hasn’t accepted – assuming that’s correct, as his photo is on the Conference website as a speaker – as the format was changed in response to his requests. Also for the record, my ‘hybrid’ position, as Craig McKee refers to it, is, yes, a crash was faked at the official story alleged impact point, but that there was also a real plane destruction at the Pentagon, ‘just’ that it was not Fl 77 and was neither at the time nor the place of the alleged Fl 77 impact.
Barbara Honegger
What evidence do you have for this “real plane destruction” at the pentagon?
This is how it was described to me by Matt Sullivan:
“All three of the presenters – Barbara was the most amenable to it – raised some concerns about the debate format.”
In fairness to Ranke, he was invited much later than many others. I hope he accepts, but I think it would be unfair to suggest that he is somehow being difficult because he has not given his answer yet. And just because someone raises one concern, and that is addressed, does not mean that no concerns remain. But I won’t speak for Ranke. He will explain his reasons for whichever choice he makes, and you’ll see that on this blog at that time.
For the record on my end, I would have loved to have seen a debate between you, Ranke and Deets. Failing that, I hope the event goes ahead in the revised format.
Well, personally for myself Craig, I have felt for a long time that Deets is a sleeper, and was always a mole in the Truth Movement.
I don’t understand Ranke’s reticence at this point in time. I think it is beyond time for him to present his material in a mixed environment. If he has any confidence in his position then lets have it.
\\][//
My reservation on the debate idea was with the idea of three positions up for consideration. I had trouble conceptualizing the rules for such an event.
It’s simple Dwain,
In a debate one presents ones arguments for a certain proposition, and against the arguments of opposing propositions. The history of the concept of ‘Debate’ is analogous with the history of Western Civilization, at least as old as the days of Socrates.
\\][//
Simple? Please provide a reference on three-way debates.
In Canada, our leaders debates at election time tend to involve three or four participants. And then there is the 1992 presidential debate involving Bush, Clinton, and Perot.
I’m not going to debate the subject of three-way debates. A great deal of negotiations go into the ground rules for presidential debates — even two-way debates for which there is plenty of literature pertaining to procedures (of the more standard variety, that is). As there is virtually none for three-way debate procedures, I don’t see how it can be considered “simple.”
Mr Deets,
Almost all campaigns for political office begin with multiparty debates, and in this instance by the the term “multiparty” I mean a group of candidates [individuals] within the political parties themselves. It may often be the case that the incumbent is automatically presumed the choice of one of the political parties, but even this isn’t universally the case.
You may glean from this one category, that there are plenty of instances of not only 3 party debates, but multiparty.
As far as the debater however, the rules of debate still stand as I briefly outlined in my first comment.
Don’t worry Dwain, whatever is said in your presentation, whether as a pure presentation or as a debate presented with moderation, your ideas and arguments will have to stand up to scrutiny.
If you are not firmly behind your chosen topic, and are going to do such a presentation as a purely academic exercise, I would suggest not participating at all.
If you do not believe in what you are saying, you and your presentation will not come off as authentic.
\\][//
HR,
Like I said, there hasn’t been one person within the movement who has appeared at a public, filmed-for-YouTube conference, gotten behind a podium, with slide show and projector at the ready, to articulate the case for a 757 impact, the minority view within the movement. I think it would be quite interesting to see someone attempt it and see what kind of audience and panel reception it receives.
I think so, too. I’m very curious to see how one could fill an hour with the case for impact, you know, given the absence of evidence and all…
“to articulate the case for a 757 impact … think it would be quite interesting to see someone attempt it and see what kind of audience and panel reception it receives.”
I am sure it would be quite interesting Mr Syed, and I do not think my voice will dissuade anyone from such an attempt – but I do believe whoever does try to pull this off will ultimately be faced with an embarrassing situation.
But I may be said to have certain biases in this regard, apparently shared by a few others on this forum.
\\][//
Mr Deets would certainly benefit from studying Prof Legge’s attempts at proving a 757 impact at the Pentagon, and the counter arguments made against Legge’s propositions.
To my thinking it surely it is plain to the simplest intelligence that Mr Legge had to rely on rhetorical somersaults, willing exclusions of proper data, and subterfuge to reach his conclusions. One could gain much by being warned off of attempting such as this in the future.
A complete grasp of the counter argument is simply a must for anyone taking it upon themselves an attempt to prove the 757 impact scenario at the Pentagon.
\\][//
Dwain,
Whether there are 2, 3 ,5 or 99 people debating, there are a finite number of evidence sets.
1. Physical evidence – video, FDR, physical damage, aircraft parts and remains.
2. Eyewitness evidence – witnesses to the aircraft (including the C130), not only within the Pentagon basin, but those who saw it over Washington and even before it reached the Navy Annex – and not forgetting the one seen in South Parking AFTER the explosion!
Questions that should be up for debate.
Q. Are there any unambiguous, non grainy, unedited videos with a documented chain of custody?
A. No
Q. Are there any aircraft parts that have been documented identifying AA77 as having been the culprit?
A. No. The FBI admitted so.
Q. Is there any proof whatsoever that the alleged AA77 FDR is genuine?
A. No. It had no serial number and even the circumstances of its alleged discovery are contradictory.
Q. Do the witnesses corroborate the directional damage and alleged serial number void FDR data?
A. No. From witnesses (including ATCs and the C130 pilot) contradicting the official “loop” that didn’t cross the Potomac River into Washington, to before the Navy Annex where the aircraft was seen by multiple witnesses even further south than the OCT has it, to the Pentagon basin where not a single person places it on the very narrow, discernible directional damage path.
Q. Does the alleged FDR data stand up to scrutiny?
A. No. Only when an irrelevant formula that hinges on one unconfirmed parameter (RA) that was allegedly recording data well above its limitations can the alleged data be twisted and contorted to conjure up enough ambiguity for the laymen to hammer that square serial number void block into that very specific round hole (directional damage through the lightpoles, generator trailer and C Ring “punchout hole”)
Bottom line.
Is the Pentagon OCT based on the word of the same agencies we on this blog, including yourself, are accusing of mass murder (both in the US and ME)?
When all of the alleged evidence is brought together, shouldn’t it be seamless and straightforward without glaring contradictions?
Whatever happened to the “elephant in the room” regarding aerodynamics? Can a 757 now fly controlled at low altitude at cruise speed?
@Barbara Honegger
Could you possibly explain the chronology of that? If there were two major events 6 minutes apart, how could people fail to notice the first one or having been involved in the first, fail to notice the second? It simply doesn’t make any logical sense.
A Wright,
I know that trying to get an answer from you is as difficult as trying to collect moonlight in a jar but we actually agree on something! If only you would use that straightforward logic when discussing other issues.
Barbara, notwithstanding the many discrepancies in your theory (the “other” taxi driver, the fact that only one aircraft was seen – on the wrong directional damage path, etc), there’s also the issue of the proof that the external and internal damage were caused by both internal explosives…
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=c82bd043723560c0f46d74fc9b39d4b5&showtopic=22279&view=getnewpost
…and my own theory (and I stress the word theory), based on this damage, that a mortar-type device was fired from the “generator trailer”.
Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,
I agree and hold the same “theory.” I think the “generator trailer” is key; lined up pretty well with the alleged flight path and actual destruction. The observed aircraft and its radar data? No so much.
//
Seńor El Once,
Yeah, the generator trailer ticks all of the boxes if looking for a way to cause the visible damage and not rely solely on an airborne missile (by way of an aircraft, even remote controlled) striking the first floor to cause the limited damage to property and personnel required.
1. It was in the perfect position – there’s concrete evidence that the trailer was “moved” the day before 9/11 when Sean Boger also described a “dog and pony show” of “security personnel” in the area for the alleged arrival of George Bush on the helipad itself (scheduled the morning of 9/11).
2. The visible damage done to the facade.
3. A “bunkerbuster” type device that would only explode having first penetrated the facade (a witness who was in the worker trailer beside the generator trailer described hearing the “impact” in three distinct stages – at the alleged 0.8 seconds complete penetration?)
4. The trailer which allegedly housed a generator was an almost empty shell judging by any images I’ve seen of it.
5. The Army Corps of Engineers claimed to have a “super program” showing how different types and yields of explosives would affect the Pentagon (and other government buildings) in the event of a “terrorist attack”. They boasted that they could even predict how shards of glass would react based on “hundreds” of blast experiments on a smaller scale. Experiments which were allegedly used to design the new retrofit.
In that link I provided earlier, look for the “left wing damage” (Column 8AA), “right wing damage”, and “the impossible debris path” and “evidence of internal explosions”.
Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,
Had my opinion of the trailer before I read your links. An early clue for me was one of those animated videos that supposedly showed how the airplane came in. It made sure to document a wing grazing the trailer to make the trailer go askew with respect to the parking lot. Of course, it also showed wings slicing light poles and other things to “justify” a real aircraft having caused the damage. Had it been the alleged aircraft, all of those light poles would have inflicted sufficient damage on the plane to render it uncontrollable and would have been torn apart over the lawn before impacting the building. But they put so much emphasis on the trailer getting knocked about in the video, it was like a signally semaphore waving us where to look.
Read your links. Thorough and convincing as always. Good work.
//
With regard to Abby Martin becoming more “cautious” since working for RT: Don’t forget, RT is MSM; it is not alternative media. It is the Russian BBC or CNN. It’s GOING to feature stories and programs that are critical of the USA, economic inequality due to capitalism, U.S. militarism, and so forth. Just as our CNN has specials that are harshly critical of life in Russia, Putin’s government, etc. But just as CNN blacks out 9/11 truth, so must RT be cautious; acknowledging the reality of staged events in the USA might get people questioning what goes on in Russia too, and might start demanding RT cover them, which could lead to some discomfort among executives, likely!
The way I see it, ANY individual who becomes a truth seeker/teller for a paycheck compromises themselves to a degree, whether it be Richard Gage (who as CEO of AE pays himself $85K/yr but is largely at the mercy of his board of directors, who in theory can vote to fire him), Abby Martin, Kevin Barrett, Alex Jones or Michael Moore. (Some would argue those last two have sold out to an unforgivable degree.) Most people who’ve made a documentary and ask for “donations” in exchange for a high quality DVD version, also put the whole thing up on YouTube and the only reason they ask for the “donations” is to recoup some of the money it took to make the film. Other than the extremely few exceptions like the ones mentioned above, virtually all activists do what we do for free.
Regarding Dwain Deets’ position on the Pentagon: the flip is very bizarre. I’ve spent time with him in person, and his very clear position was that a plane didn’t hit. Furthermore, this position is confirmed publicly with his appearance on the Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura show. Hundreds of thousands if not millions saw this episode.
Perhaps, just to employ the DRG “esoteric interpretation,” he is deliberately playing devil’s advocate and publicly adopting this position so it can be laid bare for all to see, at a videotaped conference, how weak the position of pro-impact actually is? Perhaps he “adopted” the position because he could see how no one else, like Jim/Victoria Hoffman, Michael Wolsey, Chris Sarns or David Chandler, was daring to make a public appearance advocating the “strength” of this position. Can you imagine Ranke giving a grand slam home run presentation for why the plane didn’t hit, and followed by a completely UN-convincing argument in favor of a plane hitting, coming from, of all people, someone who appeared on a nationwide TV show saying, “…a plane, causing that kind of damage, is just nonsensical.”
To my knowledge, no truther has stood at a podium at a publicly filmed conference and given a presentation in favor of plane impact, so Deets’ time in the spotlight would certainly be interesting at the very least. 🙂
I disagree with your statement that “RT is MSM” ~ not really or they wouldn’t have reported anything about 9/11. Their coverage has helped spread the word over the years.
I think that this blog gave people a lot of extra ammunition that has been used to attack the 9/11 Truth movement when you tipped over the edge of crazy regarding Newtown and the 2nd Amendment. I regret that you did that because it is the new insult that is leveled at me every time I try to tell a newbie that 9/11 isn’t what they think it is….
And if Craig Ranke cannot get over himself and isn’t willing to present CIT’s Penatagon research, who will?
Is there any civility left in the leadership of the 9/11 movement? Or do you all just infight nowadays? Is there anybody left who is willing to at least try to put on “a mask of sanity” and reach out to the deluded general public on this issue?
“I regret that you did that because it is the new insult that is leveled at me every time I try to tell a newbie that 9/11 isn’t what they think it is…”~Painter
Wait. Wait just a moment here. Are you seriously asking us to believe that when you bring up the issue of 9/11 with someone who still buys the official story that their first response is to point to Truth and Shadows publishing expose’s on these other psyops events?
Somehow I find this rag disingenuous, in fact totally unbelievable.
\\][//
So you’re saying that if you’re at a bar and strike up a conversation with a 9/11 noob… they point to Craig McKee’s articles on Sandy Hook as a reason not to take another look at 9/11?
If your version of “sanity” is buying into the official story of Sandy Hook then I am not to be considered “sane” by you and I am fine with that. I think you would be crushed so thoroughly in a debate about Sandy Hook that your ears would be ringing for years afterward, which is why you will not debate the subject of course. Now we have so much more evidence that SH was a false flag attack than we did when Craig started writing about it. I predict that you will not debate the subject and cannot present any sort of coherent narrative that negates the massive evidence against the laughable official story. You have begun the trolling process of insulting truthers, I hope you are aware of that? Trolls tend to call truthers nutjobs. I call trolls koolaid drinkers because that is exactly what they are.
RT has their own agenda just like the other MSM outlets and Abby has to toe their line. 9/11 exposure fits with their agenda. Try and find an honest report from RT about the Russian apartment bombings in 1999 though and see if RT exposes those as a false flag, I bet you can’t.
Very interesting mix of people and I certainly hope Ranke will go because without him I think the Pentagon portion of the event will be tragic and very misleading. If Honegger and Deets are the only ones presenting about the Pentagon then a whole lot of people are going to be misled by their bizarre theories which are backed by nothing. Deets has flip flopped like a politician running for high office regarding the Pentagon and has provided no evidence or even any sort of sound argument to support his new position that a plane did hit. Deets needs to be fully exposed for his new and totally untenable Pentagon position and his inexplicable flip flop. Honegger needs to be exposed for her disinformation and wildly speculative theories as well and Ranke is the man for the job. I hope he goes to this event and rips them both apart without mercy. It is time to take the gloves off and let the chips fall where they may, disinformation needs to be exposed for what it is and that means that Deets and Honegger need to be confronted and not allowed to wiggle out of it.
I would love to see Rob Balsamo there as well, was he invited? If not he should be for sure because his evidence regarding the Pentagon is vital and goes hand in glove with CIT.
As to Abby Martin I think we have in her case a clear example of what happens to a truther when her paycheck depends upon following the company line. The truth gets sacrificed that’s what and the “truther” label no longer applies to her. Ironic that she coined the term “truther” I think. I can argue her untenable position regarding Sandy Hook and Boston into the ground just the way I could with Popular Mechanics regarding 9/11. She sold out, that’s all, so let’s call it what it is. It is sad especially because I know her and know she was a driving force behind 9/11 truth in San Diego. My friend Drew and I, part of the original We Are Change Los Angeles steering committee, met with Abby years ago and organized the first truther convergence that ever took place as far as I know. Groups from San Diego to San Francisco all got together first in LA and all because of Drew’s original idea. Abby then went on to help organize a convergence in San Diego and it grew from there.
Now that Abby works for a media outlet with an agenda of its own that diverges from the truth in many cases she has to comply with that agenda or lose her job. Maybe she actually believes the laughable official story of Sandy Hook and Boston etc but whatever the case she is no longer in line with reality and therefore needs to be confronted just like any other media personality that is hostile to the truth. Too bad for her but if I have an opportunity to confront her WAC style I am going to do it. She needs to really examine her position and think about just how much her paycheck is influencing her “trutherness”. I know that if I am asked about 9/11 I can say without any doubt whatsoever that it was an inside job and the official story is total and complete horse shit without ANY equivocation. I can say the same for Sandy Hook and the Boston false flag attack. It just goes to show that when you have ANYTHING other than a sincere desire to find the truth motivating your decisions that you have lost your way. Abby has lost her way along with many others such as “Painter” who used to post here and a few other former truthers who forgot just how ruthless and deceptive the powers that be really are. Would the powers that be kill nearly three thousand people on 9/11 to ram through their agenda and profit to the tune of billions? Absolutely, and they did exactly that! Would they do a false flag as egregious as Sandy Hook to try and ram through anti Constitutional gun confiscation measures? Absolutely, and they did exactly that! Would they lie about the Boston event and attempt to frame two patsies for it? Absolutely, and they did exactly that! Too bad Abby lost her way.
Adam,
Help me out here. You write “Would they do a false flag as egregious as Sandy Hook to try and ram through anti Constitutional gun confiscation measures?”
Most anyone could have predicted from the get-go that gun confiscation would not happen as a result of a Sandy Hook. Nothing (of any significance — not even in NY) has changed in that direction.
Feinstein’s position (she had witnessed the assassination of Harvey Milk and that seemed to be a very personal event for her) was dead on arrival. In fact, the NRA position and similar positions are more entrenched, not less. Knowing U.S. culture and the Congressional configuration of power, it should be known beforehand.
This is quite unlike 9-11 in which the world political economy has drastically changed. Cui bono is quite different (unless, perhaps, one argues that Sandy Hook was actually driven to lock in gun ownership, not knock it out).
I would say there is a third option in assessing the Sandy Hook psyop. And that would be the spin of another Hegelian dialectical cycle, to divide the population between pro-gun and anti-gun factions. Plus a further blurring of the supremacy in the Constitution as the foundation of US Law.
The more ‘minor’ events subsequent to 9/11 may pail in international significance, but they should still be attended to nevertheless.
\\][//
Paul,
With all due respect there is a plethora of evidence our rouge regime were trying their hardest to use Sandy Hook and Aurora among other false flags to ram through numerous gun confiscation measures and infringements on our 2nd amendment rights. The plan backfired and I do not think they anticipated this level of resistance to the outright evisceration of our second amendment right to bear arms. Even with the massive push back they got they are still to this day trying to take away our Constitutional rights. Many state, local, and federal measures are still being attempted and we gun owners are fighting a constant battle EVERY DAY against this.
Now I do not know your position on gun rights but mine is simple and it is spelled out in the Constitution and it clearly says those rights “shall not be infringed”. Those rights were spelled out explicitly so that the people could check the power of government gone mad. The argument is moot though because this is America still, tarnished and beaten down shadow of its former self though it is, and the highest law of the land is the Constitution and until that changes I am going to keep and bear arms to protect myself. In my view any politician or person who attempts to infringe upon my right is an enemy of the Constitution which is really when you get right down to it America itself. As far as I am concerned the UN small arms treaty, the various gun bans such as in the city of Chicago, Feinstein’s bill, etc are all acts of war against America and its founding principles.
To buttress Mr Ruff’s analysis here, I would point out that there are covert activities beyond simply legislating away the gun rights.
It is now practically impossible to buy ammo for anything but a shotgun. Ammo of every kind and gage is dried up. This is certainly a coordinated agenda being played out by the national security state.
And as Adam says, the Powers that should not be will not give up until the rights…all of them are extinguished.
I will go one further on this issue. The 2nd Amendment merely guarantees a right of Liberty that exists prior to any government – the right of self defense. Constitution or not, Bill of Rights or not, the Rights of Liberty are unalienable and inextinguishable.
The imposition of complete draconian tyranny does not extinguish these rights, certain Truths remain no matter what the actions of illegitimate governance.
Viva la Resistance.
\\][//
HR1,
Indeed it is nearly impossible to find ammo for many months now. Homeland security has purchased well over two BILLION with a B rounds of ammo recently which has dried up the supply for regular citizens and even for some police departments. I will also point out that California, where I live, is currently attempting to make it law to pass a background check to purchase ammo. So in essence the government gone mad is attempting in every possible way to take away our protection against government gone mad. By positioning themselves as the arbitors of who can and cannot have a gun or ammo they are attempting to convert an inalienable right we all have into a privalidge granted only by them and only to those whom they deem to be worthy.
Adam (Ruff),
You wrote “Would they do a false flag as egregious as Sandy Hook to try and ram through anti Constitutional gun confiscation measures?” That is what I was responding to. I was making the claim that “Knowing U.S. culture and the Congressional configuration of power, it should be known beforehand” that no gun confiscation measure would pass Congress, e.g., Feinstein’s.
My question has been turned toward ammo shortage, not about what you had written.
Furthermore, I read of greatly increased purchases by individuals of ammo and that could be a very significant source of supply, i.e., until manufacturers are able to response to the increased demand with increased supply. Manufacturers must be making a killing in profits, don’t you think so?
Paul in my opinion the hubris of government is such that they truly thought the Sandy Hook false flag operation would be enough to ram through their anti gun agenda. As I said above, I do not think they expected the reaction they got. The Obama regime is as anti gun rights as they can be so I do not believe they were trying to expand gun ownership etc.
Adam_ruff It looks like you may have a chance to confront Abby here in the very near future. Abby is speaking at the Zeitgeist Media Festival this weekend in LA. http://zeitgeistmediafestival.org/
Thanks for the information I will try to get there if I possibly can. I do have to work but I will try.
EXCELLENT, Craig!
I can understand Ranke’s reluctance to debate. History has shown that the faked plane crash deniers often simply lie when their story begins to unravel. Their lies wouldn’t wash in a written debate, when there’s time for “facts” to checked and refuted. But in a live format, lies can sound plausible and the time might not be available to systematically disprove them.
And you can’t assume that lies will be exposed and the liars chased out of the truth movement. If anything, lies and liars seem to gain ever more ascendancy in the movement as time goes on.
One of CIT’s strongest witnesses is Pentagon Police Officer Roosevelt Roberts. CIT has audio of Roberts stating that he saw a large, silver commercial aircraft with jet engines banking over the south parking lot immediately after the explosion. The perps are understandably nervous about this kind of testimony, as it is strong evidence that the plane seen flying towards the Pentagon on 9/11 did not crash, and was not the cause of the death and destruction at the Pentagon that day.
So Victoria Ashley wrote that she had listened to the audio and that “Roberts’ claim describes the C-130 very clearly, not the AA77….” (A C-130 is a dark gray military propeller plane.) It was a desperate attempt on her part to squash the incriminating fact of Roosevelt Roberts having witnessed a passenger plane after it flew over the Pentagon.
If the truth movement were not completely riddled with infiltrators, agents and shills, Victoria Ashley would have been hounded from the movement. Instead, 18 months later, Richard Gage listed Ashley’s paper “To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon Magic Show” as one that “should be among those studied by anyone seeking the full truth about [Pentagon Flight 77 issues and CIT’s work.]”
If the leader and founder of the largest truth organization — Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth — can’t make better judgements about who is and is not telling the truth, how can we expect the average person on the street to do so?
You’re right, Sheila, I think an pro-impact/anti-CIT person would absolutely outright lie in a debate format (assuming such a person would even show up), knowing that there is a limited amount of time for the opposition to respond before being required to move on to the next issue. I’ve seen it happen before with other topics being debated. The liar coolly tells the lie, and the person in the right understandably gets agitated and responds emotionally, “That’s a lie and you know it!” and if the moderator cuts him off, the audience has to simply take him at his word that the other person uttered a lie…. OR believe that it wasn’t a lie and that the person in the right is actually in the wrong.
Speaking of Victoria Ashely telling the lie about Roosevelt Roberts “clearly describing the C-130:”
Going back down the memory hole, I remember actually being the one who got “punished” at 911blogger for calling out Victoria for her claim that Roberts was clearly describing the C-130. She had done this repeatedly, at least once after having been corrected. When I informed the moderators that she was guilty of this, I was the one put on moderation. Why? Because by spotlighting Vic’s name as a repeat offender, rather than talking about facts, I was “making this about people” rather than information. What a crock of shit. Maybe at this upcoming conference, Richard should be confronted on whether he still stands by Justin and the way he’s run blogger. If he does, he stands by a man (infil-traitor imho) who has silenced a lot of strong activist voices.
FYI, here is the exchange, from July 2009 (4 years ago!) between myself and 911blogger owner Justin Keogh, regarding the Victoria Ashley’s lie to which Sheila just alluded, claiming Roosevelt Roberts described the C-130. I figured the mods would call her to task for her disinformation; instead, I was the one slapped on the wrist. (Note: this was waaaaaaay back when “Snowcrash” appeared to be on the side of truth; he later outed himself as a shill.)
PS I wonder how Richard Gage feels about having, on his board of directors, an illiterate oaf who doesn’t know the difference between “your” and “you’re.”
I am unclear on the outstanding proposal. If it is not to be a debate, then the current format seems to be a series of three speakers, in some order, given 60 minutes each. Who decides the order? Who defines what is permissible and the consequence of any infraction?
Ranke could, of course, be in a set-up. I’m sure he is aware of this possibility. Even his needing to decide whether he will participate, or not, can be used against him. Indeed, Barbara wrote the very first comment on this blog report of Craig and already hinted at this line of attack against Ranke. (By the way, some of us are aware that she never fulfilled her own promise to debate Ranke on the 9/11 Teleconference, even as Ranke reaffirmed his own commitment to debate her.)
In any case, Sheila, you raise good observations.
That was fellow CIT member Aldo Marquis who was supposed to debate Barbara, not Ranke.
Honegger was also extremely evasive and deceptive with me in the e-mail exchange I had with her about the Pentagon. In my opinion she uses various disinformation techniques to avoid being pinned down and keep the discussion confused and ambiguous.
Sheila, here’s a link to the debunk of government loyalist lies about Roosevelt Roberts’ testimony:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s=48b112fd113976e6fe07a73dd4e8947a&showtopic=1704&view=findpost&p=2465595
Great stuff, thank you Craig. Have you read Kevin Ryan’s new book, Another Nineteen ? Especially chapter 10 dealing with the pentagon. Is Ryan a complete disinfo spook? Glenn Bolder, Rosseau Ont.
Hi Glenn,
I have not read the book yet, but you’ll be seeing something about it on this blog very soon. And when it comes to the Pentagon I can’t understand how any intelligent person could conclude that a 757 hit the building. No wings, no tail section, no gouges where the engine would have to have hit the ground… It’s all beyond ridiculous.
In addition to his bizarre take on the Pentagon (firmly promoting plane impact and repeatedly referring to “the moment of impact”), Ryan doesn’t consider Larry Silverstein as a prime suspect when examining the question “Qui Bono?” Among other omissions. What is your take on the book (in a few more words than you already shared)?
We might wonder how many of the original ‘Truthers’, such as Ryan and too many others to list that have since seemed to go off the reservation, may have had unbearable threats made to them and their families. Even blackmail threats. Who knows what lingers in various personal closets?…anyone’s.
There is certain leeway that must be allowed for simple differences of opinions. But even those breakdown when so much data and information impinges on those opinions demanding adjustments.
\\][//
I’ll respectfully amend Gregg’s last paragraph. It is coherent with the paradigm that the most alarming layer of the 9/11 conspiracy is the cover and protection bestowed upon the 9/11 terrorists with the executive branch of the federal government. However, the most alarming layer of the 9/11 conspiracy is the censorship thereof by a myriad watchdogs (pacifist groups, Muslim governments, human/civil rights organizations, liberal groups, “rogue” and “enemy” governments, labor unions, etc.) who could but did not denounce 9/11 and who are evidently committed to live the myth that faults Osama bin Laden, his fanatics and their hijacked airplanes for 9/11, while sending their gullible supporters on wild goose chase after policies — like the open-ended U.S. warmongering — that 9/11 Truth would nullify.
Under the paradigm of the 9/11 censorship, activists who want to fix and save the world are called to inform the public of 9/11’s essence in spite and under the nose of the above-mentioned watchdogs: no small task, as the watchdogs control just about every bully pulpit and most people — including, alas, most 9/11-aware activists — still support them on issues other than 9/11. Taking the 9/11 censorship into account, the Pentagon appears to be a terrible point of entry to educate the public, as TV and the watchdogs will have no trouble confusing the public over whatever information points to a conspiracy. Much better is the baby step affirmation of the striking video resemblance between Building 7 and a controlled demolition.
Love,
This is from the show notes of the current Corbett Report, tying together Controlled Demolition Inc with government PSYOPS:
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?1473-Building-a-Case-Against-Controlled-Demolition-Inc.
\\][//
This conference being held near the Pentagon in Washington, has a list of participants who are going to talk about , among other things, what happened at the Pentagon on Sept. 11th 2001. What is notable though is the absence of any of the people who were actually at the Pentagon on September 11th 2001 and saw what happened. Why is that? A list of speakers who are going to talk about what happened at the Pentagon, none of whom were there when it happened, and the people who were actually there when it happened are not invited. Would they not say what the organizers want to hear? What makes this even more strange is that I read
‘ The day’s program is scheduled to finish with the appearance of Shanksville, PA residents who will report on the alleged crash of Flight 93’.
I suspect those witnesses must be saying something the organizers do want to hear.
What is your issue? Ranke would present some 15 careful testimonies from those who were there. He may have time to address others who claim to be there but were not in a position to witness. Barbara would very likely present at least April Gallop’s testimony. I don’t know whose testimony Dwain would present.
Witnesses are an essential aspect of CIT research and amply documented and to be reported.
What is behind your post, A. Wright? And/or, how would you have chosen whom to invite?
What is behind my post? Do you think it’s odd to suggest that a conference addressing the issue of ‘what happened at the Pentagon on Sept. 11th 2001’ should invite , to speak, people who were at the Pentagon on Sept. 11th 2001 ? This is a conference taking place within sight of the Pentagon. The reason they are not being invited is because they would say ‘I saw the plane crashing into the Pentagon’ . This would be, as Adam Syed describes it, ‘ a bizarre take on the Pentagon (firmly promoting plane impact and repeatedly referring to “the moment of impact”) and one that only a minority in the truth movement subscribe to,- unlike the people who were actually there to witness it.
You mention CIT and the witnesses they spoke to , who say the plane crashed into the Pentagon. Some time ago on this site I presented the logic of the argument put forward by CIT and was told it was sound logic by those that responded, until I pointed out the flaw in their logic. This is not about me or CIT it is about the logic of an argument and drawing conclusions from evidence of an event. You may not have seen that particular thread -I forget which one it was – but since I believe Mr. Zarembka that you are an academic and I think an intelligent person, are you prepared to look at it or debate it here or elsewhere?
Do you not think it’s odd for this conference in Washington to be inviting witnesses all the way from Pennsylvania to talk about flight 93, and not inviting people from Washington who were witnesses to what happened at the Pentagon?
You mention April Gallop- the only person apparently who was in the Pentagon. Why do you or I know the name April Gallop? Only one reason – she said the magic words ‘I didn’t see any parts of a plane’ . So now she is invited to truther conferences to speak, hopefully to say the magic words ‘I didn’t see any parts of a plane’. Were there no other people inside the Pentagon? Only , it seems, April Gallop, who can be seen in photographs on the lawn of the Pentagon afterwards, along with debris from the plane.
“Some time ago on this site I presented the logic of the argument put forward by CIT and was told it was sound logic by those that responded, until I pointed out the flaw in their logic. This is not about me or CIT it is about the logic of an argument and drawing conclusions from evidence of an event. You may not have seen that particular thread -I forget which one it was.”~A. Wright – JULY 17, 2013 – 2:07 AM
. . . . . . . . .
I happen to recall this exchange Mr. Wright, and it is my opinion that you are misrepresenting this entirely.
Now, the onus is on yourself to provide the thread and URL where this conversation took place.
You speak to a “flaw in their logic” when it is not their “logic” that is at issue here, it is their evidence – evidence that is simply undeniable and non-negotiable at this point. We have been through this so thoroughly that there is simply no denying that the craft seen by the witnesses did not fly towards the Pentagon at an angle that could have caused the damage observed. From the standpoint of simple physics, it is impossible for the plane witnessed that day to have struck the Pentagon where the damage is clearly observed.
“The Pentagon OCT has been torn to shreds by both CIT and Rob Balsamo in that witnesses place the aircraft nowhere near the necessary trajectory to cause the damage in the first place and that the work Rob and Pilotsfor911Truth have done on the alleged FDR and aerodynamic impossibilities speaks for itself.”~Onesliceshort
Onesliceshort has provided the URL to the site where this quote is taken. Take the time to go through the evidence there. This is the evidence and the issues you must put a detailed rebuttal to, rather than asserting general charges of “flaws in logic”.
\\][//
A. Wright,
As I read it, your reply does not add much to your initial post. Perhaps you could propose how you would go about inviting 100+ persons who have made claims about having witnessed the Pentagon.
For example, suppose person A says “I witnessed the Pentagon event”. Would that be enough to invite person A to the conference? If that would be all you need, then you’d have quite a few invitations to render and the conference would collapse for more reasons than numbers of persons.
You would want to set up some criteria for receiving an invitation. Am I correct? If so, what you be your working criteria for including person on a list of recipients?
I would think that a reasonable criteria would be move beyond self-claims and at least verify the locations of persons and whether they were truly in a position to have seen the event. I would think this is the kind of rigor an good attorney might use before attempting to introduced witnesses in a court setting.
@Paul Zarembka
Quote your previous post
“Perhaps you could propose how you would go about inviting 100+ persons who have made claims about having witnessed the Pentagon.”
The question I would be asking is what I would be doing even holding a conference about a plane crash that happened 12 years ago when there are 100 people who spoke about seeing the plane crash at the time. How many witnesses would you need to a plane crash? How many witnesses are there to most plane crashes? Outside of an airshow, investigators would be lucky to find one or two witnesses – usually there are none. Surely you can’t be saying that no witnesses could be invited because there are so many to choose from?
Can I ask you, or maybe you should ask yourself, why you said:
‘Ranke would present some 15 careful testimonies from those who were there. He may have time to address others who claim to be there but were not in a position to witness.’
Why this prejudicial parsing of witnesses? Why are one group of witnesses given some kind of seal of approval but the rest have barely concealed distrust and suspicion directed at them. You seem to be presenting a double-standard here, ‘5 careful testimonies from people who were there’ versus ‘..others who claim to be there but were not in a position to witness’. Person A would not say ‘I witnessed the Pentagon event’ they would say ‘I saw the plane crashing into the Pentagon’.
Quite frankly I find it absurd that anyone would present a case for a plane flying over a building – if that’s what you believe happened – and call it ‘proven’ and ‘definitive’ when not one witness who was there said the plane flew over the building and when they can’t point to one piece of evidence that the plane was flying after it reached the building.
Quote “I would think that a reasonable criteria would be move beyond self-claims and at least verify the locations of persons and whether they were truly in a position to have seen the event. I would think this is the kind of rigor a good attorney might use before attempting to introduced witnesses in a court setting.”
What I think you can verify is that none of the people who are invited to speak at this conference were in a position to have seen the event.
Paul,
Welcome to A. Wright’s circle jerk, if you actually pin this troll down on ANYTHING it will be a first. By the way he seriously misrepresents past exchanges so anything he says or claims about what others said or claimed needs to be verified at the source since Wright twists and contorts everything. I think you are wasting your time talking to him at all but it may be instructive in the end I guess. Just remember that everything he says needs to be double-checked at the source in order to expose what he is actually doing here. A.Wright is here to lie, distort, twist the truth, to promote the official story and make it seem plausible, and lastly to waste our time and sap our energy. I have personally gone back and cross verified that A.Wright does misrepresent past exchanges and statements and he distorts virtually everything truthers have said or done. If he says “Ranke said blah blah blah” you can bet your bottom dollar Ranke didn’t say it or that it was grossly distorted or taken completely out of context. This is why it is such a monumental waste of time to interact with this troll A.Wright.
By all means though Paul check this out for yourself.
Hi Paul,
Wright waves away the NOC witnesses. He should take a look at a large number of those who claim (or the media distorts to claim) to have seen an alleged impact.
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s=23faac50bbc15c765cfc8d580d53415e&showtopic=1863&view=findpost&p=22008858
Wright also knows that many first responders, Pentagon workers and journalists (I use that term loosely) who were on the scene within minutes, claimed to see no evidence of a plane crash.
What Wright won’t acknowledge is that any alleged (OCT) impact begins at lightpoles 1 and 2 and ends at the “punch out hole” in C Ring. Not at the facade.
What I would personally like to see is an invitation given to whatever witnesses that day, place them at the spot they claimed to be in the area, and ask them where they saw the aircraft approach from. If (some of) them say they are convinced that the aircraft hit the building, fine. Just find one who describes the directional damage path. Just one! Even Lloyd England. He’s the only witness who claims to have been physically affected by the aircraft and even he denies being there!
A. Wright,
If I may, I’d like to ask you again your own proposal. I suggested:
“I would think that a reasonable criteria would be move beyond self-claims [of being a witness of the Pentagon event] and at least verify the locations of persons and whether they were truly in a position to have seen the event. I would think this is the kind of rigor an good attorney might use before attempting to introduced witnesses in a court setting.”
Good attorneys don’t want to be killed in cross examination.
I don’t read a concrete proposal from you of how to conduct choosing who to invite to this or a similar conference.
To be an affirmative-type person, you need to propose your own process, or at least I would hope that you would be so willing. Then perhaps I could react one way or another.
@Paul Zarembka
Is this conference intended to be a court setting or the equivalent of a court setting? If it is then I think the people who are going to be the subject of character assassination, caustic innuendo and accusations of conspiracy to commit mass murder, no less, ought to have the opportunity to be represented, and to speak, without having to pay for the privilege. As I pointed out in a previous post, there are residents from Shanksville invited to this conference-why not witnesses from the Pentagon? There surely can’t be some insurmountable logistical impediment to one and not to the other. As I said, I think there is a simple reason for that and you can read it in all the reactions here to the mere suggestion of it. It’s not a popular idea. Someone might say ‘I saw the plane hitting the Pentagon’. In fact the more people you invited the more people would be saying it.
Do you seriously believe that there was a plane flying towards the Pentagon? What happened to it? If it didn’t hit the Pentagon where did it go? It is 12 years on from the event – can you give me one piece of evidence that the plane was still flying after it reached the Pentagon? Surely there should be something -radar evidence? more eyewitness than have probably witnessed a crash like this before but their accounts all stop at the Pentagon. After that it’s tumbleweed silence. Then there are huge areas of Washington DC, the ATC people at the airport – they take an interest in planes flying into their airspace, let alone flying right across the approach paths of their runways. All these witnesses who seemingly are unable to see a plane that they could see and describe a few seconds before, describing how it crashed into the Pentagon.
As you may have guessed here I am not what you would describe as an 911 truther, and I’m not even an American but this idea of a plane not hitting the Pentagon is really one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever come across, created by the simple expedient of obfuscating and manipulating the evidence and sticking a label ‘the official story’ on it, when this is the evidence that is the source of the official story.
What I said about CIT and what I posted before on this site is that their assessment of the evidence is based on flawed logic and if you actually watch their DVD’s or listen to their interviews it is not too difficult to spot.
“the people who are going to be the subject of character assassination, caustic innuendo and accusations of conspiracy to commit mass murder, no less, ought to have the opportunity to be represented..”~A. Wright
You are referring to the war criminals who run the empire, who designed and implemented this false flag event for the very purpose of using it as an excuse to make aggressive war against the peoples of the Middle East, where real mass murder still ensues every day..
That’s rich Wright. In fact pathological.
\\][//
“Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set afire with incendiary bullets: this is called “Pacification” — GEORGE ORWELL, Politics and the English Language, 1946
\\][//
A. Wright,
I was not asking for your opinion about what happened at the Pentagon, or who or what is or is not ridiculous. I was only asking how you would decide who to invite as witnesses for the 9/11/2001 Pentagon event for a conference discussing that event. You had seemed concerned about the witness list. I suggested that choice of witnesses requires care and offered a suggestion. That’s all.
If you think the Bush, Obama, FBI, CIA, 9/11 Commission has it correct, so be it. I wasn’t addressing that. I just wanted to know how you would shift through 100+ claims to being witnesses to the event.
I won’t be asking again.
@Paul Zarembka
As you can see from my opinion about what happened at the Pentagon, for me the idea of people holding a conference on the obvious is redundant in the first place, so the logistics of what witnesses to invite or not invite is mute. Why not invite them all? You can’t force or compel people to attend ,a lot of them will not be able or won’t want to come, considering it a total waste of their time in most cases, so whoever does turn up can give their accounts. The more evidence you have the better. Are people allowed to give their accounts or is it only people in CIT who can interview witnesses or tell us which ones can be interviewed? Choosing whom to invite is hardly a major issue that should prevent anyone from being invited. There seems to be no problem inviting people from Shanksville.
I don’t know where this idea of a judicial proceeding is coming from, with your concern that those presenting their case need to be so careful to pick the right witnesses – who presumably would say the right things- in case they themselves might look bad. A pity about them. What is this about, find out the truth i.e. what actually happened ,or maintaining some cherished positions, or even making up new ones? The fact that you are spoilt for choice in sifting through scores of witnesses should indicate something. It’s not as if this was some mysterious unknowable event that happened at night in the middle of the Arizona desert. If people can’t figure out what happened in a public place a bright sunny day with hundreds of people there to witness it , involving a large plane and a large building , then it is pointless trying to figure anything out. If they haven’t figured it out after 12 years then they never will.
The conference itself , the part of it devoted to what happened at the Pentagon, is predicated on the concept of unreasonable doubt. Not even having the actual witnesses there and considering them surplus to requirements just compounds it.
In lieu of conformist grimacing hooting ululation, let’s have some factual data on a specific witness.
Aye Wright?
Who would you want to hear from? Who would you invite and why?
\\][//
It’s kinda like the Mainstream Media saying what their “organizers want to hear” Wright,
It is called ‘counterbalance’, or if you will, counter PR.
Let’s face it Mr Conformist, the BIG MONEY gets their voice heard 24/7 on the Mighty Wurlitzer, the giant propaganda machine. That point of view gets much more than its fair share of airtime.
Why don’t you lobby CNN, Fox, CBS, NBC to cover this little shindig rather than spewing your spongebob go-along-to-get-along oinking ululations here?
If you don’t like the views expressed herein, why don’t you go to a James Randi {the fucking Amazing’s} Skeptics forums as kiss some ass there?
\\][//
A. Wright
Ha! Says the guy who can’t name one witness who describes the directional damage flightpath, wholesale dismisses all witnesses interviewed in person who describe the NOC flightpath (over and over and over…), and then when cornered on this issue, summarily dismisses witness testimony itself as if it’s irrelevant!
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised at the antics of somebody who by his silence believes the government when they say there was no “John Doe 2” in OKC or that all witnesses to a missile streaking towards TWA800 are “wrong”.
Stop being such a hypocrite Wright. What a JREF wimp.
A,Wright is a certified koolaid drinking JREFer troll who is only here to see if he can bait someone into his little circle jerks. Just ignore him, he never responds to questions or comments he only makes them that way it is always a one sided discussion which he controls. Classic troll.
@Adam Ruff
An interesting response to the suggestion that the people who witnessed what happened at the Pentagon should maybe be invited to speak at a conference trying to find the truth about what happened at the Pentagon.
Yes Adam,
Take this quote for example:
“The question I would be asking is what I would be doing even holding a conference about a plane crash that happened 12 years ago when there are 100 people who spoke about seeing the plane crash at the time.”~A. Wright
As anyone who has done their proper study on the Pentagon 9/11 event knows, these so-called “100 people” – or “100 witnesses” need to be vetted, just like in any serious investigation. And this has been done by the serious investigators beginning with the CIT and more fully as their information was understood and followed up on.
I doubt very much if Mr Wright has studied the spread sheets of witnesses and their placements; for if he had he would grasp that reliable witnesses have been narrowed down drastically, and that the process is a very complex one – involving a lot of effort to pull together and to process.
And any charges that Wright might level about ‘biases’ needs to be backed up by his proofs that he understands the specific arguments for each case of a witness that has been either ‘Rejected’ as unsound, or ‘Included’ as sound.
It is simply flippant to include say, the two Pentagon police officers from the Citgo as “authentic witnesses to the crash”, once their testimony is thoroughly investigated along with their exact location and vantage point. As such, what would at first appear to be two Star Witnesses for the official story, turn out to be exactly the opposite, even to their own chagrin. Because as it is their testimony is some of the strongest proving the counter position that there could have been no airplane crash at the Pentagon.
\\][//
Willy,
Classic Pentagon disinformation from our resident government apologist.
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863
This study was recently posted at Pilotsfor911Truth
Okay, I am familiar with Ms Honegger’s position on the Pentagon event, we are all very familiar with Mr Ranke’s CIT investigation and conclusions. The only thing we don’t seem to have any idea of is Mr Deet’s position, his impetus, or motive for taking the position that a 757 actually impacted the Pentagon – that is, whether it is actually his view, or whether he may be presenting a “devils advocate” position for the sake of variety or argument.
I would like to ask if Mr Deets is at liberty to speak to this in any manner, or if he plans to play his cards close to his chest until the actual presentation.
I would also like to know if Mr McKee is planning to attend the event. If not are there plans for eyes and ears to be there to report back to Truth and Shadows? Is there going to be some sort of summaries available for the various presentations? Or are we going to rely of YouTube type snippets of the events, or perhaps a video of the entire set of presentations?
Or is all of this up in the air at this point, like whether Ranke is even going to present there?
\\][//
If it was indeed short notice given to Craig (or Aldo), we have to remember that he lives on the other side of the States (Cali) and that he should have been given notice (time off work, travel arrangements, hotel). Maybe that was the reason for the late notice? “Well….he WAS invited…” sorta thing?
Having said that, I really hope that he or Aldo make it.
As for Ms Honegger, your theory holds no water regarding ANY type of flying object striking the Pentagon – at least not from between the Navy Annex and the Pentagon lawn – the generator trailer is the key IMO – based on physical evidence.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279&view=findpost&p=10807803
“faked plane crash deniers often simply lie when their story begins to unravel”
Spot on Sheila! Bottom line, nuff said.
Onesliveshort,
I don’t think there is a case for AA77 being the flight number, or N644AA the tail number.
@Dwain Deets
What form would the evidence take that flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon?
So Dwain it is your position now that a large airliner other than AA77 struck the Pentagon is that correct?
Adam_Ruff,
My position is there is conflicting evidence pertaining to a range of possibilities, none of which includes AA77. When I consider that range, there is a slight advantage to a plane with wingspan large enough to strike the light poles.
I think what Mr Deets is missing so thoroughly is the matter of trajectory.
The issue of “wingspan” and light-poles, falls by the wayside once it is understood that it is verified to the point of near certainty that the position of the incoming aircraft simply could not have maneuvered from it’s position, witnessed by the Citgo and Cemetery testimonies, to the angle of the physical damage.
I would advise that Dwain study not only the excellent Pilots site, the CIT site, but also the many threads on Truth and Shadows, wherein he might find arguments previously made and shot down, so that he doesn’t revisit those same mistakes himself.
\\][//
Dear Mr. Deets, you wrote:
I disagree with the “slight advantage to a plane with wingspan large enough to strike the light poles,” particularly when the plane’s model is limited to a commercial aircraft. The physics does not add up, which I will go into in a moment.
The dispute centers around:
(1) The SOC (“South of Citgo”) flight path that destroys many light poles and an entrance hole, but has few “trustworthy” witnesses to observing a commercial plane hitting the poles and/or the Pentagon.
(2) The NOC (“North of Citgo”) flight path that has many highly credible witnesses, although none who could observe this aircraft actually hitting the Pentagon.
In both cases, all of the witnesses’ minds connect together cause (low-flying aircraft) with effect (explosion at Pentagon and damage shown on news.)
On top of this is the lack of evidence of an actual plane in the debris. Seats, bodies & body parts, luggage, clothes, tail, wings? It is well to doubt an actual plane impact.
The following is based on discussions from 2012-04-15, 2012-04-18, and 2012-04-24.
Others have attempted to merge a NOC flight path that suddenly changed to SOC path to knock over light poles. The following image shows light pole and signage placement with respect to a NOC flight path into the Pentagon.
http://i511.photobucket.com/albums/s360/Ligon911/closestnorthpathmissespolescringhol.jpg
from
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=51
Another extract:
In conclusion: Witnesses to the NOC flight path were not witnesses to the aircraft hitting the Pentagon. The NOC flight path has no expected damage to light poles and signage along its route, and could not have flown over or around such obstacles. The observed NOC flight path could not have been altered to suddenly match the SOC aligned damage and entrance hole.
The SOC flight path presents obstacles that should have cripled and destroyed a commercial aircraft. Either the obstacles were downed in advance, or the plane wasn’t a commercial aircraft but something more advanced with stronger wings and no seats, passengers, luggage, etc.
//
Thanks Dwain.
What about the alleged FDR and data? Surely that has to be dismissed too?
The aerodynamics involved of cruise speed at low level flight (and the obvious pilot control issues that entails)?
The fact that not one witness described anything close to resembling the necessary directional damage path?
The multiple discrepancies (and ASCE lies/dodging) regarding the physical damage to the Pentagon facade and internal damage trail?
I’m not trying to be confrontational Dwain. I would like concise answers to narrow down exactly what makes you believe that an aircraft hit that building.
Peace
OSS
Just as a reminder to everyone:
At the 0:49 mark of the introduction of Ventura’s Pentagon episode, Deets says:
“An airplane causing that kind of damage, is just nonsensical. We should not accept such an explanation.”
And later at 11:48:
“You would expect a twin engine, transport airplane like the 757, you would notice the two engine holes that would be very prominent from all aircraft accidents that we know of, whereas we didn’t see two obvious engine holes, in the front.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9tvrYg85qU
Adam,
These areas of the facade should also be brought to Dwain’s attention
The vertical stabilizer
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279&view=findpost&p=10807806
The alleged right wing damage
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279&view=findpost&p=10807804
The alleged left wing damage
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279&view=findpost&p=10807808
C Ring
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279&view=findpost&p=10807821
There are many discrepancies throughout the building but for a summary, go to “Conclusions” at this link
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279&view=findpost&p=10807803
PS Willy, I nearly made the same typo lol
I don’t think the FDR data can be used. As to the aerodynamics, we lack full scale empirical evidence to settle that issue once and for all.
:Onesliveshort”
Lol, I hope this isn’t a Freudian slip….’one live short’…
No – I know how easy it is to hit the “v” key rather than the “s” key – such typos are common. Myself included.
\\][//
See…I meant “c” key and typed “s” key…
jeeeeeeeeeeeze..
\\][//
“My position is there is conflicting evidence pertaining to a range of possibilities..”
~Dwain Deets
My position is that it is impossible, in the physical world, for there to be conflicting evidence to any event – only conflicting INTERPRETATION of evidence.
\\][//
Eyewitness evidence can be conflicting.
That’s what I mean Dwain, the conflict is subjective and lies in interpretation.
Testimony alone is not “evidence”. The physical position of the witness must be analysed, the psychological state of the witness must be analysed, the interpretation of the initial interviewer must be analyzed. [See: Witness Spreadsheet]
And finally the truth of a matter must all be parsed by the PHYSICAL evidence. That as such, can only be “contradictory” if a portion of that evidence is ‘planted’, and as such that is not prime evidence, but subsequent evidence, or possibly pro-sequential, depending on the timing of a ruse.
This complexity is much better discussed by using the actual information already analysed in this case. It is extant, and detailed. And as I advised earlier, you need to make yourself acquainted with it intimately. I would advise one of the threads here where we go through the position of Frank Legge, and break that down and put it through the paces.
Perhaps Mr McKee can direct you to which threads those might be.
\\][//
Dwain,
You’ve lost me now.
You don’t believe that the aircraft was “77”. Agreed.
You don’t buy the alleged FDR data. Agreed.
You say that witness testimony is “conflicted”. I would agree if there were a number of groups of contradictory witnesses (which include just one person who supports the official flight path). So no, I consider that answer a cop out.
You haven’t mentioned the multiple discrepancies pointed out (in a link) by me regarding the alleged impact damage (or much else of anything linked to/mentioned)
So what convinced you that an aircraft struck the building?
Dwain,
I have a PDF doc that has much of a long email exchange I had with Frank Legge.
It would take up a lot of this thread to present this back and forth in a thorough manner.
But through that exchange I had to come to the conclusion that Mr Legge was either extremely confused, or was being disingenuous in his arguments.
. . . . . .
Willy Whitten May 13,2012
to Frank_Legge:
Avoiding academentia is an essential part of gaining wisdom.~ww
You know Frank, when one compiles your multiple versions of the ‘Debunking’ papers on the Pentagon, plus the dialog we have had in these email conversations, and then add in some of the commentary on blogs by you and ‘snowcrash’; it all comes to a load of horseshit.
Just recently you told me you are not relying on official government data, that all you are relying on is the witness testimony. You want to go back and compare that statement with your Pentagon articles? Go ahead Frank compare, and see if this most recent admonition from you doesn’t sound like a load of bullshit. Your commentary seems to come in two flavors, horseshit or bullshit – and they both stink.
And so now, like so many others, I am wondering just what your game is. What could be your motivation in all of this? What caused this U-turn into the field of weeds? You are obviously not a stupid person, but you have made a lot of contradictory statements just in our email exchanges.
And this latest one is a fucking doozie – after going through all this for weeks, reading your papers – arguing tight points…Now you tell me that all you are relying on is the witness testimonies? Jesus man, WTF?
I can think of only two choices in trying to figure you out – you are losing your mental facilities, or you are a mole and your earlier work was your ingratiating period.
I don’t see how you can escape seeing how bad this makes you look.
Are you el Topo Frank?
. . . . . . . . .
The reason for this email to Frank is clear if you read his “debunking” papers on the no plane crash at the Pentagon, and all of his reliance on the FDR, radar, etc.
It was at this point in the email debate that he suddenly shifted to the position that he is mainly relying on “witness testimonies”….
This is why I throw my hands up in disgust here…
\\][//
Just one more comment as per Legge and I will done with him here:
“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.
\\][//
Willy,
Excellent post!
From my witness list breakdown —
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22172&view=findpost&p=10806392
Onesliceshort,
What we have here in this testimony is obvious in retrospect; Low flying aircraft, a huge explosion equaling mind numbing hysteria and frantic assumption that the two aspects come together as a single event, that the aircraft “MUST HAVE” struck the building. But it is smoke and mirrors, a “magic act” common to any stage magicians repertoire.
It is obvious from the witness testimony proving NOC, that the plane could not have caused the trajectory damage that is in the physical evidence. The craft in question likely had a beacon that set off preset bombs in the Pentagon. So at the moment the plane arrives, it flies through the smoke just clearing the roof of the building, completing the illusion.
Where did the plane go from there? There is a landing field just across the river. With the distraction of the Pentagon aflame all attention is directed to that and the plane makes a quick landing very shortly afterwards midst the excitement and confusion.
As this was a staged event, there would be personnel at the landing field to quickly get that plane into a hanger while everyone else was intent on the events over at the Pentagon.
Voila, mission accomplished.
That’s my theory until someone comes up with something better.
\\][//
Willy,
Here’s a newly released video based on alleged radar data showing just how busy the Pentagon airspace and neighbouring Reagan National Airport actually was (if the data is accepted as legit — either way, it’s the official data), leading up to and after the explosion:
http://youtu.be/-yJzvLxfgEE
There’s more to this but the research is still being done.
Where did the plane go from there? There is a landing field just across the river. With the distraction of the Pentagon aflame all attention is directed to that and the plane makes a quick landing very shortly afterwards midst the excitement and confusion.
As this was a staged event, there would be personnel at the landing field to quickly get that plane into a hanger while everyone else was intent on the events over at the Pentagon.
Voila, mission accomplished. ~ Willy
That’s a pretty reasonable theory, as it certainly looks possible. The major problem it seems to have though, is that it’s contradicted by statements made by the key flyaway witness Roosevlet Roberts.
From his 2008 CIT interview, available here: http://911transcripts.wikispaces.com/CIT+phone+call+with+Roosevelt+Roberts+%282008-05%29
Instead he describes the east bound plane turning, then mentions the mall (National Mall) and mall entrance side of the building:
I believe the key to understanding Roosevelt’s descriptions lies in his answer to the first question posed by Aldo:
The east loading dock was here: http://oi42.tinypic.com/js147b.jpg
Notwithstanding his position at the south dock in the CIT NSA film, the east dock is where he said he was at the time of the Pentagon explosion. He had been at the south dock earlier while on his way to the heliport, and had paused to give someone a bathroom break. But that’s not where he was stationed that morning, and it was nearly an hour earlier.
As for an alternative theory other than just saying the plane didn’t go towards Reagan airport, as quoted above Roosevelt said the plane was facing west but flew away heading southwest. If it flew away to the SW why not just say so? Why the facing west comment.
I think Roosevelt was trying to be precise. Even from his position at the east loading dock he could not have seen the plane go past the mall entrance side of the building. He was estimating it flew away to the southwest. He didn’t actually see it fly away to the SW. His estimate would be based on the fact the plane was “facing west”, but still coming out of the hard banking left U-turn when it would have disappeared out of his sight around the River Entrance corner of the building. He mentions the plane “coming out” “banking around”, and “coming back out turning southwest” several times. It’s important to his description. It would not be unreasonable for him to estimate this plane facing west would straighten out heading southwest once it came out of its turn.
That would have sent the plane back to the west side of the Pentagon where all the witnesses were staring at the burning hole in the wall, but no one on the west side described seeing a commercial aircraft coming back towards them after the event.
What that logically leaves is the plane didn’t just straighten out. It likely banked off to the north and followed the up river take off pattern out of Reagan. To anyone on the ground it would be just another flight leaving Reagan; a total non-event.
After that,who knows. But it could have disappeared in plane sight by blending in with normal airport traffic.
Anyway, that’s my theory and I’m sticking to it until someone comes up with something better.
“That’s a pretty reasonable theory, as it certainly looks possible. The major problem it seems to have though, is that it’s contradicted by statements made by the key flyaway witness Roosevlet Roberts.”~Hadmatter
Yes Hadmatter, I was aware of the Roosevlet Roberts testimony when I posted my theory. It is not that I doubt Mr Roberts, it is that he had only a brief glimpse of the errant craft, and when he lost view of it, the plane could have made any number of maneuvers. I just cannot buy that it would have been in the air for any substantial amount of time – thus my choice of Reagan as the landing spot.
But as with all such things they will remain in the realm of theory until such time as some break in the silence is achieved, or the troupe of monkeys finish typing the Encyclopedia Britannica…
\\][//
Onesliceshort,
Do you know why this is called “Special Activity”?
I don’t know what is normal or heavy air traffic, can you clarify which this would be? From the title I would assume this is heavier than normal traffic.
\\][//
Willy,
Sorry, hadn’t noticed the title and the alleged radar data is out of my league although I’ve read that there was military type aircraft (helicopters and unidentified blips – remember there were allegedly no military aircraft – F15s – bar the C130) in the area.
Remember this is my own 2 cents…
Various witnesses described a helicopter in the vicinity minutes before the event (and some allegedly just after the event). There was also the alleged E4B. There was also an ATC who claimed that an aircraft had to divert at the last minute from landing at Reagan just before the event (who now claims not to remember saying that…)
So we had a helicopter, the pilot of which should have been hunted down by the media, at least for the sensationalism of it. A C130 whose pilot (and crew presumably) claimed that they weren’t aware of the events that morning (*cough*bullshit*). An E4B that allegedly took off for no apparent reason. An aircraft that was reported “circling the White House” by Peter Jennings before the event and before the E4B had taken off according to the radar data, and of course the normal traffic at Reagan.
That’s a lot of traffic within the airspace around the Pentagon. Confusion for both the ATCs and people on the ground. Smoke and mirrors. Distractions.
Hope that helps.
Yea Slice,
I think what you just said covers what I am saying about the smoke and mirrors magic act – a load of distractions and the majority of it unmentioned.
As we do not have the option of the witnessed plane simply vanishing, and it obviously couldn’t have hit the Pentagon at the proper trajectory…it had to have flown over in the cover of the smoke – likely extra smoke bombs as part of the show. Landing it as quickly as possible had to have been part of the plot…Reagan Int. is the prime candidate for that.
\\][//
Round and round we go. It’s like the twilight zone. Didn’t we do this in 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007?
They already won while you’ve all been busy rehashing the same ol horsecrap over and over, “debate” after “debate”.
You can’t see that Honegger is operative of disinformation and Deets is an infiltrator. So what’s the point? You’ve read her multiple, mind-boggling, tail chasing papers. The fact that people are still listening to her is proof that we have lost. You all heard and saw the witnesses that were interviewed by CIT. You all know they said they stood by where they saw the plane even after being made aware of the implications. You all know some of them said they would testify to it. Yet, you are all listening and giving credibility to a so-called flip-flopper like Deets.
Boy I can’t wait for the 2014 debates on the Pentagon. Then the 2015 debate and the 2016 debate. Man, can you imagine what the 2020 debates will be like?!
If Sullivan really wanted to make a dent in the pentagon issue, this conference would be a discussion on how to further the north side/Lloyde England/PFT black box evidence.
Unless a majority of you are ready to take your head out of your you-know-whats and take the CIT/PFT evidence DIRECTLY to gov’t officials over and over and over until someone listens or does something -NOTHING will EVER come of these silly debates and discussions other than more back-patting, inaction and indecision.
Yeah I have to say that is really rich! Take this to the government, the government which did it and is actively attempting to cover it up? What a joke. Seriously did you even think before you wrote that?
By the way I called out Honegger and Deets long before this article was written and I don’t buy into their BS at all. So please don’t lump us here in with fledgling truthers who may still be listening to disinformationists and not realize what they are.
We here are in the business of exposing charlatans, fraudsters, liars, and provocateurs. We have done the best we can towards that goal. We have not “won” the entire battle yet, that is true, but what have you done towards victory? Who are you? What is your real name? What is your plan for ultimate victory and why haven’t you achieved it yet?
Bashing us for the actions/non-actions of others is out of line. Many of us here have done many many things towards truth and justice for 9/11 and other false flags and I will bet you we have individually each done more than you have. Let me know if I am wrong and when you find the courage to do so sign your real name to your comments huh?
{2nd Attempt}
Dear Mr. A. Ruff,
In “The Dark Knight Rises” movie, Batman gives some advice to the Police Officer (an orphan with middle name “Robin”) that “the hero dons the mask not to protect himself but to protect those he cares about.”
It is important that an author stand behind their words and be willing to defend those words, to admit error or uncertainty, and to change opinions, when new information necessitates such. This proves how genuine the person is. “Standing behind your words” can be accomplished in many ways, such as consistency in alias-usage forum-to-forum, a “home court” to consolidate words, or a revealing of identities at a time and choosing of the author (e.g., to a select audience.)
You charged Mr. Broken Record:
I find this line of attack distasteful and immaterial, despite having sympathy with the other points in your cranky posting.
Integrity ought to be exhibited in the comments that participants make. When it isn’t, readers note it.
ECHELON and PRISM, and Google/Facebook/WordPress/YouTube’s single-login and tying together of aliases with IP addresses with street addresses with individuals and credit histories, assures us that our “permanent digital record” has detailed reading for those with a badge and a need to know. No sense making it easier.
Meanwhile, given the vast distances over which the internet serves, it isn’t as if knowing a real name will enable you to drive across town to punch someone in the nose for their disingenuous views. And on the flip-side, only those who are independently wealthy, retired, or otherwise out of the workforce (e.g., for physical reasons) [and have no spouses or relations in the workforce] can have some degree of freedom in voicing their views under their real name without blow-back from “Google Background Checks” on their next employment search.
//
We may not know the real names of the anonymous posters on this and other blogs, but I can guarantee you that Echelon and NSA does, and that our dossiers continue to expand for as long as this open Internet remains. There is no making it easier than it already is…that is a concept built on a naïve daydream.
\\][//
Well where have all the debates and discussions gotten ya so far?
Who do you expect to do something about the evidence CIT/PFT has collected? How is justice supposed to be served?
So everyone in the gov’t is bad and there is no hope of taking the evidence to gov’t officials so your solution is to just discuss/debate the evidence with other truthers and infiltrators ad nauseum? I’m sure the next answer will be that we need to raise awareness with people so that they will do something, right? And what are they supposed to do after they are made aware? Tell other people? How has that worked so far?
{2nd Attempt}
Dear Mr. RuffAdam,
This is not a defense of Mr. A.Wright, who appears to have been involved with torture. How else could he have known of a successful trial substitution for waterboarding? 2013-07-21:
Other parallelisms occur to me when I read you charges against Mr. A.Wright:
On another thread and another topic near and dear to my one-trick-pony hobby-horse, which goes by the name of “Neu Nookiedoo”, you were guilty of the same offenses. You even made a big deal out of not reading and ignoring my comments instead of just ignoring them, particularly when they had you cornered with respect to ~not~ doing your due diligence on “the good, the bad, & the ugly” in the work of Dr. Judy Wood that would demonstrate an open-mind. The higher calling to which you subscribe your 9/11 Truth endeavors dictates that “the good” nuggets of truth be preserved, cherished, and re-purposed… even from disinfo sources.
My hobby-horse ain’t yours, so we can let mention of that nuclear topic slide by without further adieu. What persists from that example?
A little bit loose with the “troll” word you have been. Be careful of what you wish for.
Triple-W was chided in the past for engaging Mr. A.Wright, particularly when the engagement so quickly devolved into off-topic flames. Be careful that you don’t become entwined as one of the pincers in his “old Hegelian Dialectics” that derails this discussion.
WITH REGARDS TO THE TOPIC OF THIS DISCUSSION
Mr. B. Record on 2013-07-22 tries to plant the seeds of discouragement and futility in searching for the Truth of 9/11.
The purpose of “blah-blah-blah” in this forum and at any conference on the 9/11 topic is to raise awareness to a critical point where distributed and massive action can make a change.
As Mr. B. Record hints, the solution is not to take our gripe to the bad government. No, the solution is to re-make government… in order “to form a more perfect Union”, given that the present one isn’t anything other than an oligarchy.
As was so aptly quoted by Triple-W:
Because I don’t want to sully this comments section with more instances of “viable substitutions for waterboarding” and because this comment is nested under thread where the following is relevant and applicable, I’ll append something written earlier but not posted.
++++++
Agreed, NSA and Echelon continue to grow our digital dossiers, and “[t]here is no making it easier than it already is” in terms of them knowing who we are, assuming that the wealth of data collected on everyone can be filtered down and have our names pop-up in their search results (top-1000) as “persons of interest” today, tomorrow, or whenever.
I’m not worried about “them”, because they have to prioritize and I can’t fathom how I’d make the cut. They also have some rules (albeit many are written on the fly) to guide their actions. But when & if that fateful moment arrives, the juggernaut will be so massive, so consuming, so pervassive, I won’t be able to fight it. I’ll be caught in a net like thousands of other minnows. It’ll roll over me and squash me into nothingness like so many others.
Meanwhile, what I worry about are those who operate without rules; those on the fringed; those whose blinding patriotism — not to the Constitution but to corrupt government institutions or military-esque brotherhoods — misguides them; those who take matters into their own hands.
By accident or on purpose, their lack of morals and ethics might lead them like a Middle Schooler into doing unethical things on-line from a distance just to tweak with someone for fun, or to really mess with them. I’m talking ~not~ about hacking that could screw with email or deplete banking accounts (but they are to be considered); I am talking about the low-hanging fruit of the Google-lingering effects of tarnishing another individual’s reputation on-line… Oh how easy it is to smear and libel another “on the internets” from the safety of a keyboard.
Mr. McKee [who knows the Bruce Wayne to my Batman] can attest to how such a gambit was played out against my Bruce Wayne on “Screw Loose Change” without me participating there or even being aware of it until late… but not beyond the statute of limitations for taking the culprits to court for criminal libel. [Alas, victory in court does not equate to actual collection of judgment, let alone legal fees. And the efforts to get justice would have a blow-back tarnishing effect on “name” and “reputation” in the meantime.]
//
I don’t recall ANY formal Pentagon debates in any of those years, live at a conference. The individuals who oppose CIT/P4T and insist on an impact NEVER face their opponents in REAL debate. As OSS says in his post below:
“Face to face, I’d like to see the same responses. And there’d be no ducking out for a day or two just to come back and repeat the same lazy, debunked tripe.”
“take the CIT/PFT evidence DIRECTLY to gov’t officials…”~Broken Record
Hahahahaha…yea that’s it, call the cops!! WTF?
The “government” is a racket…might as well call Ghost Busters.
Who the hell do you think YOU are hotshot? Calling everyone out like that and then giving a punch line about going “to gov’t officials”.
\\][//
So where do you take the evidence? Who can you hold accountable?
“Who can you hold accountable?”~Broken Record
Yourself. Ourselves. We do the best we can with what we got.
I am a writer. I write. I make the best case I can in my writings. I spend some ten to twelve hours a day, writing commentary in an attempt at persuasion, to open eyes and minds.
It’s better that, than sitting on your hands grumbling in your coffee cup. I don’t have a badge, I don’t have authority. I don’t have a pulpit, I don’t have a flock. I barely have the resources to maintain existence. But as long as I get by, I try to keep making a racket, to push information where ever I can find a willing page – a willing ear.
Now, tell ya what pardner; next time you make introductions of yourself on a new site, don’t barge in with your middle finger raised high and spitting in everyone’s eye. First impressions count for a lot, and bad ones take some time to live down.
You did better by asking questions this time.
\\][//
Take it to the people, so that it can keep being spread to continue the ripple effect.
Look how much “success” AE911Truth has had with their efforts to take the evidence to government employees.
R. Buckminster Fuller said: “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
\\][//
Broken Record,
Yes we take it to the people of the world and we expose the illigitimate government for what it really is. Once people get angry enough (which will only happen once their situation becomes totally intolerable) they will rise up and abolish this and hopefully all illigitimate governments and bring in a new age of peace and prosperity for all mankind. Along with that revolution will come some justice for 9/11 and other staged false flag events where those involved in them and those who covered them up will be tried in a real court of law and dealt the justice they so richly deserve.
In my opinion a real revolution will have to occur before there will be any justice for 9/11. The powers that be are so deeply involved in the crime itself that they literally cannot survive complete exposure. Therefore the existing power structure MUST deny 9/11 truth and prevent justice for 9/11 at all costs. The cost of 9/11 truth you see is their heads rolling. That is why it is naive to take this to the government as you suggested.
Not only, but also ‘…. nothing will ever come out of these silly debates and discussions …’ well something does come out, it has come out. One recent example. msm headline ‘was Boston a false flag?’ which at least acknowledged the existence of false flags was response to these ‘silly debates and discussions’. We shouldn’t forget that any event or forum discussing the shenanigans of the ‘powers that shouldn’t be’ is a thorn in their side.
Absolutely Mr. Whitesands,
It is very good to remind what our actual task is as Dissident Critics of the illegitimate state; to provide the logic and perspective to see beyond the veils of statist propaganda. It is our task to detail and reveal the techniques, the MO, the profile of the operendi and operations of the statists and their false-framing of the current paradigm.
This is the Mind War – sometimes cliche’ in it’s presentation – yet the most crucial battle.
That battle is speaking Truth, not only to authority, but most importantly those under the enchantment of that authority.
The Pen is mightier than the Sword. Knowledge is Power. Do not disdain our worth as though it is futile. That is defeatism, a self fulfilling meme of surrender.
\\][//
One thing is for sure, an online “debate” with these people is pointless. There are many posts above which link to very detailed rebuttals of the bs “arguments” put forward claiming that there is evidence for an alleged impact. Compared to lazy one-liners, dodges and absenteeism. Face to face, I’d like to see the same responses. And there’d be no ducking out for a day or two just to come back and repeat the same lazy, debunked tripe.
Yea Slice,
I noticed we got another load of psychobabble from our resident crank A. Wright today.
Anything to oink on and on about and take up space…typical mainstream static.
\\][//
Willy,
Yeah, Wright is a waste of time. He makes a statement, gets rebutted, disappears. Much like Honegger and Deets (I tried to be civil – doesn’t work). It’s always been a three (or four, five) prong attack on any blog or forum where the Pentagon is discussed.
One is usually a government loyalist, one is an alleged “truther” playing government loyalist games in the way they “debate” (Good, Legge, Sarns, Snowcrash and now apparently Deets) and reading off the same script but throwing enough ambiguity about to keep that truthery veneer. And there’s always one with a baseless and contradictory theory to add to the soup (yes, Barbara, you) like onebornfree.
Flight 77, NOC impact, 2 planes, Skywarrior, missile. All with the same “conclusion”. That an airborne object struck the building. OCT and POCT (partial) theories.
There is no “POCT” folks. And the OCT has no legs whatsoever.
Grow a pair and debate the subject.
@Hybridrogue1
I didn’t realize you were passing on your title of resident crank..I’m honored. I’d better brush up on the old Hegelian Dialectics and start some interminable discourse with El Senor Once, the reading of which to interrogation subjects has been successfully trialled as a viable substitute for waterboarding.
Tell you what Wright,
Speaking of Hegel…
Why don’t you brush up on ‘Stage-Left’ and ‘Stage-Right’, and figure out that stage left is POV-Right according camera. Once you have gotten to a point where you can hold this in mind; I want you to tell me why Hemphill’s testimony describes NOC. And I want you to tell me where he was the morning of 9/11 and where the Citgo station was from his POV even though his POV was Stage Right from looking at him from the Pentagon. Got that?
And when you finish doing that. bring in the dog and put out the cat.
\\][//
@Hybidrogue1
I have an idea rather than you telling me or me telling you what Albert Hemphill saw, didn’t see etc. or interpreting what he saw or didn’t see, why not invite him to this conference in Washington and ask him? This conference that is supposed to be trying and find out what happened at the Pentagon. Wouldn’t that be the best way of doing it? Or would your rather have the luxury of interpreting what he said? Or would you prefer it if he wasn’t invited- or if he was invited that he didn’t turn up? There seems to be a reluctance to contemplate the idea of the actual witnesses being asked to this conference, (apart from those at Shanksville) presumably so the self-appointed expert invitees can promote their pet theories without the encumbrance of actually having to deal with the evidence of the people who were there- people who bascially shake their heads and laugh at these silly theories but, after all, what do they know?
My cat has a good laugh at them too.
How many eyewitnesses would you invite to address the conference, A. Wright? How would you choose who would and wouldn’t be chosen? Do you believe the eyewitness accounts are the only valuable pieces of information in a case like this?
Craig,
If A.Wright refuses to answer all questions and fails to respond to critics points then he is not following the rules of this or any discussion forum. He evades or ignores when he should by all rights be required to respond yet he is still given latitude to question and badger others. He is a troll in every sense of the word and if he refuses to respond to your question which by the way others have already asked him in this very thread then he should be bounced out of here. Trolling has been against the rules since the beggining of blogging and it is because trolls only detract from discussions and disrupt them rather than contribute.
If he refuses to respond to your question then send his ass out of here with predjudice. Frankly I am sick of his BS and giving him free reign to question, badger, insult, and belittle others while not responding to anything they say is giving him and other trolls an advantage they should not be given. Any debate rules you care to look at require opponents to address the topic at hand AND respond to each others statements and rebuttals. Failure to do so means YOU LOSE the debate. Failure to respond effectively with a substantial counter argument means YOU LOSE the debate. Now ask yourself if A.Wright is adhering to any sort of debate or forum rules in this regard? In my view he is not discussing anything in good faith he is only attacking truthers in any way he can. He is pure negativity, a troll, a JREFer, an official story koolaid drinker, an operative here to ruin your forum. He adds nothing, he only detracts. Make him answer or F off back to JREF where he can jerk off the rest of the trolls.
This is why I asked him questions.
Yes Craig I know you are doing the right thing by not banning him flippantly or without ample evidence to support the action. I was just laying out the criteria I use to identify trolls because the way they behave sometimes seems like they are participating in a real back and forth when in reality they are dodging or derailing. I know you see it too and I do commend you for your restraint in dealing with these trolls and operatives. Wright has hung himself at this point though through his long history on this blog.
Since I have put questions to A. Wright, I do expect to hear his answers. I don’t know if I deserve to be commended for restraint; I do think that what he writes is so weak and transparently bogus that I don’t give him the thought or attention that some might wish. But I try to remain open to listening to anyone who feels that a participant here is debating in bad faith.
@Craig McKee
As a quick answer , the question of who I would invite to this conference? -I already gave that answer – it’s in my post above, in answer to Paul Zarembka – I would invite all the witnesses, and I’ve said why I would invite them. The corollary of that question would be ‘who would I not invite’ – why would I or anyone not invite some witness? What reason would I or anyone else have to be picking and choosing between witnesses except to be picking and choosing between evidence? You said in you other post there how there was no evidence of plane hitting the Pentagon, and here you are asking how I would decide which witnesses to invite.
When I suggest inviting witnesses Paul Zarembka replied with maybe the last question I would have expected – which witnesses would I invite , how would I choose from 100+ witnesses (notice Hybridrogue , he was the one who said 100+ witnesses) and what is the reaction from various people like Adam Ruff? I said something wrong apparently
“By the way (A.Wright) seriously misrepresents past exchanges so anything he says or claims about what others said or claimed needs to be verified at the source since Wright twists and contorts everything. I think you are wasting your time talking to him at all but it may be instructive in the end I guess. Just remember that everything he says needs to be double-checked at the source in order to expose what he is actually doing here. A.Wright is here to lie, distort, twist the truth, to promote the official story and make it seem plausible, and lastly to waste our time and sap our energy. I have personally gone back and cross verified that A.Wright does misrepresent past exchanges and statements and he distorts virtually everything truthers have said or done. If he says “Ranke said blah blah blah” you can bet your bottom dollar Ranke didn’t say it or that it was grossly distorted or taken completely out of context. This is why it is such a monumental waste of time to interact with this troll A.Wright.”
That’s a strange reaction to my suggestion, and from someone who when asked to give an example where I’ve twisted or distorted facts or anything else , was not even bothered to back it up, something that according to him people should be banned for, not responding to questions and trolling etc. Not that I am expecting him to back it up.
Your other question Mr.McKee was about other evidence – as I’ve said constantly here all of the evidence has to be assessed – the alternative is someone saying ‘I don’t like that piece of evidence, we don’t want to see that’.
Speaking to the comment by A.Wright JULY 24, 2013 – 1:56 AM:
I have to say that on the one hand, I am impressed with this, and might say Wright has the aptitude to write for executive teleprompters for talking heads addressing TVZombies with seemingly plausible psychobabble. But that would mean the same thing I and others here have meant in discussing his supremely disingenuous presence as a PR agent for the standard line of lingual flatulence of the Official Story of Blunderland.
What is his proposal if not expansively impractical, steeped in ignorance of 12 years of deep research, and made to give a sheen of substance to pure gas. It is as if all that has gone before must be disregarded, and a new blank slate begun anew – and presenting such a concept as if it were genuine, when Wright should be [SHOULD BE] well aware of the parsing of wheat and chaff for these long years of study and research.
Note also that Wright is proposing that the critical public achieve on a shoestring that which the “government” itself refused to fund and attempt.
As for Wrights mewing about us charging that he never answers questions asked, and that even when he poses as if he is that they are non-answers {such as the current serving of tripe] I refuse to go back through all of the threads an dig up all of the questions I have asked of this character over the course of a year and a half here. In fact going to the effort of making this reply is enough to tighten my jaw.
\\][//
See what I mean? Hop, skip, jump and dump your load Wright. Away back to your bed and pretend that your family are in the safe hands of the psychopaths you’re defending. That your kids or your family’s kids have nothing to fear in the next few years after you’re gone.
Sleep tight.
If you are not an Amerikan Mr Wright, what are you? Simply a universalist ghoul? Have you really no concept of the butchery the west has brought upon, Latin America, the Philippines, Indonesia, Korea, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and most recently Yugoslavia, then the Middle East, and now northern Africa? And all of this on top of what is likely the worst genocide in world history, that of the Native Americans of the northern continent. You seem to have successfully buried your own humanity deep inside…you are Renfield.
\\][//
Willy,
He’ll never deviate off of his script. Why? If he were to talk about any of the atrocities that you mentioned (let’s include the WMD lies) where the US/UN are guilty of aiding, financing and promoting, he’d have to tamper with that very script he keeps quoting when discussing 9/11.
He wouldn’t be able to quote “government sources” as he’d be quoting admitted pathological liars, psychopaths and genocidists and those who cover their tracks.
He wouldn’t be able to quote media sourced information as he’d be quoting the mouthpieces of the above mentioned (let’s not forget that he quoted a FOX news story a week or two ago in response to the solid TWA800 information)
He wouldn’t be able to quote the censored and fiddled “government agency reports” (ASCE, NIST, NORAD) because they are involved in the same self censorship and lying to cover for the psychopaths.
He treats posters here as JREFers treat uninformed “twoofers” but he knows people here are informed and can back up what we say. That’s why he has to run away, ignore and play games.
What’s funny is that he has about as much credibility as onebornfree!
Nah…Wright has as much credibility as a hollow point condom.
\\][//
Perhaps Mr Wright can tell us where to acquire a laughing cat anywhere buy in Wonderland?
\\][//
Here’s a question (well, a double barrelled question) for Wright, which I know he won’t answer. Man, if he doesn’t bother his arse to answer the owner of the blog….
He says that witnesses should be invited to this event. If they were to attend and continue to overwhelmingly describe the NOC flightpath despite its implications (as they have told CIT), will he accept what they described seeing?
Who exactly would he invite?
If the same sort of event had arisen regarding TWA800, what would he say to the hundreds of witnesses who described a missile trail streaking upwards from the horizon/mid-point in the sky?
Who am I tring to kid expecting an answer from this slippery troll….
PS Here’s Albert Hemphill’s NOC account, and the reason that he probably wouldn’t attend
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1704&st=0&#entry2464894
I must say OSS,
Your presentation on P4T:
“Pentagon Witness List, No more numbers games…”
Is one of the finest and most important additions to the literature of the Pentagon 9/11 event
Bravo sir!!
\\][//
If you want to see magic with A. Wright, simply apply Skinnerian psychology and watch what happens.
The problem I have with these type of conferences at this point and time with the 9/11 Truth Movement, is that these are primarily educational and intellectual exercises taken hostage by academics of some quality or another of the already converted. The 9/11 Truth Movement was never unfortunately, a people’s movement where in the end, a real investigation took place with subpoena power to hold officials accountability to tell the truth with the promise of perjury and obstruction of justice if they don’t. Once the official narrative by the government held firm in the minds of too many, all the evidence in the world didn’t matter.
However, I’d love to go to a conference where they discuss plans and progress toward getting subpoena power to force officials to testify regarding the events of 9/11.
“..plans and progress toward getting subpoena power to force officials to testify regarding the events of 9/11.”~Dsn6
We have been discussing the utter corruption of the “government” here for at least the last quarter of this thread Dsn6. So the question now arises; where does one get “subpoena power”? The all to obvious answer is that subpoenas are issued by the authority of the state, a judicial branch function.
You might just as well discuss plans for sacrificing a blue ox to the god Thor so that he would strike the perpetrators with lightning.
\\][//
Hybrid: I hope you notice this, as I believe I have been quite the polite poster, absence of snark and other boorish behavior. In the future, I’d prefer you take the whole of my post and not just some segment of it, which you treated like a piñata, treating me like some hayseed dipstick as the whole of the post provides clarity to what you decided to highlight and attack.
In sum, I attempt to avoid msg and I need you to help me avoid snark, as both are toxic. I am asking you to not do something and I believe you can be gracious enough to grant my request.
Dsn6,
You chose your construction and summation thereof. I critiqued what I saw as a fair summation of the rest of your argument. If there is something more compelling in your argument as such you would like to amend your summation, make your case here.
\\][//
Listen Dsn6,
If you feel the sting of rebuke, if you are insulted, if you want an apology, please explain in detail what I would be apologizing for.
I do not pick you out for insult, nor did I mean insult by my remarks. I was making a point that an attempt to turn to “the government” is a futility. It doesn’t matter how you phrase your advice of turning to the government. I cannot see how your remarks can be interpreted in any other way.
If you have anything to say about this, I am interested in hearing you out. If you are simply going to sulk that is entirely your affair.
\\][//
Not mentioned yet on this blog is what happened recently to Mr. Hastings, the reporter who wrote for Rolling Stone Magazine who was killed in a “freak accident”…
Hastings Crash – 2013 Mercedes C250 Coupe.
Questions surrounding Hastings’ untimely death have emerged primarily because the journalist was working on “the biggest story yet” about the CIA before he was killed.
9/11 Connection:
“Another similarly inconvenient witness was Danny Jowenko, a leading Dutch explosives expert and president of his own controlled demolitions company. Having watched the video, Mr. Jowenko claimed Building 7 was “for sure brought down by controlled demolition”. Mr. Jowenko was on his way to give a television interview on the subject when his car mysteriously accelerated, lost its brakes, crashed into a tree and exploded into a fireball killing him instantly”.
Those who are familiar with the Hastings case, will be aware of how much has been revealed about the ease of hijacking a car by remote control:
Clarke said, “There is reason to believe that intelligence agencies for major powers” — including the United States — know how to remotely seize control of a car.
“What has been revealed as a result of some research at universities is that it’s relatively easy to hack your way into the control system of a car, and to do such things as cause acceleration when the driver doesn’t want acceleration, to throw on the brakes when the driver doesn’t want the brakes on, to launch an air bag,” Clarke told The Huffington Post. “You can do some really highly destructive things now, through hacking a car, and it’s not that hard.”
“So if there were a cyber attack on the car [Hasting’s Mercedes] — and I’m not saying there was,” Clarke added, “I think whoever did it would probably get away with it.”~Richard Clarke
\\][//
ww,
i am not very up on the hastings case, and so was not “aware of how much has been revealed about the ease of hijacking a car by remote control.” makes sense re danny jowenko as well.
thanks,
–d
Thanks Dennis,
Always good to hear from you.
I had always assumed foul play in the Jowenko crash. Just the fact of who he was, his expertise, and the fact that he was on his way to an interview that was to be televised, add up to a good case for suspicion. Now the similarity between that crash and the Hastings crash, lends even more fuel to the fire {so to speak}.
\\][//
Pentagon issue: plane, and damage. Two separate issues, or two interlocking? Multiple lines of evidence converge to support that the damage caused to interior of Pentagon (Rings E, D, C) was caused by independent-foci explosive events. Particularly the damage pattern at ring C, included heavily stripped (spalled?) columns at distal locations in ring C, argue for explosive cause.
As to whether a A) a 757 plane flew near the building, B) what path it was on (NOC vs SOC), C) whether it struck the building, and D) what damage it caused, those are all independent questions. Summing up my own digest of the evidence:
A)Plane? A 757 or similar craft flew near to the Pentagon between 9:32 and 9:37am on 9/11/01
B) Path? the near-to-Pentagon craft was seen by numerous witnesses, and on balance witnesses placed the plane on a NOC trajectory (with some exceptions)
C) The plane that flew near the Pentagon may or may not have impacted the building, a frustrating but still open question. Very little physical evidence to support a plane crash at the Pentagon — but the fate of the plane, if no crash, is baffling.
D) IF the plane seen near/at Pentagon on NOC path impacted the building, did this impact cause ALL OBSERVED PHYSICAL EVENTS? Easy answer: No. Pentagon internal damage appear to be explosions at defined sites, including Naval Command Center. Any damage caused by an airplane appears to be either nonexistent or limited to the facade.
Conclusion: Pentagon events were a sophisticated operation involving a magician’s McGuffin *(the plane) and explosives to create the damage (possibly using a model of 757-into-Pentagon to create a plausible pattern — note that Purdue university created this model, apparently after 9/11/01).
MikeC,
I appreciate your commentary here.
The central issue is indeed one of ‘Trajectory’ and the classical mechanics of ‘Crash Analysis’. As you point out, the viable witnesses of the plane’s approach overwhelming describe the NOC. As this is contradictory of the physical evidence of trajectory and crash analysis thereof, that plane did NOT cause the known damage to the Pentagon.
Only Honegger has advanced a theory of a plane crash at another spot {near the helipad} — and this theory has issues that are seemingly too large to dismiss, one glaring one being lack of witnesses and appropriate damage for this second craft.
Have you read her theory and seen her presentation?
\\][//
I have seen Honegger’s paper on the topic. I am troubled by the loose ends it leaves. I find the NOC eyewitness evidence compelling, and that an aircraft was seen near the Pentagon at aroudn the time of one of the explosions. I am not convinced any aircraft struck the Pentagon. The “MASCAL” plane into building drill elegantly accounts for the strange evidence, including downed light poles, llloyd’s wierd cab story (pole into windshield?) and the multipe shiny bits of silver AA fuselage left on ground, which invariably have part of the lettering (odds are against that) — in one blow. A Seattle area first responder suggested the “Plane at Pentagon Drill” theory.
“B) Path? the near-to-Pentagon craft was seen by numerous witnesses, and on balance witnesses placed the plane on a NOC trajectory (with some exceptions)
C) The plane that flew near the Pentagon may or may not have impacted the building, a frustrating but still open question.”
You seem to not understand that an NOC plane cannot hit the light poles or the Pentagon’s first floor and match up with the fraudulent/doctored 5 video frames and black box data, directional damage, or light pole damage path.
Also, there are no exceptions. There are no SoC witnesses.
@Broken Record
You said there
“You seem to not understand that an NOC plane cannot hit the light poles or the Pentagon’s first floor and match up with the fraudulent/doctored 5 video frames and black box data, directional damage, or light pole damage path.”
If you take the ‘fraudulent/doctored’ out of that and examine that statement objectively you should realise that there is more that one possible explanation for contradictory evidence. The CIT people think there is only one. And of course it is the one they suspected all along. It’s called conformation bias. Add to that an illogical flawed analysis of evidence and the result is a firm conviction in an implausible, foolish theory.
“It’s called conformation bias.”~A. Wright
Yes, exactly that, conformation bias combined with obedience to authority and normalcy bias; which defines you to a tee.
It is beyond plausible that the plane witnessed flew the NOC path, it is certain beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, it is absolutely impossible for the plane to have struck the building at the trajectory shown in the damage. When the impossible is eliminated, that which is left, regardless of how seemingly unlikely, is the truth.
The staging of the knocked down light poles is hardly implausible. The faking of the security video is hardly implausible. The planting of the exceedingly small amount of debris on the lawn is hardly implausible.
Ignoring all of the physical evidence brought forward by Pilots 4T, and especially the work of Onesliceshort, that has been made available for you to assess, only proves how willfully ignorant you are Wright. An airplane did NOT strike the Pentagon.
You are a fool to keep showing your utter stupidity here on this forum.
\\][//
@Hybridrogue1
quote: “An airplane did NOT strike the Pentagon.”
I was actually going by the witnesses who were there , during and after the event. I can see why you would not be happy to invite them to this conference , they only get in the way of the important investigative work of distorting and obfuscating their evidence until it bears little or no resemblance to it. Or just simply denying it’s existence.
‘When you first eliminate the truth, whatever is left ,no matter how improbable….” Epitaph for the 911 truth movement
“I was actually going by the witnesses who were there”~A. Wright
No you aren’t Wright, you don’t even know which witnesses to cite.
There is nothing to argue with you about, you don’t have anything specific to say about anything.
Again you are just spinning wheels here, an endless carousel of bullshit.
\\][//
I suggest that any plane seen at Pentagon was on a NOC trajectory. I cannot explain where it went, the evidence is lacking.
I suggest also that the SOC light pole etc downing/ path is fabricated — part of a drill SIMULATING what a plane-into-Pentagon would do.
Some 1st responder personnel who were NOT working the Pentagon, suggest that there may have been a high-fidelity Drill running on 9/11/01 AM, which was to SIMULATE a 757 into the Pentagon. In support of that drill, realistic smoke and flame, and even aircraft fuselage or skin, was to be included. Certain individuals may have had the role of actors. Light poles were removed and laid down as if impacted. A taxicab windshield was deliberately damaged with a hammer, and a pole placed nearby. Heavy black smoke belched up from near a generator area. This high-fidelity drill SIMULATING a plane crash would have tested both Pentagon personnel as well as Pentagon, Arlington, and DC area 1st responders. (in fact, the NRO was running a plane-into-building scenario drill on 9/11).
The curious details of the drill (light poles, smokepot generator), if true, would add to the confusion about the actual cause of physical events. Lloyde England, the taxi driver, alludes to his involvement obliquely in one of his interviews. The name of this drill and agency conducting it are not known.
MikeC,
Interesting if indeed true. Do you have a source for where these non-pentagon responder personnel made this suggestion? I can certainly believe that this was likely the case. People like Lloyd England could have been used, and then later threatened/bought off.
One thing we DO know is that almost a year before 9/11, the Pentagon conducted a drill called MASCAL, short for Mass Casualty. It was a drill to see how emergency teams would respond to an attack on the Pentagon; and the drill featured a model airplane crashing into a model of the Pentagon. This exercise was not about preventing an attack on the Pentagon, it was about reacting to a disaster scenario in the event that an attack was successful. The source for this was the military’s own website, from late 2000. However, several years later, when 9/11 skeptics started to question the Pentagon ‘attack,’ the military scrubbed this evidence from their own site. Fortunately, archive.org snapshot it and other websites covered its existence.
http://web.archive.org/web/20041214161246/http://www.mdw.army.mil/content/anmviewer.asp?a=290
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkXbHmk89y0
Adam Syed,
It’s great, your bringing this up. It is quite revealing when an engineered tactical deception is in play, not only is the current exposition tightly controlled, but the past has to be scrubbed as well.
As good as these operators are supposed to be, they obviously can’t think of every single detail. And that is why the system relies in the main, on flooding the popular perception with lollipop static and vapid addicting entertainments.
\\][//
@Adam Syed
Where does it say that this drill was about an ‘attack’ on the Pentagon, rather than a plane crash at the Pentagon. Since the Pentagon is very close to the airport and planes fly past it constantly taking off and landing , the idea of a plane crashing into it is a very plausible emergency scenario that people should prepare for. What relevance has this to the plane crashing into the Pentagon on 911 apart from the fact that it would have helped that an exercise like this had been done and may have helped to save some lives on the day.
Mr. Wright should pay attention to this shining snail-track advice from GW:
“You can fool some of the people all of the time. Those are the ones you should concentrate on.”– George W. Bush
Recognize that you are in the wrong place for your hoodoo bullshit Wright.
\\][//
HybridRogue:
“Who can you hold accountable?”~Broken Record
Yourself. Ourselves. We do the best we can with what we got.
[…]
Now, tell ya what pardner; next time you make introductions of yourself on a new site, don’t barge in with your middle finger raised high and spitting in everyone’s eye. First impressions count for a lot, and bad ones take some time to live down.
You did better by asking questions this time.
==================================================================
What if your best is not good enough? I understand if you are Canadian or not American as my comments were more directed to the Americans writing on this topic. Although I feel Canadians can also go to governmernt officials and “do their best” to get this evidence in front of them and document their inaction.
Frankly, you all need to hear what I said regardless of the middle finger or virtual spit in your face. You are just wasting your time making yourself feel useful.
“Frankly, you all need to hear what I said regardless of the middle finger or virtual spit in your face. You are just wasting your time making yourself feel useful.” ~Broken Record
Thank you and fuck you too. So are you typing this from your Senators office after laying the “goods” on him?
Frankly, you need to hear what I, and we said in response to you. And if you find that as futile as I,or we find going to government officials, that dear sir is your opinion. You are welcome to it.
I would also note that although chocolate anemones look like flowers they are actually predators.
\\][//
Adam Syed
July 22, 2013 – 7:54 pm Take it to the people, so that it can keep being spread to continue the ripple effect.
Look how much “success” AE911Truth has had with their efforts to take the evidence to government employees.
=======================================================================
So when you take it to people, where have they taken it? Where do they take it? How has taking anything ‘9/11 truth’ to “the people” worked out??? This is just a case of relying on others to do something you can all do yourselves.
ruffadam
July 22, 2013 – 11:29 pm Broken Record,
Yes we take it to the people of the world and we expose the illigitimate government for what it really is. Once people get angry enough (which will only happen once their situation becomes totally intolerable) they will rise up and abolish this and hopefully all illigitimate governments and bring in a new age of peace and prosperity for all mankind. Along with that revolution will come some justice for 9/11 and other staged false flag events where those involved in them and those who covered them up will be tried in a real court of law and dealt the justice they so richly deserve.
[…]
That is why it is naive to take this to the government as you suggested.
=======================================================================
So how did it work out when everyone took 9/11 truth to “the people of the world”? You do realize people don’t care about 9/11 truth anymore right? It’s in the past. They are only going to respond MSM reports covering and validating the evidence or gov’t officials launching informal/formal investigations.
You seem to be gung-ho about confronting people ‘WAC-Style”. Why don’t you confront or contact reporters or gov’t officials about the NoC/Lloyde England/PFT black box evidence? Their e-mails are right there on their articles and websites. I have personally spoke with aides and even members of gov’t who have expressed interest in the info. What comes of that remains to be seen.
I just see all of this as delusion and zero direction.
In my view you have a very naive understanding of just how corrupt our government really is. It is your opinion that you/we/truthers can get government officials somehow to take action about 9/11. It is my opinion that attempting to convince government officials to take action is a fool’s errand and a monumental waste of time and effort. In fact it has already been proven to be a complete waste of time. Activists have already personally gone to the offices of each and every senator and many representatives, governors, AG’s, judges, state officials etc and hand delivered the best evidence we had at the time (namely the thermite paper and Gage’s presentation). All that effort and time and expense yielded NOTHING of any importance.
There is a reason no government officials with any real power will help us but you apparently are not aware of it. The reason is simple: self preservation. Our government cannot survive 9/11 truth, period! Real truth will lead to real revolution because Broken Record EVERYONE at the top was either involved in carrying out the crimes of 9/11 or they were and still are directly involved in covering it up. In either case they are ALL guilty of mass murder and/or treason which both carry the death penalty. They will be hung from trees by huge angry lynch mobs if the real truth of their crimes is exposed. They will fight tooth and nail against us and they are doing exactly that because their very survival depends on it.
Now as to your complaint about us wasting our time debating like a “broken record” let me say how wrong you are about that. This site and the articles and discussions here are a knife to the heart of the 9/11 perps and the defenders of the official story. This place is a meat grinder for disinformationists, trolls, and the bad guys themselves. This site has an impact on others you simply cannot quantify. In addition to that our best arguments and evidence are tested here in the real fires of real debate. Weak arguments and disinformation are quickly destroyed here which is why you will not see Honegger debate here, you will not see Legge debate here, or Bursill, or Chandler, or any of the 9/11 blogger mods, or really any of the disinformationists who attack CIT or P4T. You know why they will not come here and really engage in a back and forth debate? For the same reason they will not accept debate challenges from CIT, because they get their asses royally kicked here just the way they would if they debated CIT in public. Any truther who survives here is going to be among the most well informed and capable truthers anywhere and a powerful weapon of influence in the wider world. You cannot quantify the impact that has on the world, you can attempt to belittle the impact this blog has and belittle those of us who participate here but it is an attempt that ultimately fails and is itself a big waste of time and completely counter-productive.
You could instead of belittling us participate in the discussions here and add your ideas for activism and try to inspire others to take action. I for one am all about taking action which is why I have done so many things for 9/11 truth now that I have forgotten many of them. I have done dozens of video productions including interviewing Craig Ranke, Richard Gage, Dillon Avery, Jeremy Roth Kushell, and more activists than I can count. I took on the Simon Wiesenthal Institute on behalf of Richard Gage, took on Bill Maher, etc. I have helped organized large groups of activists through WACLA, I have written many articles about 9/11, passed out literally thousands of DVDs and fliers many at my own expense. I have been at this for 12 years now and I have written so many thousands of pages on blogs and forums all over the place that I have no idea how many millions of people have read them by now. I have done the same for the Oath Keepers which is another cause I support 100% and put my ass on the line for. I have done interviews with Stewart Rhodes, Sheriff Richard Mack, and so many others again I have lost count. I have signed petitions until I was blue in the face, I have written government officials countless times even though it was pointless to do so which I now realize. The bottom line is I have done everything I can to promote the 9/11 truth cause and other causes that I possibly can.
I find it extremely irritating to be lectured to by someone like you who is probably a complete noob when it comes to activism. Real activism involves putting your body in the gears of the machine to stop it from working. Holding signs and marching and signing petitions and sending letters and calling government officials is all well and good however it is nothing more than fledgling first steps into the world of real activism. Gandhi and his friends faced baton wielding thug police who smashed in their heads and they kept on coming. Following the British army murdering over two thousand unarmed people with a machine gun they kept coming. They eventually won. That is real bravery and real activism of the kind we do not have here in the USA even among truthers. All the government had to do to stop the occupy movement for example was to show up with police and rough up a few people and they all turned tail and fled.
So Broken Record what have you done that makes you so much better than us? Are you willing to hunger strike like Blair Gadsby did for 9/11 truth? Are you willing to risk being beaten up by security guards to interrupt Bill Maher’s live TV show like my friend Randy and Bruno did? Are you willing to be arrested? Are you willing to quit your job like I did because they required me to recruit for Blackwater? Are you willing to face baton wielding thugs with me and the VERY few others with the guts to do it? If so then step forward and be counted among the real activists. Tell us your ideas and if they are good we will support them. Tell us your plan and if it is better than going to government officials with hat in hand to beg for action they will never take then some of us might be willing to help. The belittling and insults you can keep.
Adam Syed
July 22, 2013 – 7:54 pm
Look how much “success” AE911Truth has had with their efforts to take the evidence to government employees.
=======================================================================
I’m sorry, but AE911Truth does not have the same kind of evidence as CIT/PFT. They have professional opinion and hotly debated science as their evidence, albeit strong hotly debated evidence that can still easily be and has been neutralized or shown to be inconclusive by overwhelming scientific counter-jargon from the “other side”.
The NOC/Lloyde England/PFT black box evidence is something people can touch and feel and can’t just brush off. These unwitting and reluctant witnesses can be forced to testify, Lloyde England can be forced to testify… black box evidence can be submitted as scientific data and can’t be debated. It is tangible evidence and most importantly proves 9/11 was an actual gov’t/military/intelligence operation. The AE911truth CD evidence can still be blamed on Al Quaeda or simply accepted as happening but with no real suspects or evidence proving the gov’t was involved. Staged light poles and flyover planes absolutely proves gov’t involvement.
Broken Record,
My apologies for the delay in reply; hopefully you’ll see this.
I do not know how 100% airtight the nanothermite paper is; I don’t have the chemistry background to judge. I am suspicious of it because Frank Legge and Kevin Ryan are among the listed authors. But forget the nanothermite paper, or the issue of how many “professionals” support AE vs. the official story. It is incontrovertible that the WTC was brought down with controlled demolition, especially Building 7. The video alone is extremely strong smoking gun evidence. We still don’t have a video showing the Pentagon event, but do have ample video of WTC7.
As far as “counter jargon” goes: we have it in both instances: the WTC evidence and the NoC evidence.
In the case of the former, there are the few govt loyalist “scientists” like Bazant, Eagar etc. There is the talking point that “for every A/E who has signed the AE911truth petition, there are a thousand who haven’t, and they have no qualms with the official story.
The average person, experiencing cognitive dissonance, can dismiss the WTC on the simple ground of: “Well, some professionals support the demolition theory, but it seems most professionals, by and large, support the official theory, so… [shrugs, throws hands in the air] …I just don’t know, and to be honest, we’ll probably never know, and there’s really nothing we can do about it.
In the case of the NoC, the counter-jargon exists with the various blogs that attempt to make a case for the official SoC path being true. Yes, you and I, or anyone who’s studied the subject in depth, know that this claim is bullshit.. However, look at how the “counter jargon” effectively cognitively infiltrated the mind of Richard Gage. I remember when Rob Balsamo showed me the exchange he had with Richard after he pulled his support for CIT in 2011. A snippet of it reads:
So, if Richard Gage’s mind was able to be cognitively infiltrated with such “counter-jargon,” why won’t this also be the case with government officials? And remember, Richard fell back on the excuse of being too busy to study the subject in super depth.
Mr Syed,
You say, “Richard fell back on the excuse of being too busy to study the subject in super depth.”
I don’t think that is an “excuse” at all. After all Gage is an architect, and he is mainly concerned with the demolition aspects of WTC. I wouldn’t put Gage in the same category as Legge by any means. Legge has actively attacked the CIT diagnosis, Gage simply does not want involvement with the controversy.
As far as the Thermite paper, I don’t think you need to be a chemist to grasp the argument as it has been made both to the scientific community via the paper itself, and explained for the pedestrian by many of the same authors in other commentary.
I took it upon myself to dig into the research of Solgels, and such other nano technologies. It may be high tech stuff, but a reasonably intelligent person can understand this topic with enough research and effort. I have learned more about physics and chemistry in the last twelve years than I knew for the greater portion of my existence here.
WTC was my main topic, along with the general topic of tying all of the 9/11 events together as a whole case.
The case for controlled demolition of WTC is beyond a reasonable doubt. It equals the Pentagon evidence in strength. I am not talking to “jargon” I am speaking to scientific and logical investigatory matters.
I’ll leave the jargon for the jargoneers who might pop up at this point…
\\][//
Unfortunately, Richard magnified the controversy with his “Complete withdrawal of support for CIT.” In publishing this, he took sides – and the wrong side at that. Richard admitted to me that his involvement in the Pentagon “controversy” was divisive for the movement.
“There’s so much evidence of explosions. The researcher who has done the most work on this subject is Graeme MacQueen, who was among the presenters in Toronto. He has looked at all the firefighter accounts, about 150 of which mention explosions.”~Craig McKee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G1zED8dy63w&t=27
\\][//
Broken Record, in her/his 7-24 comment, features the weaknesses of the 9/11 Pentagon conspiracy compared to the WTC conspiracy: activism on it is contingent on analyzing non-trivial information, which (s)he kindly enumerates. As such, under the background of the 9/11 censorship, the conspiracy by which just about every watchdog who should denounce 9/11 will not do so, activism on this conspiracy is a Sisyphean task: should a large part of the public ever understand the conspiracy, the watchdogs, led by TV, will simply engage in some intense disinformation campaign at the middle school level to ridicule it.
By contrast, activism on the 9/11 WTC conspiracy features an entry point that TV and the watchdogs not only are unable to ridicule, but also will inevitably confirm any time they mention it: the striking resemblance between the motion of Building 7’s destruction and the motion of a controlled demolition, which leads straight to TV’s worldwide failure to produce an inexpensive and riveting documentary on “the little office fire that could” outsmart the best demolition engineers and their crews. This entry point into 9/11 is TV-proof, watchdog-proof, and leads people to wonder not only what exactly happened to WTC7, but also and more importantly how misinformed the public may be on other important subjects.
Therefore, discerning activists who wish to fix and save the world will table the Pentagon questions and will instead teach the above to their acquaintances, under the nose and in spite of TV and the watchdogs. Once the 9/11 censorship is out of the way, the Pentagon controversy will solve itself.
Love,
@Daniel Noel
Can I ask if wanting to fix and save the world requires people to believe some particular explanation about the collapse of WTC7 on September 11th 2001 , because I am always hearing that the explanation for that is all about objective science and physics. Is believing that a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon that day also required in order to belong to this club with these laudable aims (believing that it just hit the building being something less laudable, even in fact reprehensible) because I’m also told that this is to do with objective physics and with aerodynamics etc. and therefore not dependent on belief in any particular political cause or agenda. It would certainly explain why saying ‘A plane crashed into the Pentagon’ is so unpopular that it attracts accusations of being an enemy of peace and universal harmony and an advocate of wars and torture. And this is from people who think that even if the plane did crash into the Pentagon that it, like the planes that they have no problem believing hit the WTC, was crashed there in a big black operation by the US Government in any case.
Dan,
I humbly suggest that Broken Record is correct when it comes to the strength of the Pentagon evidence and (s)he is correct about the weaknesses of the CD case. I recommend that you take a crash course in the Pentagon evidence because once you do give it the time and effort you have given to the case for CD you are going to experience a real revalation. You are going to KNOW why the Pentagon evidence is so conclusive and powerful proof of an inside job. The case for CD is very strong do not get me wrong and it is strong with or without the thermite paper and evidence. Video and witness evidence is strong enough to prove CD all by itself. Broken Record is correct however in that CD if proven to the public at large can still be blamed on selected patsies or fall guys. The problem is that proving CD does not prove who did it. The staged crime scene at the Pentagon however can ONLY be blamed on government insiders simply because no one else could stage a crime scene at the pentagon. The Pentagon evidence is therefore in a different category than the CD evidence and is much more dangerous to the real perps. Study CIT’s materials and study Pilots For 9/11 Truth materials related to the Pentagon in depth and you will have your revelation believe me.
As far as A.Wright goes I recommend you do not waste your time with such a koolaid drinking troll. He is only here to waste your time.
A. Wright, do you know Mr. Steven R. Corman?
Are you in fact a, Ms Avery Wright?
Not that I would expect you to actually cop to it…Lol
\\][//
@Hybridrogue1
No, have another guess. Actually I think I said at one stage that my name wasn’t A.Wright , it’s just a name of an author I picked off the bookshelf- I think a book of aircraft registrations- and I’m not even an American. I suppose there is no use saying I am just an ordinary office worker with no connection to any of the things you seem to imagine, because you are not going to believe me, but that’s the truth for what it’s worth. I wish I could tell you I was part of some Cointelpro operation or something.. .
Adam:
Your post makes very good points, until you, not unlike Broken Record, state that “the Pentagon evidence is […] much more dangerous [than the CD evidence] to the real [9/11] perps. This is a common error among 9/11 dissidents. It ignores the existence and effectiveness of the 9/11 censorship, the process by which just about all important watchdogs who should squarely denounce 9/11 (principal socialist/green/individual rights/pacifist/union/media/mental health/Muslim/”enemy”/terrorist/etc. leaders and groups) appear to be committed to living the “Osama bin Laden did it all with their hijacked airplanes” myth. The 9/11 censorship is the real protection not only of the actual terrorists who wreaked the 9/11 terror, but also of the public servants who engineered their — rather sloppy — interagency cover-up with the above-mentioned myth.
Accordingly, the most dangerous 9/11 conspirators, contrary to what many 9/11 dissidents believe, are not the actual agents of terror, nor the much more numerous public servants who engineered their cover and protection, but the still more numerous watchdogs who have knowingly been sending for a decade their gullible supporters on wild goose chases — like ending the open-ended Afghan war — that 9/11 Truth would nullify.
Assuming that somehow the CIT/Pilots for Truth information becomes understood by enough people to bother the Master 9/11 conspirators, the Master 9/11 conspirators may simply request the above-mentioned watchdogs to discredit it. Because understanding CIT/Pilots for Truth’s work requires a non-negligible intellectual effort, it can easily be undermined by a disinformation campaign that controls just about every bully pulpit and ridicules CIT/Pilots for Truth’s work at the middle school level.
By contrast, assuming that the knowledge — compatible with the official 9/11 myth and therefore impossible to undermine — of Building 7’s miraculous office fire that outsmarted the best demolition engineers in the world becomes common, the same watchdogs will find it much more difficult to ridicule at the middle school level. More importantly, some of them, namely the mass media and the major civil engineering outfits like the ASCE — may find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to explain why they did not promote it to the public. As such, this information stands a much better chance of piercing the 9/11 censorship than CIT/Pilots for Truth’s information.
Love,
A. Wright:
“Can I ask if wanting to fix and save the world requires people to believe some particular explanation about the collapse of WTC7 on September 11th 2001?”
You are welcome to ask the question, but your commenting record shows that you will not understand the short answer, which is “yes, wanting to fix and save the world requires people to believe some particular explanation about the collapse of WTC7 on September 11th 2001, unless and until someone comes up with a better way to teach one-to-one, in spite and under the nose of the 9/11 censors, the remarkably effective worldwide, permanent and cross-disciplinary conspiracy that systematically distorts the information humanity receives.”
I applaud your curiosity and empathize with your discomfort with the information offered on this web. I advise you to take a break from this web and instead thoroughly review the elementary conspiracy class, conveniently available at http://www.911babystep.com.
Love,
Actually aka A Wright, it is not at all difficult to believe you are “just an ordinary office worker..” an average conformist, getting along by going along.
I asked the question more in jest. If you were she, your chops would be much more proficiently delivered here. I just don’t understand your persistence here, or why you cannot even to begin to see what is right before your eyes were you to but open them. But I guess the answer is in your ordinariness; your fear of loosing that ordinary mask, and standing out from the crowd you are so desperate to go along with.
You remain ignorant willfully. That is as common as a cubicle in an ordinary work environment. You are one of the millions of roots, that sprouts as evil in this vile paradigm — naïveté is NOT innocence.
\\][//
Dan your whole dialoge about why the CD evidence is more important proves to me that you really do need to take an in depth look at the pentagon evidence as I suggested. It is clear you have not given it the consideration or time it deserves. It is your choice to look into it or not but I have looked into CD AND the pentagon evidence thoroughly enough to say what I say about it with authority you on the other hand have not truly studied the pentagon evidence nearly enough to say with any degree of confidence that CD is stronger. You cannot know that until you know both subjects well. One point I will make to you however is that many truthers feel wrongly that the pentagon evidence is somehow in competition with the CD evidence and that is not the case at all. In fact the pentagon evidence goes hand in hand with the CD evidence and the two lines of evidence both prove the official story is BS. It is just that you do not seem to understand why the spin doctors cannot spin their way out of staging the crime scene at the pentagon. It can’t be done. However they can still blame CD on a patsy of their choice.
If you don’t want to “get it” what I am saying that is your choice, feel free to stick to the CD evidence and ignore the more dangerous (to the perps) pentagon evidence. I will follow both lines of evidence however and have a much more complete and powerful argument as a result.
Mr. Ruff wrote above on July 29, 2013 – 8:18 am:
Proving CD could certainly narrow down the list of suspects significantly, particularly when ~all~ of the evidence is considered and when the thermite paper is cast into the proper light.
What is that proper light? Namely, that thermite — if truly involved at all — did not act alone for either pulverizing the towers or maintaining under-rubble hot-spots. Dr. Jones has admitted such, even while allowing Mr. Gage and the yeomen of the 9/11TM to extrapolate those thermitic findings to explain WTC anomalies that physics says it cannot and isn’t comparatively Occam Razor.
I know you don’t want to mount my Neu Nookiedoo one-trick pony, despite aligned evidence and despite the omissions & games of Dr. Jones in his “no nukes” efforts. Does Dr. Jones ever discuss in that “no nukes” pager possible configurations of neutron bombs that could match tritium measurements, correlated elements in the dust, 1st responder ailments, energy requirements of pulverization, ease of installation, etc.? Nope, making that a pretty glaring omission for a nuclear physicist to make. He malframes in that work by only considering big fission or big fusion devices, as well as by accepting 100% and misusing the govt commissioned study on tritium, a report that had valid but speculative and stilted goals.
Triple-Dubya and I have made too many carousel spins discussing in a Tetris way how the evidence blocks could be oriented for a CD using either “chemical explosives (thermite + other stuff)” or “special configuration of neutron nuclear bombs”. [And remember that the CD does ~not~ have to be of the same form for all buildings in the WTC complex.]
Obviously, I’m of the opinion that the gaps are fewer with neu nookiedoo. But for the sake of discussion, let’s say that the evidence stacks up equally well either way. The cover-up activities of the government & a complicit media are what suggest strongly it was neu nookiedoo.
How so? Because if the CD was “chemical explosives (thermite + other stuff)” [primarily], TPTB could still try to scapegoat a third-party (e.g., 19 stripper-loving, coke-snorting, cave-dwelling, Muslim-extemists) for the “relative” ease (compared to nukes) with which the “chemical explosives (thermite + other stuff)” could be obtained or manufactured, albeit while stumbling over the facts of: (a) massive [& unreasonable] quantities that can’t be acquired at just any WalMart; (b) extended access to secure facilities for CD installation; and (c)_ observable evidence showing massive overkill [e.g., pulverization, free-fall speeds] above and well beyond what was need for the goals of destruction of two symbols of capitalism [the towers].
The neu nookiedoo hobby-horse, on the other hand, would require, say, only a dozen devices per tower, thus shorter facility access for CD installation, and by their very energetic nature gives the observable and unpreventable overkill effects that really mucks with those lame pan-cake & pile-driving excuses from NIST.
Aside from the United States, the list is rather short regarding who would have this unique configuration of neutron bombs: England, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel come to mind, but there might be more (or less). The Dubya sabor-rattling with China over a downed spy-plane prior to 9/11 might suggest China, except that none — not even the USA — were even considered as suspects. TPTB through the media named Osama bin Laden before the dust had settled.
++++++
Mr. Noel has made several excellent postings, although underlying agreement between Mr. Noel and Mr. Ruff on the true substance of each leg that they respectively champion from the large, multi-faceted, shock-&-awe, neo-con con-job is sometimes missed in the disagreement over which aspect of the public-duping plan should have a priority in bring a sheeple to enlightenment. Of course, my Neu Nookiedoo hobby-horse says y’all both been trumped by the message — whether directly or through surrogates — “the guvmint of Merika dun nuked Merika”. Worse, is the pawning of Merika into a frightened, liberty-surrendering TSA/DHS/FEMA-victim.
Mr. Noel wrote:
The news and media have tried to advertise themselves as being one of those watchdogs, the fourth estate, right? The representatives of our local interests who should have been aware, or listening to their constituents (and as a result researching on their own) would be another. I guess it would be fair to say that this is a great example of how money in politics talked, because money for elective office was given by TPTB through their tax-doging 501(c)3 [or whatever IRS designation they got] to candidates who did ~not~ even speak of 9/11.
9/11 – The Defining Line of Conscience, an excerpt:
Like Iceland before us, we the people in order to form a more perfect union must establish government anew. The house-cleaning will be deep; the re-organization significant, even down to the drawing of new regional borders; could make “the guvmint of Merika” and all its institutions obsolete.
The danger is that such radical talk, instead of carving Merika into several manageable regions of autonomy, might consolidate us into the NWO plan, thereby having us play directly into their hand like sheeple that we are.
//
Adam:
I intend to not argue with you, as I keep preaching that anybody who passes the litmus test of the twin towers’ criminal controlled demolition deserves respect. Accordingly, if you find anything offensive in this post, I apologize and humbly state that it was not intentional.
To your point, I do not claim expertise on the 9/11 Pentagon conspiracy. I also respect that you would not want to focus your attention on the 9/11 censorship like I claim to have done. However, I will respectfully challenge you to use the Pentagon to confuse and ridicule belief in the official 9/11 myth as well as I have been doing with Building 7: http://www.global-platonic-theater.com/Censors,%20Handling/Challenging%20on%20Baby%20Step/baron.htm.
As long as the enormous conspiracy that allowed and nurtured the 9/11 censorship exists and as long as the 9/11 myth stays affirmed from big and small pulpits, the 9/11 terrorists and the corrupt public servants who protected them will enjoy impunity, irrespective of the detailed and patient work of CIT, Pilots for Truth, and others. Their clients will use that impunity to goad other terrorists and other public servants to perform and cover other false flags. Therefore, as much as the goal of bringing to criminal justice the 9/11 terrorists and the agents of the fantastic 9/11 aerial ballet is respectable, more important, more urgent and more promising is the goal of canceling the giant conspiracy that makes a large segment of the public take as legal tender a false flag as large, as obvious and as amateurishly covered as 9/11.
Love,
@Daniel Noel
The answer then is that people who want to fix and save the world have to believe in some particular explanation for the collapse of a building. I don’t know what branch of physics that is but I haven’t come across it before. It doesn’t sound like objective science and physics are playing much of a role in this explanation and it seems that any other explanations will be resisted because they can’t be used to further these laudible aims. Not the way to investigate the cause of the collapse of a building. The opposite of the scientific method. Richard Gage travels around giving presentations basically saying ‘I can’t explain the collapse of the WTC buildings’. Do you ever get the impression from Richard Gage that he is trying to explain the collapse of the WTC buildings? I don’t. A scientist or an engineer doesn’t say ‘this is what I know about science and engineering and I can’t explain this -therefore it must be explosives’. It couldn’t be because of his failure to explain it. And that wouldn’t be surprising since he is not trying to explain it. He is trying not to explain it. He is resistant to the idea of explaining it. To explain something you first of all have to be trying to explain it.
As I’ve said here before about these ideas of CIT and P4T, I don’t know how they have persisted for so long with the obvious logical flaws in them. Conducting an investigation into an event, weighing up the evidence and reaching a conclusion, when the evidence that was weighed up didn’t include the evidence contradicting that conclusion, is a pretty basic error to make. You would imagine after a short time that logical flaw would be apparent to the people promoting it but it is a bit much to hear someone like Craig Ranke talking about their conclusive and definitive proof beyond a reasonable doubt etc years later, when they have not followed the most basic rule of evidence assessment and of conducting an investigation. Not that I doubt their sincerity ,but people who are investigating something with the conviction that if they reach certain conclusions they will help in fixing and saving the world are not the people I would rely on for objective assessments of the evidence.
I love how you turn everything on its head. War is peace, love is hate, and all that…
Have you ever been to one of Richard Gage’s presentations? He very clearly explains why the evidence shows that the towers were brought down in a demolition. It’s the official account that ignores science. Same thing with Ranke. His research has shown clearly how the official account of the Pentagon event can’t be true and that a 757 could not have hit that building. But you find all this wonderful science in the official account.
And that nonsense about us wanting to believe because we want to fix the world – you really are full of shit. And unoriginal shit at that.
A Wright:
I can only repeat what I predicted based on your commenting history on this web: you did not understand my short answer to your question, as the last part of it relied on knowledge that could not possibly make any sense to you.
Do not try to understand Mr. Gage’s presentations either.
Instead, you will learn more and faster if you chew harder on the elementary conspiracy class of http://www.911babystep.com. If you wish, try to succeed where prominent 9/11 censors and fanatics have failed: find the lapse of logic in it that is significant enough to invalidate its conclusions and its calls to action.
Love,
Ahhh,,,yea…Wright…that is the most convoluted load of doubltalk you have come up with yet.
WTF?
You must’ve been tipping a few. Are you driving your keyboard drunk?
\\][//
The 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon: the Search for Consensus
Frank Legge. June 2012.
This is the forth or fifth title of a paper that was sent to me as several reworks [PDFs] during my email exchange with Legge. The original working title was ‘Debunking the No Plane Crash at the Pentagon’.
One notices the euphemistic change in the title, but the article is nevertheless an attempt at such a debunking. I suppose most serious researchers here have read this. And suppose that most were able to discern all of the errors of logic, and the spinning rhetorical loop’d’loops Legge contorts to make his “case”. The ‘non-combative’ title is one of the very last changes made.
I am pretty sure that he makes reference to and gives a URL for a PDF of a ‘Witness Spreadsheet’ in the notes of this paper. Those who haven’t studied this should. Although Legge seems to interpret it as strong for the SOC side, it is actually the opposite, as I tried to show him in our email debate. But all should be aware of this work, as it is one of the bases of the counter argument.
\\][//
This is indeed telling. (As if we at this forum hadn’t figured out Legge’s motive.) He was not interested in “finding consensus” at all, he had an assignment to convert people over to the 757 crash view.
Notice the subtle choice of words made by the propagandists.
Adam,
I am sure that “Debunking” was used in the first titles, but I am not sure that the whole title is exactly as I put it. However that is indeed the case. The ‘consensus’ angle was bog-lala gas powered anal hurlant.
\\][//
‘Debunking No-plane [1]’ was the exact title of Legge’s first [PDF] paper that became the published one on “consensus”.
\\][//
It is one thing to argue the merits of evidence and testimonials involved in the 9/11 case.
It is an entirely different thing to be harangued by a one-trick-pony, a single issue “expert”, displaying an obvious ignorance of any sophisticated grasp of the actual architecture of modern political power.
Broken Record is clearly a novice to sociopolitical and deep historical subjects that are the medium within which the 9/11 event is set. Like our Mr. Wright, B. Record makes it very clear that he thinks that the criminal syndicate squatting in DC is a legitimate ‘government’, that if only the ‘evidence’ were place before the right eyes that the wheels of “justice” might finally begin to turn.
I sense the arrogance of a naïve younger person when reading the angry remarks of this Broken Record. This is someone still steeped in the false paradigm of a completely mythological society who came “awake” to a very narrow point of “truth” and does not see how it fits into the larger landscape. He is anxious to “change the world” with a veritable ‘spit wad shot from a rubber-band’ as his weapon. He simply has no idea of what he is up against. And he won’t figure anything of this out for as long as he is so high on himself with his narrow minded arrogant attitude.
He chides us with this haughty “how’d that work out for you so far?” dig, when it has obviously not ‘worked out’ in any meaningful way with his own approach. He has shown that he is not someone to take friendly advice – so I won’t offer anymore, but I will issue the warning that he is far over his head here on this forum.
\\][//
Mr. RuffAdam, Mr. Syed, and the Triple-Dubya have given great (if snippy) responses to Mr. B. Record. (I offer my respect to RuffAdam and Mr. Syed for their activism.) It turns out that Mr. Paul Craig Roberts has also done the same from another angle.
Before I offer up Mr. Roberts views, allow me to address something that Mr. B. Record wrote:
And what are you deluded by? The under-current of your several postings has been “why bother with anything? 9/11 was in the past. Informing citizenry doesn’t work. Nothing to do. Let’s sit on our thumbs and let the political currents sweep us away and drown us. No sense paddling or swimming against the stream. All is hopeless. Nothing can be done.” And in copping this attitude, you play right into the role that the powers that be (PTB) have for everyone: Do nothing, because nothing can be done. Watch your “Merika’s Got Talent” and tune out to considering anything that you could do personally to change matters.
+++++
Here’s some brief exerpts from Role Reversal: How the US Became the USSR by Paul Craig Roberts {with my comments in curly braces}:
{And despite the fact that Snowden hasn’t had a trial by a jury of his peers, maybe because Jury Nullification is a very real danger for the PTB (powers that be). “Jury nullification occurs when a jury substitutes its own interpretation of the law and/or disregards the law entirely in reaching a verdict.” In doing so, they set legal precedence that can be far reaching. Remember this for when you or those you know are called to jury duty.}
//
That’s actually double-dubya. I don’t think Willy’s name has a “Wild” at the beginning.
CUI BONO
“Right after 9/11, I mean, every agency can give their own gradation, but a nice, popular rule of thumb is everybody doubled down. I ended up in the NSA with about twice as much money as I had prior to 9/11.” ~ Michael Hayden
\\][//
Journal of 9/11 Studies Volume 38, July 2013
9/11 and the Advent of Total Diplomacy:
Strategic Communication as a Primary Weapon of War
By Jérôme Gygax and Nancy Snow¥
“The 9/11 attacks were used to justify an institutional revolution meant to
complete a process of integration and coordination of all the assets of US
national power through a strategic communication (SC) campaign deployed on a global scale.1 The “Global War on terror” (GWOT) nurtured a narrative of crisis associated with this unprecedented public education effort. In order to sell its approaches, the United States government relied on a network of “experts”: military veterans, high‐ranking officers such as Admirals as well as professional journalists and academics who contributed to forging a consensus, or, as Michel Foucault would call it, a “regime of truth” that claims a certain interpretation to be right and true, while ignoring or discrediting critics and dissenting narratives.”
. . . . .
It is interesting coming across this new article on Journal of 9/11 Studies, as Barry Zwicker had broached the subject of “Strategic Communication” in an email this past weekend.
See also:
http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/articles/issues/PTv2i3.pdf
– “strategic communication” -Steven R. Corman
\\][//
I failed to give the URL to that Journal article:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2013GygaxSnowVol38Jul.pdf
\\][//
In reply to Dan Noel: July 30, 2013 – 2:19 pm comment.
Dan as I understand your comments you are saying that you are focusing your 9/11 activist energies toward taking down the PR regime that props up the official story and at the same time attacks truth tellers. If that is your true goal then we share the same mind on that and I agree 100% with doing that and focusing on that. In fact I have done exactly that myself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDhSKByU3I4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcISHrsZP3E
I am confused however with your thinking that CD evidence is somehow better to use and more effective at taking on the PR regime than the Pentagon evidence is. I do not agree at all with that and I again ask you to read my previous posts to you where I explain in detail why the pentagon evidence is more dangerous to the perps. By the way I did the two reports above before the pentagon evidence came to my attention so that is why I did not use it as opposed to WTC 7.
You do not seem to have responded to my core argument on that point but rather now seem to be shifting the discussion towards effective ways to dismantle the PR regime. As I said above I agree that is of paramount importance but that is not the issue I was discussing with you. At any rate Dan I wish you good luck and I have no hard feelings towards you at all. I do wish however that we could stay focused on the same issue until it is resolved between us. As I see it the issue which is still unresolved between us is the issue of the comparitive strength of the two lines of evidence, CD and the Pentagon NOC evidence. I stand firm in my contention that the pentagon evidence is more dangerous to the perps and cannot be spin doctered out of while CD can still be blamed on patsies. You have yet to address that issue.
“different strokes for different folks.” sly of the family stone.
if one truther wants to pursue and broadcast 9/11 truth via bldg 7, i wish you well.
if another wants to pursue and broadcast 9/11 truth via the pentagon, i wish you well.
there need not be any competition. whatever you are drawn to, go with it. but if i may suggest, stay open-minded to the other’s point of view.
my two cents,
–d
I agree with you Dennis, it is good to have every aspect of the 9/11 event deeply analysed. Some guys like tits, some like asses, some are suckers for a pretty face…
The “generalist” likes the whole package… and only strokes on perfection in all aspects of the larks tongue.
\\][//
Great job, Adam! What a dick Maher is.
Thanks Craig and yeah he is a super dick. I dated all his talking points to show that he was attacking truthers consistantly during the 9/11 aniversaries and attacking us first in each case. Later on after this incident where he was confronted on live TV WAC NYC confronted him as well twice and he got confronted again during a stand up “comedy” show he was doing. He isn’t very funny but he is getting confronted a lot which is getting to him I am sure. I will have to check his ratings but I think they have been declining since the live show interuption.
Adam,
You are a good public speaker. Why aren’t you giving presentations on the Pentagon 9/11 event at some of these conferences?
I like this video, you’ve done more?
\\][//
HR1,
Yeah I have done quite a few vids but it takes such a huge effort to do one properly and there is really no money in doing these so basically I do them when I am financially able and have the time. I am not financially stable at the moment and to be honest I don’t really have the time to devote to it. I am spending what little time I have prepping for the coming financial meltdown as best I can. My friend (who did the anchor part) for the Bill Maher piece wants to revive Unspun Newz and do some more reports but I just don’t know if I can do it anymore. I do appreciate your kind words HR1. My heart is really in it to do these vids but I am a wage slave right now which prevents me from doing them. Here are a couple others I did:
My first Unspun Newz report: Big media and the lies they tell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxL2RYEILSY
A bunch of my photos from over the years with a couple from other sources:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Oxeh8dxev8
Here is part 1 of my interview of Craig Ranke:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMvxd8HV54w
Hey Adam,
I am assuming it is just my screwed up browser and flashplayer fricking up but I couldn’t get your last Videos to play for me. So I can’t comment on them. I would have really liked to have heard that conversation with Ranke. Oh well….
\\][//
HR1,
You can try to go directly to youtube and look for the videos, they might work for you there. The title of each one should be visible along the top and should allow you to find them on youtube. My channels on youtube are 1. Unspun Newz 2. Centrino105
where you can find them under my uploaded videos also.
I can play them ok though right here so you may need an OS update or Flash update etc.
Adam:
Thank you for your nice “July 30, 2013 – 10:25 pm“ post specifically directed at me. Indeed I have been preaching to focus 9/11 activism on what you call the PR regime, which I propose to call the 9/11 censorship, the process by which just about all important leaders whose vested interests would call them to denounce 9/11 (Maher being one among thousands or tens of thousands of nominally anti-neoconservative bully pulpit holders all around the world) instead live the official 9/11 myth. I have proposed that these leaders be labeled 9/11 censors, which most of them are, and that unmasking them will be highly beneficial to humanity and is therefore the top priority of political activism.
Accordingly, I respectfully decline to argue whether the WTC evidence or the Pentagon evidence is “more dangerous to the perps,” assuming “the perps” you allude to are the project managers of the 9/11 terror acts and of the 9/11 postmodern hijacked airplanes ballet. I will gladly concede this point to you. I will equally concede a similar point to anyone who promotes work on any other 9/11 subconspiracy, or on any non-9/11 conspiracy or wedge issue for that matter. I don’t mean any condescendence. It’s just that no activism is more promising than work on the 9/11 censorship.
I do maintain that activism on the WTC, properly streamlined and taught, starting at http://www.911censorship.com/twin%20towers'%20censorship.htm, is more likely to bring down the 9/11 censorship than activism on the Pentagon — or on any other 9/11 subconspiracy for that matter. Because the WTC video record clearly shows the unbelievability of the official 9/11 myth, it makes it relatively easy to expose the 9/11 censors as untrustworthy to their supporters. In fact, a simple test for you to verify this, building on your 7-30 post, would be to imagine how your friends and you would mock Maher as effectively on the Pentagon as you did on the WTC, your objective being to make Maher’s fans who are not cognizant of 9/11 reduce their trust in him.
Again, as I have proposed in section 7 of http://www.global-Platonic-theater.com, the competition to wake up, fix and save the world is best kept friendly and open, with activists learning from each other what works and what doesn’t. Should your Pentagon-based outreach save the world and should my WTC-based outreach fall flat, I promise that I’ll rejoice and be very grateful to you and to your companions, lol!
Love,
HOMO VISHNU AMERIKANUS
This summer the world will pause to commemorate the 68th anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Most Americans are still supportive of Truman’s decision despite overwhelming historical evidence the bomb had “nothing to do with the end of the war,” in the words of Major General Curtis E. LeMay.
Americans suffer from a misinformation campaign initially perpetrated by the Truman administration and carried on to this day by high school textbooks that continue to tell the story as if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were indispensable in ending the war and saving countless American lives. The historical record is clear, however. As President Dwight D. Eisenhower said, “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/hiroshima-and-nagasaki-american-high-school-textbooks-perpetuate-the-big-lie/5344701?
The 2nd World War began for the US with the lie of Pearl Harbor, and ended with the lie of the necessity of the atomic bombing of Japan. And the jingoberry Amerikan chumps swallowed the whole thing hook line and sinker…and they still haven’t wised-up. Do you know what “Pax Americana” means? It means the “American Peace”…Lol
Some fucking “peace” aye?
\\][//
Why make the case for a re-opening of an independent investigation into 9/11? There has been an independent investigation by thousands of independent researchers for the last 12 years, and it has been fruitful.
For someone such as myself, who finds ‘governmental’ “authority” as a flawed concept at the base, I don’t think an “official” investigation would do anything other than throw things back into managed confusion and deception.
We already know the Truth that 9/11 was, and continues to be a PSYOP. The question keeps arising, “what to DO about it”? But this question is too narrow. And this has been discussed here somewhat. There is the larger issue of ‘authority’ itself, of the legitimacy of “government”. And it must be admitted and addressed that it is in the nature of ‘government’ itself to deceive and manipulate their subjects in order to maintain control.
And it is this issue, and what to Do about that, which is the central issue of our time.
\\][//
Compelling overview:
I actually spoke with Richard Andrew Grove by phone back in 2008. He explained his near miss of being a victim, having been caught in traffic and witnessing the jet fly right into the floor of the tower he was schedualled to die in…\\][//
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RAAztWC5sT8&t=0
I did an interview with Grove the other day about the new documentary State of Mind, which he wrote. You’ll be reading about that interview in the days ahead on Truth and Shadows. But stay tuned later today for a new TS post, which I believe will lead to some discussion within the 9/11 Truth movement.
Fantastic Craig,
Quite a convergence developing on this issue.
Back in, I don’t really recall if it was 2007 or 2008, I spoke with Grove for several hours in several phone talks. He explained the whole software thing that he was involved with, and the financial applications, and what he had found out prior to 9/11 and then the subsequent things that developed afterward.
We just talked, and I didn’t take notes…
For those who want to explore some of this further for now, there is this interesting piece:
http://ourworldinbalance.blogspot.com/2006/04/story-of-richard-andrew-grove.html
I am really really looking forward to what you are working on Craig.
\\][//
Thanks. Actually I’m wearing my editor’s hat for this post, which is being put together by one of the other periodic contributors to Truth and Shadows.