The view from the Sheraton Pentagon City, where the conference will be held Sept. 14-15.
August 19, 2013
By Craig McKee
It was supposed to be the centerpiece of the “9/11: Advancing the Truth” conference taking place near Washington D.C. in September.
A three-way debate about what happened at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 would offer members of 9/11 Truth movement the opportunity to watch as conflicting positions were presented and contrasted by leading advocates of those positions.
It hasn’t worked out that way.
As someone who believes that the evidence showing that no large plane hit the building is conclusive, I thought a debate on the subject might be helpful to make that clear to more people, especially those who have been misled into thinking that the question is unresolved.
I knew there would be a trade-off, of course, which is that it could appear to elevate the importance of the “plane-impact” position – importance that isn’t supported by the evidence. But I still think that under the right conditions a debate could still be beneficial, despite the fact that after 12 years this discussion shouldn’t be necessary anymore.
The thing is that it’s not just important that the evidence for a faked plane crash be conclusive (which I believe it is), it must be seen to be conclusive. Unfortunately, the small clique that has tried its best to lead the movement away from the truth concerning the Pentagon has convinced some that we just don’t know for sure what happened, and we probably never will. This is false, but unfortunately it’s a perception we have to deal with.
So, what happened to the conference’s real raison d’etre, its reason for existing in the first place? In addition to the concern I alluded to above, the conference centerpiece has been damaged because of baffling communication and organizational “issues.” I have first-hand knowledge of this, as I’ll explain.
The Pentagon session’s prospects for success have been further battered by the plan to issue some kind of consensus statement at the end of the two-day conference. If organizing-committee member George Ripley gets his way, this statement will focus on a demand that the government release all evidence about the Pentagon on 9/11 that it has been withholding. This, as I wrote in my first article on the Washington conference, is a horrible idea. It would demand that the perpetrators release evidence of their own guilt, and it would ignore that this evidence would almost certainly be inauthentic.
I do want to make it clear that the focus of this article is the Pentagon session, which will take up part of the conference’s second day. I’m not saying that there aren’t some excellent speakers lined up for the conference (including Kevin Barrett, who will moderate the Pentagon session), and I’m not saying I won’t watch the sessions with interest. I’m also not ignoring the fact that organizing a conference like this involves tons of work and few rewards.
But the key to the whole event was supposed to be the Pentagon. And it seems that the things that had to be done to ensure the success of this part of the event were not done (or were done clumsily). In fact, with things like the consensus statement, it was pretty much guaranteed that the event wouldn’t come off as billed.
The key to making this session succeed was representation from Citizen Investigation Team (and/or Pilots for 9/11 Truth). CIT has presented compelling evidence showing that the large plane that approached the Pentagon did so on a flight path that was inconsistent with the damage allegedly caused. Because of this hugely important evidence, CIT has been a lightning rod for unfair and dishonest criticism by those who seem to want to keep us all from agreeing about what happened.
Since it was essential that CIT be involved, this should have been of paramount importance to the organizers, particularly chief organizer Matt Sullivan. This is why it is so bizarre that CIT seems to have been treated as an after-thought without being given prompt answers to reasonable questions asked by CIT’s Craig Ranke.
Ranke was first approached by DC 9/11 Truth member Sheila Casey in April about whether he would be interested in appearing at the conference (this was an informal approach, not a formal invitation). Despite Ranke’s importance, his invitation would not come for another three months, long after many others had been approached. Ranke had responded to the April feeler by asking a variety of questions of organizers, including who else was being invited, who had confirmed, what the topics would be, what the objective of the conference was, and where the funding was coming from. He never got any answers.
Even while he was considering the formal invitation, which came on July 1, Ranke’s picture was put up on the conference web site as a featured speaker. He wrote to Sullivan on July 8 asking that the picture be removed and that he receive answers to his questions – the past ones and some new ones – including whether others listed as speakers on the site were also unconfirmed. He received a phone message from Elaine Sullivan that did not acknowledge the email or the questions, but just asked to discuss the conference.
In a statement released on the CIT web site on July 31 in which he declines the conference invitation, Ranke goes on to explain what happened after his July 8 email (I suggest reading the statement to get the full CIT position on what happened):
“Six more days went by, and that response never came. Meanwhile, they fraudulently left my name and picture on their page as a “Featured Speaker”. Then, finally, on July 15, I got a voicemail from Matt asking for my “final answer” as to whether or not I would participate in the conference while still not answering any of my questions.”
About the Elaine Sullivan message, he writes:
“Given the circumstances and the fact that they were already misleading people about my status (and likely the status of others) on their website, I was no longer comfortable talking to them on the phone, which could later be more easily misrepresented by them.”
Prior to declining his invitation, Ranke raised concerns about the three-way debate format; questions were also asked about how it would function by Dwain Deets, representing the position that a large plane did crash. Organizers reacted by dropping the debate format and substituting three 50-minute presentations followed by a panel discussion.
Now to be fair, organizers did try to replace Ranke with someone who supports CIT and who has been vocal in support of the “no-plane-impact” position. In fact, I was one of those, as was Shelton Lankford of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. We have both declined.
In an effort to salvage the Pentagon session, Matt Sullivan himself will deliver what is being referred to as the “CIT position: no plane hit the Pentagon.” This title is a problem in itself because the “no plane hit the Pentagon” position does not belong to CIT. In fact, it goes back at least to 2002 and Thierry Meyssan, and it includes many fine researchers and groups since, including Pilots for 9/11 Truth.
CIT, however, has made an essential contribution to the case for a faked plane crash, particularly by establishing that the official flight path is false and the damage path staged. But calling the position theirs suggests a degree of isolation that doesn’t exist. It’s not CIT against the whole Truth movement, it’s the majority of the Truth movement (including CIT) against the small number who say that a large plane crashed at the Pentagon.
While Ranke was asked late in the game to speak, Pentagon researcher Barbara Honegger, who is part of the conference organizing committee, appears to have been aware that she would be participating in the Pentagon event for months before Ranke was formally invited. Honegger agrees with Ranke that no large plane crashed at the Pentagon but she also believes an unmanned drone crashed near the heliport. While Honegger does have her supporters, I am not aware of anyone who endorses her drone thesis.
Elaine Sullivan says Ranke’s formal invitation didn’t come until July because it was believed that he would be more likely to agree to attend if his pro-plane-impact debate opponent were already in place. While I somewhat see the logic here (given that so many CIT opponents had not responded to debate challenges in the past), I think this turned out to be a critical error. It created the impression that Ranke was a last-minute consideration instead of central to the whole event. It also left very little time to replace him once he declined.
One could have predicted that people like Kevin Ryan, David Chandler, Frank Legge, Jonathan Cole, Jim Hoffman, and the rest of the anti-CIT and anti-Pilots for 9/11 Truth cabal would never debate Ranke because they know that the bankruptcy of their position would be revealed. Matt Sullivan declined to tell me who had been invited to give this presentation, but he did tell me that Ryan said no to the conference altogether because he wanted nothing to do with a debate on the Pentagon.
So the task fell to former CIT supporter and now plane-impact convert Dwain Deets whose reversal on the Pentagon has left many baffled because it was done on the flimsiest of grounds. And when I say flimsy, I’m being generous. Truth be told, Deets is only there because the format required that someone take that position; he really has no business making any presentation on the Pentagon based on the arguments we’ve heard from him so far.
Meanwhile, I was invited on July 23 to make a presentation representing the no-plane-impact position, which I understood was being offered to me because Ranke had not been heard from and therefore was being assumed to have declined. In his statement, Ranke points out that he had not declined and that he was still waiting for answers to the questions he had asked. (A note: prior to giving Matt Sullivan my answer, I posed several questions as well, particularly about the fact that Barbara Honegger was originally slated to make two presentations about the Pentagon. I never got an answer or even an acknowledgement of these questions.)
At this point I was still hoping that the whole event would come off, and I didn’t know what had been going on between Ranke and the Sullivans. In fact, I spoke to Ranke in early July, and although he had significant concerns about the conference, he was still considering going at that point.
But here’s where it gets weird:
As it turns out, Shelton Lankford of Pilots had been invited on June 28, three days before Ranke was. Lankford is a vocal CIT proponent and would be a logical replacement for Ranke if he were to decline. So why invite him first?
I exchanged more than 10 emails over a three-day period recently with both Matt and Elaine Sullivan (yes, they are married and live in the same house) to get some simple answers to clear questions about why Lankford and Ranke were both invited so close together. The result left me wondering whether I was explaining my questions poorly or whether I was receiving deliberately slippery answers. (Elaine opened her last email with: “You’re driving me nuts!!!” I was upset that she got to use that line before I did.)
After several emails back and forth, it became clear that Elaine was saying the Lankford had been invited to get “input from Pilots for 9/11 Truth” and NOT to be part of the debate. This was the first I or anyone I’ve talked to had heard about there being a speaker PLUS three debator/presenters. I spoke to Lankford by phone as we both considered whether to accept, and he did not indicate that he had been offered the opportunity to speak separate from a debate.
There are problems with Elaine Sullivan’s explanation of the invitations.
Here’s how the invitation to Lankford was worded:
“We write to you now to invite you as a featured speaker on the subject of the attack on the Pentagon, which is scheduled for Sunday, September 15, 2013 at 9:30am, as part of a debate “Understanding the Pentagon Attack”.
And here’s the wording of the invitation to Ranke:
“We write to you now to invite you as a featured speaker on the subject of your work, which is scheduled for the morning of Sunday 9/15, as part of a debate about what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11/01”
Based on these two invitations, one invitee is supposed to understand that he is being invited to speak SEPARATELY from the debate portion of the session while the other is supposed to understand that they are being asked to be PART of the debate. And yet the wording is almost identical. Very odd. How can the details of what is being proposed not be made crystal clear, especially since we’re talking end of June, beginning of July? These were formal invitations, not preliminary “feelers.” How could this be the result of a communications breakdown between two organizers who live in the same house (Elaine had approached Lankford while Matt was dealing with Ranke)?
Further complicating things was the fact that Lankford missed the email in his inbox on June 28 and only found out about it after I was invited on July 23 At that point, he responded and was asked by Elaine Sullivan to take my place should I decline. I told Lankford that he should take the spot ahead of me because he was asked first and his knowledge and experience as a pilot would be a great advantage.
Learning about where Ranke officially stood (as per his July 31 statement) definitely played into my and Lankford’s final decision not to participate. I had also been concerned about getting a passport in time and having time to prepare a presentation that would meet the highest standards I was capable of. Given the late invitation, I was not convinced it could be done.
So the event will go ahead with Sullivan, Honegger, and Deets. And, unfortunately, it is unlikely to resolve anything. Of course, that doesn’t mean it won’t be interesting to watch.
I still would like to see a debate, or debates, but in the short term and not continuing indefinitely into the future. The time for debating the evidence should be over; it’s time to put our efforts behind the game-changing case that a faked plane crash at the Pentagon proves conclusively that it was an inside job.
But for those short-term encounters I think one-on-one works better than three at one time. I think both Ranke vs. Honegger and Ranke vs. Deets could be revealing and useful. And I think they could actually happen.
What you WON’T EVER SEE is one of the “respectable” names who have attacked CIT like Chandler, Ryan, Cole, Legge, or Hoffman agreeing to debate Ranke. They know full well that the emptiness of their position would be exposed once and for all.
Wow, what a convoluted mess this turns out to be.
Like you Craig, I am still very curious as to how this is actually going to play out. And like you I am baffled that the very first issue to be tackled wasn’t Ranke’s participation. It was obvious prima facia that Honegger would be one of the speakers. Once they had it settled that Ranke would be in on it, they could have given him fair input into who and who would not be acceptable as the pro-plane crash presenter.
But it is what it is…and now, we will see what it turns out to be from this staggered take off.
I just hope the audiovisual and other technical matters are better attended to than the organization of the conference itself. Remember the foobar at the beginning of Vancouver?
Something like that would put a cherry colored turd on top of this half baked cake.
\\][//
I think a main point to be brought home is the distinction between the GENERAL arguments in favor of a plane crash (i.e. citing the photos of sparse “wreckage” or asking the JREF-style rhetorical question “How does the FDR found in the Pentagon prove the plane didn’t hit the Pentagon?), versus the anti-CIT/NoC arguments in particular.
I am not sure if the activist who had the original idea for this debate intended for it to be a general debate for yay vs nay plane crash, or if this person wanted it to be showdown between specifically CIT vs. the anti CIT forces. Or is it possible that this person had conflated in his mind, just like with the conference description, “The CIT position that the plane didn’t hit.”
As Craig McKee points out, the position that the plane didn’t hit started with Meyssan in 2002. CIT came onto the scene in February 2007 with PentaCon. Between Meyssan and PentaCon, there were many publications that rejected the pro-impact view re the Pentagon. Hufschmid’s “Painful Deceptions” documentary in 2003, Von Kleist’s “In Plane Site” from 2005, and most particularly Loose Change in 2005-6. Nothing in the movement has been more “mainstream” than that film. Books: Griffin’s original New Pearl Harbor is from 2004, and his second book from 2005; Rowland Morgan’s and Ian Henshall’s “9/11 Revealed” book is from either 05 or 06.
But however, and most importantly, I would say that the real distinction between those other entities and CIT, and WHY CIT has been the “lightning rod” of disinfo attacks, is because those prior entities like Meyssan and Loose Change SPECULATED, i.e. about cruise missiles, small remote planes, etc. This is what makes CIT DIFFERENT than those other entities. CIT did indeed confirm that a large airliner type plane was on the scene; they uncovered an actual damning piece of info that proves inside job, staged damage, etc.
Going back to where I started: Since this seems to be about “the CIT position,” the ambiguity here is whether this was supposed to be a debate over the GENERAL arguments for a plane crash vs. no plane crash, or the SPECIFIC arguments made against CIT. The arguments made against CIT/NOC are as follows:
(1) Those same witnesses to the NOC path also say the plane hit the building.
(2) There are way more SOC witnesses than NOC ones and CIT cherrypicked to fit their conclusion.
(3) In doing so, CIT produced fraudulent/misleading presentations.
If this was supposed to be a “pro vs anti CIT debate,” it falls flat on the fact that these specific things were not addressed early on and up front.
Craig’s conclusion is absolutely correct. Those three bullet points I just listed are utterly without merit, and of course those detractors know their position would be exposed in real space at a conference. Those points have of course been thoroughly answered and debunked in writing many times, and as such the debate is already won.
The fact that Deets was the only one who would take on this position speaks volumes.
Craig Ranke went to DC to test the plane flyover thesis presented by Dick Eastman in 2002. Eastman had already reached the conlcusion of the north-of-Citgo passage of the large plane and that the path of the missile which knocked down the first lamppost was different. Ranke’s only accomplishment was to confirm Eastman with more witnesses — but his real importance is that he stole the show from Eastman while adding the absurd thesis that the downed lamppost wasn’t hit by anything. Eastman proves a missile – youtube search “Dick Eastman – Pentagon” . Not only was Eastman left out, but Honegger was also. The fact is that Jim Hoffman has faked arguements and avoided Eastman — but Hoffman does not want to face Eastman, so they created CIT so that Ranke could take over Eastman’s position. I know what you are asking right now: “Who on earth is Eastman? Never heard of him!” More than 2/3rds of 9-11 investigators are false opposition. All of the debunkers are — especially Hoffman.
Whatever dude, it’s obvious the light poles were torch cut at the bases.
Mr. Eastman: The Noc versus Soc positions gets the movement into entanglements that are unnecessary. No commercial 757 airplane could go 410 knots or 510 knots at sea level without severe damage to the plane. And even if a commercial airplane could go this fast at sea level without damage, crashing into the Pentagon would leave major markers where the two Rolls Royce engines slammed into the building. There were no markers.
“The Noc versus Soc positions gets the movement into entanglements that are unnecessary.”
No, infiltrators do that.
Mr. Eastman,
While it is true you were the first to stumble onto the north-of-citgo flight path, you don’t do yourself justice by desperately clamoring for credit. History will and already does reveal your contributions. In fact, CIT has made no secret about your contribution and has given you credit for the NoC discovery received through your e-mail exchange with Lagasse.
However, you clearly lacked the courage/foresight to get out from behind your computer and actually beat the streets of Arlington to overwhelmingly corroborate and document this historically significant detail as CIT did, along with obtaining a cryptic confession from Lloyde England who was directly implicated by the evidence.
What’s worse is instead of embracing and promoting this evidence and CIT, you still cling to your pet theory about missiles miraculously zig-zagging and knocking down 5 light poles rather than the much more plausible scenario of them simply being planted.
I applaud your contribution and will always have respect for you in that regard, but your childish demands for credit definitely give me reason to re-examine that respect.
Mr. Eastman, your true motive is revealed in those bolded words; you simply have a bruised ego over the fact that you won’t be going down in the history books as the guy who exposed the NOC flight path. There is no independent evidence for a missile, and all the evidence in the world (i.e. photographs) that the light poles were planted, not hit by a missile.
In a youtube lasting over three hours at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fvJ8nFa5Qk, Barbara Honegger’s January 12, 2013 Seattle talk entitled “Behind the Smoke Curtain” is presented.
1. Shortly after the very beginning she says that she will have a self-published book on her research, expected in March 2013. Where is it?
2. At 4:16 until 4:57 she loads the screen with two pages of 15 persons who she wants you to think endorse her work. Quotes are provided starting with D.R. Griffin, R. Gage, K. Barrett, N. Harrit, going to G. Ripley, a leading organizer of the D.C. conference. Ripley is quoting as saying about her lecture, “great presentation indeed”.
Barrett is chosen as the moderator for the panel on the Pentagon event. Yet he is cited by Honegger saying of her work, “Barbara Honegger is the most underappreciated, greatest 9/11 truth person on the planet”.
Yet, Robin Hordon told a 9/11 truth teleconference some months ago that he had asked Honegger several times to remove her quote of him since it is misleading. Hordon told the teleconference that Honegger did not respond to him nor remove the quote attributed to him. How many other quotes are inaccurate or misleading?
3. Honegger is listed to talk the preceding day, seemingly on a different topic but her double billing sets her up as a ‘star’ performer at this conference.
4. For this Saturday afternoon talk, in late July Honegger is listed as “Preeminent Researcher on the 9/11 Pentagon Attack”, that is, until the July 31 teleconference called that characterization in question.
5. Honegger is also one of the organizers of the conference and says she helped finance it.
So, put yourself in Ranke’s shoes. He knows how the game is played, gets a late invitation and receives no answers to questions. It has to feel like a set-up. Would you accept such an invitation?
We will see how Matt Sullivan performs in an attempt to substitute himself on the Pentagon event, when no other North-of-Citco presenter could be identified to accept.
Maybe or maybe not, Honegger will present a coherent reaction to C.I.T. As it stands now, I for one don’t know what it is.
@Paul Zarembka
As someone who is an academic do you really consider that the case put forward by CIT is a logical one based on the logical application of deductive reasoning? This to me is the important point that needs to be pointed out. I think the logic they use to come to their conclusions is seriously flawed and that is something that is there for anyone to recognise, whether they are an academic or not. They present it as being a logical case ,and one that people basically have no option but to agree with, but it is based on a failure to apply the basic principles of how to assess evidence. Why this hasn’t been pointed out before is beyond me and is probably the reason it has persisted for as long as it has.
You are a good illustration of what it means to be well adjusted to a pathological society Mr Wright.
\\][//
@Hybridrogue1
I think it’s wise to try to be well adjusted , otherwise we just guarantee ourselves a pathological society.
A.Wright ,
Your comment of August 20, 2013 – 4:58 PM, shows how you cannot comprehend what you read.
It stands to reason that being well adjusted to a pathological society means those so adjusted, are pathological themselves. Group pathology is what creates the pathological society.
That this simple construction is beyond you is truly telling. An astounding display of the very pathology I speak of.
\\][//
For those who’ve not followed every last comment at my Ryan critique (the previous top post on this blog), it has become evident, to a few of us who’ve been watching Honegger’s “Behind the Smoke Curtain” Seattle talk, what Honegger’s true motive is for taking part in a “3-way debate” or even a “three perspectives” format for the Pentagon. I’m sure she’d want to go last, though McKee informs me that they apparently might draw lots, meaning she might not nec. go last.
I think all of us on this thread understand how the NoC flight path, coupled with the photographs of the actual damage trail, lead to a simple and obvious conclusion: flyover + staged damage. Whether she’s getting paid by some agency or just doing it for fun, Honegger’s clear motive here would be to muddy the waters re the NOC evidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fvJ8nFa5Qk
She mentions quite a lot of good stuff early on, to really build her credibility up, then unloads the manure. First, she builds a basically non-existent case for the heliport mumbo jumbo, then has a go at neutralizing CIT.
Take a minute and listen to her at 54:00. “It can’t be more obvious that her effect is the muddying of the waters.”
Barbara says at 54:00
“For those of you who are 9/11 truth afficionados, I’m going to answer this question I’m always asked: “Well, What About the Citizens [sic] Investigation Team, or ‘SIT’, [sic] north side witnesses?” I HONOR those witnesses. I however do not believe the interpretation of what the witnesses said, by the Citizens Investigation Team, is correct. I believe it is very incorrect, and here’s why.
[from this point I’m pasting from a onesliceshort comment at CraigM’s blog; thanks OSS]
“I believe the interpretation of what the NOC witnesses described is incorrect….as there is no evidence of any plane destruction other than the white plane that exploded near the heliport at 09:32,
[image shown of line that has nothing to do with what witnesses drew themselves]
if the plane that a dozen or so witnesses saw approach to the north of the centre line to the north of the citgo gas station which is on that centre line and to the north of the Navy Annex which is on that centerline…if that plane flew over, which many 9/11 researchers believe, falsely believe, it cannot be the right plane, which was destroyed. It didn’t fly over the building, it was destroyed…it would have to be a different second plane, or the white plane could have come around twice.
As these north side witnesses however themselves didn’t believe that the plane
that they saw flew over. They believed it did hit because they heard this huge explosion…the plane they saw coming in on whats called the north path…it would have had to have approached simultaneously with the white plane. Basically two planes coming in from two directions at the same time.
And the plane that CIT claims went through the fireball of the white plane being destroyed near the heliport. Or the plane that the NOC witnesses saw could have been the official plane that the Official story claims came in at 09:37.
[OSS: You guys keeping up with this fistf*ing of the English language?]
For the CIT interpretation to be true, there would have had to have been a second explosion, which was in fact reported by many witnesses at the Pentagon as it flew through a preexisting smoke cloud.
[Shows clip of reported 10:10 explosion…]
[End OSS paste.]
By the way, since she’s spreading confusion about a “white plane,” it might be prudent for everyone to familiarize themselves with this often overlooked supplemental presentation, about how the plane that approached the Pentagon being white, not silver aka AA colors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=b22FtxlnzEA
Craig, It is late and my response was line by line rather than in the form of an epistle. I find that I am unable to use color to differentiate my comments from yours so I must tediously put them in sequence identified by the # of the paragraph they are in response to. I apologize to the reader. Perhaps you can get the sense of my response from scanning what I have written despite it not being sequitur in this format.
#1 False – It was supposed to be one of three equally important features of the conference.
#2 In-so-far as the Pentagon was to be featured it was to provide everyone with an opportunity to hear all of the theories be presented. I have never heard anyone present the official theory. All I have heard is rancor from the CIT camp… for years that has been the case. They have overwhelmed the conversation with vituperous insistence that they were right and everyone else was wrong. I wanted to hear everyone’s theory. The biggest failing in the entire issue is that there is no humility. CIT has so far refused to admit that they only have a theory.
#4 From your biased viewpoint you think it has. At least you admit your bias.
#5 I contend that most Truthers have steered clear of spending time thinking about the Pentagon because of all the rancor. Who would want to be a part of that? We wanted to provide a place where people could learn about the various theories in a thoughtful, not angry setting. So much for that effort, CIT says it is their way or they won’t participate. Despite the strength of their evidence, it is as if they don’t want people to think for themselves. They don’t want to “appear to elevate the importance” of any other theory.
#6 I’m sorry Craig but not everyone believes that CIT has conclusive proof. It is a shame that CIT is so afraid of competing ideas that they refuse to participate. With all their bombast one would think they would be proud to stand up and present.
#7 Again you are making a false assumption about our raison d’être.
#8 I’m sorry Craig, but if you can’t understand the legal rationale for making a demand for the release of relevant information you have no appreciation for what is going to take to ultimately get the guilty into a court of law. How would their submittal of falsified information be any different than what we have now? At least we would have it and could then prove it false. To fail to ever demand it is a ridiculous failure of the imagination. Sorry about that.
#10 Again, the key to the whole thing wasn’t to be the Pentagon. There were three equally important segments. It could easily be argued that the other two are far more important. Following the money, and identifying fingerprints. Regardless of exactly what happened at the Pentagon, we know 9/11 was an inside job. What is important now is finding out who were the insiders and who took the money.
#11 I take great umbrage to your categorization that all of us should agree with CIT about what happened and if we don’t that we are dishonest. That is dishonest of you. I think CIT’s evidence is great as far as it goes and succeeds in completely in challenging the official story. However, for me they fail to provide sufficient evidence that the plane flew off through the smoke. I find incredible that only one witness stated that he saw a plane fly off, and I did not think he was a strong witness at all.
#14 Matt Sullivan, Publisher of the Rock Creek Free Press for many years, had every reason to believe that Craig Ranke would be pleased to accept his invitation. Several years ago Matt had published on the front page of the monthly paper a scathing letter written by Sheila Casey against Richard Gage’s decision to back away from his support of CIT. One might naturally think that Craig Ranke would consider Matt an ally. Unfortunately Craig is suspicious of the motives and intentions of everyone. Matt apparently made a false assumption that Craig would be pleased with the opportunity, decided that he should line up other speakers first and and missed Craig’s email and the rest is, unfortunately, history. Perhaps it is too bad Sheila Casey got in the middle of it. But I can assure you it is absurd to read any intentional insult to Craig Ranke. You are at least correct in stating we recognize and respect his contribution to the research.
#20 I would have to say to your discredit.
#21 I wish you had offered to speak.
#22 I don’t know where you find the statistics to back that up.
#23 Let it be known that Craig could have been a welcome participant in our discussions as Barbara has been. Her voluntary contributions earned our respect and, although she was not officially on the conference organizing committee, we have certainly been very glad to have her on our calls. I personally know of no one with a greater breadth of knowledge and enthusiasm on the subject of 9/11.
#24 Critical errors were made. In this case that is a two sided coin. Great regrets.
#25 “that the bankruptcy of their position would be revealed.” This language is not helpful Craig.
#26 A little explanation would help here Craig. Again your bias is taking over the logic of your writing.
#39 So, missed emails happen to everyone. Aw gee. Oops, sorry. You guys are reading way too much in to this. Paranoia is working against you.
#43 Thank you for this last thought Craig, that is productive. I hope to see many conferences and see no reason they can’t be amicable even if attendees don’t all end up agreeing that the evidence and testimony is sufficiently conclusive. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. One thing is for sure, unless CIT participates in these discussions you will never be able to conclusively come to a determination that “the majority” of the 9/11 truth movement believes the CIT theory.
#44 Craig, you have already said that and it serves no purpose to perpetuate the rancor. Leave it alone.
George, I will respond more fully to your points tomorrow. But I do want to make one thing very clear right away. I am not saying that those who disagree with CIT are dishonest. If you reread the paragraph in question you’ll see that this is not what I said. I do accuse certain figures in our movement of dishonestly trying to divert our attention from the Pentagon evidence for reasons I can only guess at. It is those people I have a quarrel with. I defend anyone’s right to believe anything they wish, of course. I only speak for myself when I say that I find the evidence conclusive that no large plane hit the Pentagon. I have no problem respecting anyone who feels differently as long as they genuinely want the truth.
If I may, I would like to address this one point by Mr. Ripley at this time:
“#8 I’m sorry Craig, but if you can’t understand the legal rationale for making a demand for the release of relevant information you have no appreciation for what is going to take to ultimately get the guilty into a court of law. How would their submittal of falsified information be any different than what we have now? At least we would have it and could then prove it false. To fail to ever demand it is a ridiculous failure of the imagination. Sorry about that.”
~George Ripley
Let me pull this particular phrase out of the paragraph to highlight:
“…you have no appreciation for what is going to take to ultimately get the guilty into a court of law.” and now transverse from question to a positive statement:
You Mr. Ripley, have no appreciation for what it is going to take to ultimately get the guilty into a court of law.
I would submit to you that it would take the complete defeat of the present System to get the guilty into a court of law; because it is the System itself that is guilty. Those who think that there was some sort of hidden cabal within the System that achieved this operation misapprehend how political power actually works. This is a system with a long history of
false flag operations – psychological operations. In fact the whole system itself is a psychological operation.
Barry Zwicker has a series published on this site, Truth and Shadows that addresses the deep history of false flag operations. If you are not familiar with this history, if you are not familiar with the true architecture of modern political power, then I suggest you put the hobby horse of 9/11 aside for the time being and bring yourself up to speed with reality.
The “government” is a racket, an international crime syndicate. To seek justice from within this system is the height of naïveté.
\\][// — Willy Whitten
George,
At one point in your comment above you say:
“All I have heard is rancor from the CIT camp… for years that has been the case. They have overwhelmed the conversation with vituperous insistence that they were right and everyone else was wrong.”
You are apparently completely and blissfully unaware of the true facts regarding CIT’s attackers and blissfully unaware of who did the rancorous attacking first. Start with Jim Hoffmans blatant attack piece mockingly called Pentacon “smoking crack edition” where he openly states that CIT are on drugs namely crack. Follow that with the later attackers quoting Hoffman’s work as if it had merit and completely ignoring the blatantly untrue and rancorous accusations made by Hoffman. Interesting that no one seems to have chastised Hoffman for his rancor which was launched first. No one seems to have acknowledged that the later unprovoked attackers such as Chandler/Cole referenced Hoffman as a valid source despite his obvious and blatant rancor.
You seem unwilling to acknowledge that Chandler and Cole launched a great deal of rancor at CIT as well and they did it first by the way. CIT responded to their sloppy attack piece carefully and reasonably without rancor which also seems to have escaped your attention. In truth the ripped Chandler and Cole a new butt hole and exposed how completely bankrupt their position really was but the did it without insults or rancor of any kind.
So get your facts straight about who the attackers are and who has all the rancor George because it isn’t CIT that created this “controversy” it is the very same people you are trying to falsely portray as the victims who created this mess. They launched unprovoked attacks against CIT and they did it first and the time line of events proves that in triplicate. Frankly you don’t know what you are talking about George and it shows.
The Pentagon session at the D.C. Conference isn’t “marred” by “organizational issues.” It is the claims and ‘logic’ of this article and Craig Ranke’s statement on CIT’s website that are marred.
This post is a transparently absurd attempt blame the D.C. Conference organizers for not including a ‘real’ CIT speaker in the Pentagon session, when they formally invited three advocates of the CIT position including its founder — Craig Ranke, Shelton Lankford and Craig McKee himself – and all three declined.
McKee and Ranke also try to blame the Conference organizers for changing the Pentagon session format from the originally proposed debate, which they very much wanted, to individual presentations when it was Ranke telling the organizers that he had problems with a debate that led them to change the format in an attempt to get him to participate — and he still said no. And not only said no, but posted a ‘Statement’ on the CIT website calling on all CIT advocates to refuse to participate in the Pentagon session as well. Who do you think a jury would find guilty of obstructionism in this Kafkesque case – the Conference organizers, or CIT ?
It is also absurd that McKee claims that Ranke “seems” to “have been treated as an after-thought” – note the hedge by including “seems.” Ranke, and CIT’s position, were anything but an “after-thought.” It was precisely because representation by the CIT position, as McKee says, was “key” to the Pentagon session being “a success,” i.e. being substantively meaningful, that Ranke received the first informal feeler. McKee and Ranke complain that his formal invitation would not come until after “many others had been approached”, when it was Ranke’s own demand in response to that informal feeler that he be told who else was invited and had accepted for the Pentagon session before deciding whether to participate that was the cause and reason for others being formally invited first. The Conference organizers leaned over backwards to try to give Ranke what he wanted, and he STILL refused.
And Ranke’s photo was posted on the website because the organizers, as it turned out naively, assumed it was only a formality that he hadn’t yet accepted their feeler as he waS waiting to hear who else had accepted, as he himself had demanded before formally deciding. It’s also not the case, as McKee claims, that Ranke “never got any answers.” He did get answers – that Dwain Deets and I would be the other participants, which took a long time to nail down as it was difficult to get anyone to take the ‘large plane hit the Pentagon position — and when he got them, he not only refused to participate and put out an arrogant ‘call’ demanding that no one else do so either.
McKee’s claim that “Honegger appears to have been aware that she would be participating in the Pentagon event for months before Ranke was formally invited”
is grossly untrue in spirit. When I was invited, Ranke had been asked long before
if he would be interested in participating and had demanded to know who else was invited and had accepted, which demand was the reason I was formally invited before he was. When I was invited, I was told that it would be a debate and that the organizers expected Ranke would take the CIT position. That is, when I was invited, I assumed that Ranke had been invited and had accepted, and accepted the debate format
on that understanding. For the record, to my knowledge I am the only invitee
who accepted the debate format, which I was in fact looking forward to. I had accepted both a debate format and accepted unconditionally, i.e. regardless of who took the
other positions. If Ranke had wanted to participate, he would have done the same, but instead made demands to know who else had not only been invited, but had accepted, before deciding formally, causing the very delay he blames the Conference organizers for. And the debate format was dropped, as McKee notes, because of “the concerns” Ranke expressed to the organizers over the debate format, in an attempt to get him to agree to participate, yet he then blames the organizers for not having a debate! Over and over, Ranke and CIT are the direct cause of the actions of others that they then hold up as evidence of a conspiracy to cut then out.
McKee and Ranke claim that the Conference shouldn’t demand that the government release all the evidence about the Pentagon attack because “this evidence would almost certainly be inauthentic,” and yet they cherry pick and insists on the authenticity of the one piece of ‘evidence’ that’s already been released which appears to support their position – the flight path simulation that shows a north path — while rejecting ALL the others and insisting we shouldn’t even see any others because they MIGHT be inauthentic ! This insults the intelligence and investigative ability of the Ph.D.’s, former military personnel, scholars and experienced researchers in the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Incredibly, McKee claims that the difference between the below two formal invitations, to Ranke and to Lankford, constitute “baffling communications issues” because, he alleges, they mean that one was invited to a debate but that the other was invited to an individual presentation. He states, “Based on these two invitations, one invitee is supposed to understand that he is being invited to speak SEPARATELY from the debate portion of the session while the other is supposed to understand that they are being asked to be PART of the debate [emphases in original].” But BOTH clearly state that they are invitations “to A DEBATE” (emphases added):
To Lankford: “We write to you now to invite you AS A FEATURED SPEAKER on the subject of the attack at the Pentagon…AS PART OF A DEBATE…”
To Ranke: We write to you now to invite you AS A FEATURED SPEAKER on the subject of your work…AS PART OF A DEBATE…”
How McKee could twist these two completely equivalent invitations to read that they were being invited to participate in different formats is mind boggling,especially as he notes that Lankford DID interpret his invitation, as any kindergartener would have, as an invitation TO A DEBATE: McKee wrote, “[Lankford] did NOT indicate that he had been offered the opportunity to speak separate from a debate [emphasis added].”
Turning to the substance, CIT’s makes the assumption, and claim, that there are only two positions relevant to the Pentagon attack: that a plane hit, or that it didn’t (and also, therefore, that it had to have flown over). But this is false. There is a THIRD position — that no plane hit the building and that the official story ‘plane damage path’ was staged/faked, but that there was a plane destruction before it would have hit the wall which was neither where (at Column 14 in Wedge One) nor when (9:37:45) the official lie claims, but over five minutes earlier (at 9:32:30) and off Wedge TWO further to the north. This plane, having been destroyed, did not, therefore, of course, ‘fly over.’ And because it and the diesel trailer and internal explosions all happened between 9:30 and 9:34, whatever the plane that came in at 9:37:45 did – whether it hit, flew over or did somersaults – IS IRRELEVANT to the real story of what happened at the Pentagon — to anything that matters that happened there. That is, if the plane the CIT witnesses saw was the 9:37:45-approach plane, of course it ‘flew over’, BUT IT DOESN’T MATTER. Everything that matters HAD ALREADY HAPPENED OVER FIVE MINUTES BEFORE. This third position is what the evidence has forced me to take, which you will see supported in detail in my presentation
at the Conference.
The irony is, in everything that really matters, I agree with CIT, i.e. that the official story is a lie, that the official-story ‘plane destruction path’ was faked, and that this proves not only an inside job and Pentagon deception, but a PREMEDITATED plot to deceive the American people into supporting an endless ‘war on terror’, illegal aggressive foreign invasions and occupations, an assault on the Bill of Rights and a massive and invasive surveillance/police state.
CIT makes another false assumption, referring always to “the” plane, as if there were no evidence for more than one, or for a plane coming around twice. This is especially baffling, as one of CIT’s own key witnesses, heliport controller Sean Boger, makes clear in their OWN videotaped interview of him posted on their website that there were TWO plane approaches towards his heliport controller’s post atop of the Pentagon firehouse “about three minutes apart.” And CIT makes yet another assumption – that the plane the north-side witnesses saw approach the building was the plane the official story says approached at 9:37:45 – completely unsupported by their evidence, as they assume there was only one plane or that a plane didn’t come around twice and yet didn’t ask the north-side witnesses THE TIME of the plane approach they saw – or if they did ask the time, it’s not reported on their website. Under the circumstances, the fact that CIT and its advocates insist that their cherry-picked evidence, and cherry-picked interpretation of their own evidence, is the ‘last word’ on the subject and that the investigation on the Pentagon should therefore be declared closed, raises major red flags.
Finally, I was amused by McKee’s statement that “I am not aware of anyone who endorses her [my] drone thesis”, i.e. the possibility that the white plane that was destroyed near the heliport at 9:32:30 could have been a remote-controlled drone. The specific identity of the aircraft that was destroyed near the heliport is trivial compared to the fact that ONE WAS. I was also amused by Paul Zerembka’s statement in his posted comment that “she (I) wants you to think [that the feedback from 9/11 Truth leaders I quote in the YouTube of my Seattle presentation at http://tinyurl.com/smokecurtain ] endorse her work.” The reader of this comment can decide for him or herself whether they do, as I copy the feedback from those 9/11 Truth leaders below. But before I do, one last response to another of Zerembka’s claims in his comment, i.e. that “Robin Hordon told the Leader’s teleconference that the quote I used from him [Hordon] was ‘misleading.’” Robin’s original quote was “IF the early time [of the Pentagon attack, i.e. shortly after 9:30, as opposed to the official time of almost 9:38] is confirmed, it changes everything.” For the record, Robin has, on June 22nd, now authorized me to use the unequivocal and EVEN STRONGER third quote in the below list of reactions to my evidence and findings on the Pentagon attack by 9/11 Truth Movement leaders:
Reaction of 9/11 Truth Movement Leaders
To The Findings In
“Behind the Smoke Curtain”
“This will transform the discussion of what happened on 9/11.”
— Professor David Ray Griffin
“This presentation blew…me…away !”
— Richard Gage, AIA, Founder, Architects & Engineers
For 9/11 Truth
“Since there is so much evidence for an early explosion
at the Pentagon between 9:30 and 9:32, including from
confirmed government records, this reality changes everything.”
— Robin Hordon, Former FAA Air Traffic Controller
“This is a MAGNIFICENT presentation! You’ve PROVEN
that the damage and deaths at the Pentagon were
caused by pre-planted explosives!”
— Barry Kissin, Esq., attorney and leading investigator
on the 9/11-linked Anthrax letter attacks
“Amazing work — Truly historic.”
— Connie Cook Smith, Canton, Illinois 9/11 Truth
“Awesome! That was one hell of a presentation!”
— Don Fox, 2012 Vancouver Hearings
“This is brilliant scholarship. You represent the 9/11 Truth
Movement with honor and knowledge.”
— Jerry Mazza, Associate Editor, Intrepid Report and
Former Associate Editor, Online Journal
“I think you are the only Pentagon researcher
who is both honest and presents a coherent model.”
— Professor Niels Harrit, Nanochemistry expert,
Copenhagen, Denmark
“You do a masterful job, not only of presenting the truth
about the Pentagon attack, but interweaving it with the
geopolitical context.”
— Ken Freeland, Organizer, 9/11 Leaders Teleconference
“This presentation is great!”
— Jim Marrs, New York Times bestselling author
“Well done! This is an excellent presentation!”
— Annie Machon, former British Intellligence MI5
“This is the very best I’ve seen on the Pentagon attack.”
— Gregory Ziegler, Former U.S. Army Intelligence
Counterintelligence / HUMINT / Tactical Intelligence
“Breathtakingly amazing work! Completely stunning in its logic,
order of presentation and painstaking detail of the research.”
— Lt. Dennis Morrisseau, Vermont 9/11 Truth
“The talk is amazing and revelatory — one of the most compelling
I’ve seen in the 9/11 movement.”
— Byron Bellitsos, Executive Director of Senator Gravel’s
Campaign for State Initiatives for a New 9/11 Investigation
“This presentation is a tour de force!”
— Bob Cable, Boston 9/11 Truth
“This is by far the best information I’ve seen on anything
having to do with 9/11. I showed your DVD to my group
at the monthly August meeting, and everyone was
blown away by the amount and quality of the information
and the completeness of the picture you gave us.”
— James Hufferd, Ph.D.,
Founder, 911 Truth of Central Iowa and
Coordinator of 911 Truth Grassroots Organization
“This is the most important 9/11 presentation I have seen.
It destroys the official version of what happened at the
Pentagon with an incredible amount of facts and details.”
— Tom Dietrich, Peoria, Illinois 9/11 Truth
“This is the most important presentation about 9/11 that I have ever seen.”
— Alexandra, Forbidden Knowledge TV
“This presentation was mind blowing, even for those of us
‘in the know.’ All who have seen it are impressed and astounded!”
— Dick Kennedy, Michigan 9/11 Truth
“This Seattle presentation is truly a breakthrough event!”
— Jonathan Mark, FlyByNews
“You’ve done a great job and an outstanding service
to the 9/11 Truth community and to our country in
tirelessly separating the wheat from the chaff on the
Pentagon question. We’re all extremely grateful for this.”
— Dr. Tim Eastman, Ph.D.
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
April 20, 2012
“Very effective, powerful and convincing regarding the Pentagon.
Your standard should be the 9/11 Truth movement standard!”
— Liz Gould, Afghanistan expert and co-author with
Paul Fitzgerald of Invisible History: Afghanistan’s Untold
Story and Crossing Zero: The AfPak War at the Turning Point
of American Empire, former documentary producers for
CBS News, ABC “Nightline” and PBS TV.
“I cannot tell you enough, this is the best documentary
I’ve seen on 9/11. It’s fantastic!”
— Clay Pickering, NYC 9/11 Truth
“This is a great presentation, indeed. Thank you for condensing
so much info on so many aspects of the event.”
— George Ripley, Washington, D.C. 9/11 Truth,
National Organizer for Senator Mike Gravel’s
State Initiative Campaign for a New 9/11 Investigation
“Your presentation on the evidence that massive damage
was caused at the Pentagon by explosives on 9/11 is amazing.”
— Richard Krushnic, Greater Boston Area 9/11 Truth Alliance
Barbara,
Responding to my comment on this blog concerning your list of endorsements, you provide a revised list, while suddenly deleting, without explanation, the citation to Kevin Barrett that appears on your Seattle presentation beginning at 4:16. My remark:
–>Barrett is chosen as the moderator for the panel on the Pentagon event. Yet he is cited by Honegger saying of her work, “Barbara Honegger is the most underappreciated, greatest 9/11 truth person on the planet”.
Why is Kevin Barrett now deleted, by you, as an endorser?
I now have your explanation of a revised citation from Robin Hordon.
Would you care to offer a new date when your self-published book is to appear?
Finally, last name is Zarembka (of Polish origin), not how you spell it now or have earlier.
I’m here to affirm the validity of each and all of Barbara Honegger’s conclusions as clearly enough explained and supported by clear and reasonable evidence in her presentation. I’m also here to lament that members and adherents of the CIT version of events have chosen not to admit that her findings pose a valid narrative somewhat at variance with their own, and yet apparently refuse, even under conditions they themselves specified to lay out their version alongside hers and others’ for public consideration. I am left with at least the impression that the CIT members prefer to compete — as if competition between the two views highlighted here, instead of mutual respect as possible alternative explanations, were warranted — by innuendo and charges of bad character and dishonest dealing attempting to destroy the reputation of their perceived rival. The charges of a stacked conference set up to belittle or exclude the CIT position and invited presenters (under their own stated terms, it turns out) were sufficiently answered as categorically unfounded, and why not let that allegation drop accordingly? To persist in it and to persist in a campaign of calumny not only on the part of Barbara, but of the organizers of the conference — avowedly and now transparently set up to accommodate them equally with the champions of the other positions — smacks of paranoia. What’s wrong with having two, three, or more theories as to what happened, airing their all equally, and letting attendees and the public decide for themselves which among them most completely and rationally explains the evidence? Is that everyone’s real intent? Or, is it not? The truth of the matter will still be, independently, the truth, regardless.
James can you briefly articulate what the evidence is that supports Barbara’s drone strike/explosion near the heliport theory?
James,
Already in this young comment thread, Honegger as spoken misinformation about Pentagon eyewitness Sean Boger (scroll down for HR1’s rebuttal to this claim of hers).
I’m not accusing anyone of nefarious intents when I say what I’m about to say, but this does need to be said: Do we allow disinformation to go unchallenged? Do we allow extremely solid, undebunkable evidence to be presented right alongside disinfo, all in the name of “unity” and “mutual respect for one another’s work?”
To put this in perspective, imagine a 9/11 truth conference where the morning session is billed as follows:
Imagine the scenario: Richard gives excellent presentation. Then, Judy Wood comes up to the same podium and starts: “Well, while Richard’s presentation is interesting, it doesn’t answer all the anomalies of toasted cars, unburned paper… there’s MORE to the story that AE911Truth is not giving us!” And then launches into a mishmash presentation of speculation, misrepresented “anomalies” (like the “dustifying” spire)… she receives applause at the end, her disinformation having been given respectability. Wouldn’t many people see this as a case whereby the solid AE911Truth evidence is being muddied, or neutralized, by other “arguments” posing as credible?
And furthermore, at this hypothetical session, Wood presents “evidence” that has already been conclusively debunked in writing, to which Wood never responded, rather, pretending like the debunks don’t exist. But hey, up at that podium, she at least halfway sounded like she knew what she was talking about, right? (And hey, that Tesla Energy is real…)
You would probably come back and say that unlike Judy Wood and DEW, that Honegger is truly a master reporter and that the comparison to Wood shouldn’t be made. Well, we’ll see. Some here are working on exhaustive debunks to many of her claims. The question is, will anyone challenge her on these at the conference? Would Matt Sullivan, or Kevin Barrett, or anyone, challenge her in the conference room if she were to make the unsubstantiated claim that Sean Boger saw two planes, among other falsehoods?
“I’m here to affirm the validity of each and all of Barbara Honegger’s conclusions as clearly enough explained and supported by clear and reasonable evidence in her presentation.”~James Hufferd
And what expertise do you claim to that gives your evaluation validity?
You are saying that you have the knowledge of all of the compound subjects addressed in Honegger’s entire presentation?
Addressing just the portion of her presentation concerning the contested assertion of a plane exploding at the heliport complex:
>Are you a qualified pilot?
>Are you an aviation expert?
>Do you have enough psychological background to assess the text and subtext of the various witness’ testimonies
>Have you given any serious study of the information offered by Citizen Investigation Team?
>Have you studied the vast amount of analysis at Pilots for 9/11 Truth?
>On the other-hand have you read Legge and Stutt? Do you understand the controversy?
>In a nutshell Hufferd, how much do you really know about the subject of the Pentagon beyond this Honegger presentation?
\\][//
Will this be a hit and run posting Barbara or will you be responding to questions and comments like the rest of us do?
Ruff, Barbara has been responding amply to every question anyone posed all along. She’s never been reticent or clandestine about anything, although you may not always have been present on the forums involved to know that.
I believe she said the person or people posted on the small tower to one side of the heliport (pending GWB’s anticipated arrival later that day) so testified to her. Also, she featured a photo or photos of wreckage of some smaller object or drone taken at or beside the heliport apparently not on the scale of an airliner and made of an apparently much lighter weight material that was painted to resemble the markings of an American Airlines plane. Also a pic or pictures showing no perforation in the close by Pentagon wall at that point. That’s just from memory. You could check the video at that point to confirm. And I’m not saying that there wasn’t other evidence of it as well. I myself asked Barbara why an aircraft of whatever kind would have struck the heliport, and she said, basically, that my guess was as good as hers. We both surmised that it could have been used as a visible distraction.
James thank you for your response I acknowledge that you did respond and I have carefully read what you said and a couple follow up questions come immediately to mind.
Regarding the witnesses who “so testified to her” about this incident can you recall how many witnesses there were and if possible their names? If not I will see if I can locate the witnesses you are talking about myself but if you know off the top of your head please let me know.
Regarding the “pictures of debris” can you tell me if any of the wreckage in these photos has been identified by serial number? Secondly are there any large pieces of debris that could not be carried by a single person in these pictures? Lastly is there a time line as to when these photos were taken?
The reason I ask these questions James is that I want to establish for the record how strong or weak the evidence is which supports Barbara’s theory of a drone destruction near the heliport.
I contend that the witnesses are few and may have had their statements distorted. I further contend that the pictures prove nothing because the debris is small enough pieces and in such small quantity overall that it doesn’t represent an aircraft of any significant size at all and furthermore that it could have easily been planted after the fact because the photos time line cannot be established. I also suggest that this debris could have resulted from internal explosions inside the pentagon.
I thank you for any response you care to give to these questions and I will seek out the answers to them myself in the mean time.
Barbara,
Your comments get off to a bad start when you accuse me of trying to blame the organizers for not including “a real CIT speaker.” I did not say that, and it would be a nonsensical point if I had.
I acknowledge being invited (I expressed my appreciation for the invitation to Matt and Elaine Sullivan when I declined, although I got no reply). I talked about Shelton Lankford being invited – and I even urged him to accept.
And the questions Ranke asked were not just unanswered, they were ignored altogether. I said it was an error to wait until July to invite him – and that’s why I said he “seems” to have been an afterthought. You must concede at least in retrospect that this should have been handled differently. They should have communicated with him in a much more proactive manner. It was an error to ignore the questions that he asked – and the ones I asked for that matter.
You write: “Ranke’s photo was posted on the website because the organizers, as it turned out naively, assumed it was only a formality that he hadn’t yet accepted their feeler as he was waiting to hear who else had accepted, as he himself had demanded before formally deciding.”
This makes no sense at all. They gave him a “feeler” in April, which he responded to by asking a variety of questions. He got no answers, and he did not get a formal invitation until July – and then they assumed he would say yes? Based on what? Why would they think it was a formality?
By the way, he didn’t just want to know who would be in the Pentagon portion of the conference, he wanted to know who was being invited to present in general. So just knowing about you and Dwain didn’t put the question to rest.
Your next point is also inaccurate: I did NOT fault the organizers for dropping the debate format. I made it clear that this was in response to concerns expressed by Ranke and Deets. I admitted that I like the idea of a debate but did not criticize the change.
It’s interesting that you say you accepted on the assumption that Ranke had already accepted (“That is, when I was invited, I assumed that Ranke had been invited and had accepted, and accepted the debate format on that understanding.”). So you weren’t given the current facts at that point either? You shouldn’t have had to assume anything about who had already accepted. I find it hard to believe that you didn’t simply ask.
On demanding the release of evidence, you write: “McKee and Ranke claim that the Conference shouldn’t demand that the government release all the evidence about the Pentagon attack because “this evidence would almost certainly be inauthentic,” and yet they cherry pick and insists on the authenticity of the one piece of ‘evidence’ that’s already been released which appears to support their position – the flight path simulation that shows a north path — while rejecting ALL the others and insisting we shouldn’t even see any others because they MIGHT be inauthentic ! This insults the intelligence and investigative ability of the Ph.D.’s, former military personnel, scholars and experienced researchers in the 9/11 Truth Movement.”
My point is that the perpetrators are not going release evidence of their own guilt. If they do release anything (as we saw with the “5 frames”), it won’t likely be trustworthy or authentic. So what do we gain by demanding it after 12 years? As to cherry picking, I believe that all evidence should be assessed on its merits. And where do you get the idea that I’m saying we should reject all released evidence except the simulation?
On the question of the text of the Ranke and Lankford invitations, you seem to have completely mixed this up. IN FACT, YOU BACK UP THE POINT I’M MAKING. It is Elaine Sullivan who is saying the invitations are different and that Lankford wasn’t being invited to the debate, not me. It looks to me as if both were being invited within three days of each other to give the “CIT position” in a debate. Elaine is saying that Shelton was being asked to speak SEPARATELY from the debate.
When I said I don’t know of anyone who endorses your drone theory, I wasn’t saying you don’t have endorsements or praise for your presentations. I meant that I am not aware of people who will explicitly say they that they believe a drone crashed near the heliport. That doesn’t preclude there being such people, but I have not seen others make this claim.
So in the final analysis I find your very long comment to be based on quite a number of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of what I have written.
I think you will find as time goes on Craig that these “misunderstandings” Barbara seems to have made about what you said are not in fact “misunderstandings” at all. In my lengthy back and forth via e-mail with Barbara I found that she seemed to “misunderstand” all my major points while also subtly distorting what I actually said. I explain myself very clearly and make my points as straightforward as possible and I did so with her during that exchange. She essentially ignored my points and arguments using the following disinformation technique:
“9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
I think you are also going to discover that Barbara is using the following disinformation technique as well here on your blog:
“6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.
Frank Legge did a hit and run attack here, John Bursill did a hit and run attack here. A.Wright does them quite often, you notice he never seems to address the counter points made to his arguments? He seems to disappear after a compelling response is made and he slinks back in after the point is long forgotten never having addressed the actual argument made.
Barbara Honegger uses these two techniques which is why I asked her above if this was going to be a hit and run posting by her. We will see won’t we?
@Barbara Honegger
I want to ask you about a significant part of your presentation where you say that it is physically impossible for the 757 to have hit the building low down without the engines gouging the lawn. With the top of the fuselage being 20ft above the ground, the fuselage 12ft 4″ in diameter and the engines being 9ft below the wings, the engines would have to hit the lawn. If you look at this graphic giving the dimensions of a Boeing 757 , from the top of the fuselage to the underside of the engines is at most 18ft 4″. The illustration you use in that presentation of a 757 is actually inaccurate as the engines are shown hanging almost entirely below the fuselage whereas in fact the centre axes of the engines are roughly level with the bottom of the fuselage.
“in fact the centre axes of the engines are roughly level with the bottom of the fuselage.”~Wright
This is not so Wright, approximately 3/4 of the engine falls below the bottom of the fuselage on a 757. The bottom line of the engine is a little bit below level with the top of the wing tires.
@hybridrogue1
I forgot to post the link in my previous post.
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/753sec2.pdf
A Wright,
Thank you for the design drawings and specs on the Boeing 757.
I concede that from what we see in these drawings the center of the engine appears to be just about center line engine to bottom of fuselage.
Be that as it may, photographs of real planes have a great variety of configurations, and many appear just as I describe.
I sent a photo to Craig that appeared as I said, perhaps he has some input here..?
\\][//
Dude: Are you familiar with airlift? Do you not realize that in 2001, no commercial 757 flying 410-510 knots per hour at sea level could sustain itself without significant damage to the plane?
In any event, where are the blast markers of the rolls Royce engines, which is by far the heaviest part of a 757?
I have another comment to Barbara, and that concerns the FDRs [the black boxes];
I can only speak for myself personally on this issue, but I do not accept any of the government’s “evidence” as not one single item that I know of has a proven ‘chain of possession’.
In fact the only parties I recall for sure to have accepted the FDR data and the stories of how it was found seem to be Legge and his cohort {I forget the name} who supposedly decoded the data.
If there is anyone here from P4T who wishes to correct me on this I will be glad to hear from them.
My view of this holds true for every crash site that supposedly found a FDR from one of these alleged aircraft. The DNA stories also fall apart when it comes to ‘chain of possession’. Well, hell, the whole official story falls apart on this issue. Nothing is revealed all is merely asserted.
\\][//
Ms Honegger,
Those plaudits for your work…they really need to study up on the Pentagon issue.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392&view=findpost&p=10809482
I’ve nearly completed my review of your presentation. At this point, you have some explaining to do.
I am sure that there will be other responses to Ms Honegger’s comments here, I know I see several areas that I will eventually like to speak to. But first I would like to start here, with this comment:
“McKee’s claim that “Honegger appears to have been aware that she would be participating in the Pentagon event for months before Ranke was formally invited”
is grossly untrue in spirit.”~Honegger
Now you mention that Mr McKee ‘hedges’ in his article at one point at least. So how about this madam? To reach for such a phrase as “in spirit” is a revelation in subtext that Mr McKee’s claim ‘is true in fact’.
And it has been determined that it was indeed months until Ranke was actually formally invited.
I would also like to know Ms. Honegger, if you will be responding to our commentary here, or if you composed that prepared statement and that will be the whole of your participation here?
\\][//
THIS COMMENT CAME TO ME BY EMAIL FROM RUFFADAM BECAUSE HE WAS UNABLE TO GET IT TO POST AS NORMAL:.
I think it is important that we all be familiar with the issue under discussion to the greatest extent possible and I regret to say that George may not be very familiar with the Pentagon evidence.
George says in his comment above:
“#6 I’m sorry Craig but not everyone believes that CIT has conclusive proof. It is a shame that CIT is so afraid of competing ideas that they refuse to participate. With all their bombast one would think they would be proud to stand up and present.”
Not everyone agrees CIT has presented a conclusive case. That is true. The people who are only marginally informed about the actual evidence and the strength of that evidence still have doubts about flyover and staged evidence. The people who have studied the evidence extensively however are convinced it is a conclusive, rock solid case that could be presented to a jury in a court of law to prove an inside job. The issue here is not that we disagree the issue is that some of the people involved in the disagreement simply haven’t studied the evidence or invested the time necessary to grasp it fully. I believe that you are one of those people George.
CIT has very politely offered to debate their unprovoked attackers and they have all (except one) declined the invitation. These offers have been posted publicly for years now so your insinuation that CIT are hiding from debate is VERY disingenuous George. What CIT and Craig Ranke are rightly concerned about regarding the conference is that their legitimate questions have not been answered and their legitimate concerns have not been addressed despite good faith efforts on their part to discuss them with the Sullivan’s.
CIT has always been proud to stand up and present their evidence and been open to debate their attackers but they are not stupid people George and they sniff something not quite right with the conference and I do too.
Deets has no coherent or remotely tenable position on the Pentagon and has no business whatsoever being a key speaker on par with CIT. Honegger’s position that a plane struck near the heliport has not been vetted or tested at all and I mean AT ALL. Some here at Truth and Shadows are undertaking that project now and so far her position is falling apart like a house of cards. She has no business presenting on par with CIT either. After her information has been tested and debated with HALF of the rigor CIT’s has and survived then she could be considered a valid speaker at least close to on par with CIT. Her being listed as a “preeminent researcher on the Pentagon” is not even close to true and hints at a troubling favoritism towards her by the organizers. CIT and P4T are THE preeminent researchers George and you can take that to the bank and cash it. Pilots are the experts on aviation issues! CIT are the experts on the NOC witnesses because they conducted the investigation and the interviews and have done by far the most research into the issue. Chandler is a high school physics teacher who has never interviewed the witnesses nor gone to the Pentagon to my knowledge so why is he any authority on the Pentagon? Why is his opinion on par with the Pilots and investigators who conducted the investigation? Legge is a chemist, Ryan is a chemist, so why is ANYONE listening to them instead of real pilot experts and real investigators who went on site and conducted a real investigation?
The REAL issue here is that, not everyone involved in this disagreement is working from the same knowledge base. In fact George I am willing to wager a hefty sum of money that you yourself are not particularly familiar with the Pentagon evidence. I can understand why you are confused about the Pentagon and I can understand why you truly believe there really is a “controversy” about what happened there on 9/11. The scope of the disinformation effort against this damning evidence is staggering so naturally people like you, who have not done extensive research into the issue, believe the “controversy” is real and valid. Well the “controversy” is indeed contrived George and I am afraid that it is you that has fallen prey to the machinations of the enemy in this case. It is you who believes that the positions espoused by Deets and Honegger are valid ones and that others in the truth movement support them. I submit that the only members of the truth movement that support the Deets and/or Honegger theories are the ones who have the least familiarity with the evidence. I further submit that you would be hard pressed to find many that do support either theory and that any you did find represent an infinitesimally small fraction of the overall truth movement. In reality you will find that an overwhelming number of truthers believe a plane did NOT hit the Pentagon.
For the record I was initially strongly recommending (for what that is worth) that CIT attend this conference until I read Craig Ranke’s detailed account of events and explanation for why he was declining. Now like him and apparently like several others I have serious concerns about the conference and recommend that CIT not attend. It seems clear to me that this conference was intended all along to be a Barbara Honegger showcase and self promotion fest and her Pentagon theory doesn’t merit such treatment. The consensus statement you are driving for at the end is also highly suspect to me since neither Deets nor Honegger represent valid, tested, or supported theories and yet would have equal say in any statement released.
George you have some serious studying to do on the Pentagon before you’re going to understand that this is a contrived “controversy” created by cognitive infiltrators to muddy the waters and obfuscate the most damning evidence of an inside job that exists. If you choose not to do the research then at the very least you should not argue the pentagon evidence with anyone because you simply don’t know what you are talking about nor can you recognize Pentagon disinformation when it is presented to you.- Ruffadam
I’ve had posting difficulties in the past… coincidentally right when it messed with the debate.
For the record I did e-mail the comment above to Craig asking him to post it for me. I would like to hear if George or Barbara have anything to say in response to it.
I love to see a great conversation… Good on ya Craig for providing the forum…
The record reflects that I have always made it very clear that I am not thoroughly knowledgeable about the Pentagon events and I contend that the vast majority of “the Truth movement” is either. Suffice it to say we know the whole damn thing is a lie. In my estimation there is only a small cadre of folk interested in the details of the Pentagon. Why go to a contentious issue after all when we know its a lie. Everyone is grateful for the efforts of those who do research these issues but until there is a smoking gun the “proof” seems lacking and I would say “most” of the movement doesn’t know what the hell happened and doesn’t need to. Those who want to start thinking about it might, however, want to attend a conference on the matter. Good reason to participate. I want to thank who-ever it was who filled me in on the backstory of the extreme “rancor” of this discussion. It is shameful who-ever started it. I have always contended that I hope CIT is proved right about the flyover, but in my estimation the evidence isn’t clear as to what happened in the vertical space at the west wall of the Pentagon. That moment of smoke and mirrors is enough however to demonstrate serious problems with, and serious questions for, our government. At this point we demand answers. It is up to us, then, to once again verify their evidence. — If you don’t keep them talking you will never catch them in a lie. That goes without saying I’m sure. I hope that each of you will consider the answers you would like from our government and pose the questions very specifically. They are the ones obstructing justice. On that we must agree. On that point you are either with us or against us.
I am energized by the conversation, my data line was down all evening yesterday until late so I couldn’t respond. I’ve flagged some that I want to get back to.
Relate to the big picture.
George
And I appreciate you being part of the discussion, George, even though I understand that you’re not happy with what I wrote.
You know, I do know how much work goes into organizing a conference, and I understand that people are freely giving of their time (and sometimes their own money) to get it organized. I get no pleasure out of criticizing people’s efforts, but when we get into the public arena, we have to be prepared to take criticism.
I devoted days of work to this article with the full understanding that it would not be well received by some. But I accept that. I expect no free passes simply because I worked hard on it with no expectation of reward. (Yes, I realize that one article can’t compare to an entire conference)
I think the people involved in the DC conference have to accept as well that their actions will be scrutinized and criticized. Some bad choices were made with regard to the organizing of the Pentagon portion of the conference. One lesson for sure is that you can’t fail to respond to emails when you are the chief organizer. It’s asking for trouble.
When it comes to the Pentagon, my preference is to say that the evidence shows that the building was not hit by an airliner. I believe we can prove this. The “North of Citgo” evidence shown to us by CIT is just one part of the overall evidence – although a critical part. Pilots for 9/11 Truth has shown conclusively that the plane could not have followed the NoC path and still hit the building. There is so much that clearly indicates that the Pentagon was the scene of a faked plane crash. So rather than putting the focus on whether flyover has been proven, I think we should say that airliner impact has been proven not to have happened. This is one of the most powerful positions the movement can take.
There you have it Craig. The flyover matters not a whit… So let them prove the airliner in question actually crashed. Formulate specific requests for information to prove their story.
Huh? Not sure I understand your point. I certainly didn’t say the flyover doesn’t matter; in fact, it’s what had to have happened, unless the plane really did crash. But the evidence shows that it didn’t.
And let who prove that the plane crashed? The government? They have already gotten away with the crime. They don’t feel any need to prove anything. It’s our job to prove the official story is false. We’ve done that very effectively already. The only people trying to prove that a plane did crash are inside the Truth movement. Do you ever wonder why that is?
“Huh? Not sure I understand your point. I certainly didn’t say the flyover doesn’t matter; in fact, it’s what had to have happened, unless the plane really did crash. But the evidence shows that it didn’t.
And let who prove that the plane crashed? The government? They have already gotten away with the crime. They don’t feel any need to prove anything. It’s our job to prove the official story is false. We’ve done that very effectively already. The only people trying to prove that a plane did crash are inside the Truth movement. Do you ever wonder why that is?”
Alright Craig, if discovery is over, all the evidence is in, what is our next step?
Once again, I didn’t say ALL the evidence is in, I said that we have shown conclusively that an airliner did not crash at the Pentagon. If you don’t like the word “conclusively” then how about “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Either way, the official story falls apart at the slightest scrutiny.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with pointing out that the government has withheld evidence, but demanding that they release it is either a waste of time or an invitation for them to fabricate more bogus “evidence.” Again I point to the obviously faked “5 frames.” As to what’s next, I think that’s a discussion very much worth having. In fact, it’s much more productive to look at that than trying to figure out what Dwain Deets is talking about in his latest incarnation.
“As to what’s next, I think that’s a discussion very much worth having.” Good. As for your comment about Dwain Deets it was definitely snarky and gratuitous and does nothing to serve the interests of this intelligent group.
Then you missed the point of my comment. It was not meant as a personal shot, it means that rather than SPECULATING without any real new evidence that maybe a plane really did hit after all we should take the solid case we have and look for what that next step might be. By flip-flopping, Deets has done the movement no good at all.
And back to Barbara’s response to me for a moment: Didn’t you find it snarky? Why didn’t you call her out on that?
“..heliport controller Sean Boger, makes clear in their OWN videotaped interview of him posted on their website that there were TWO plane approaches towards his heliport controller’s post atop of the Pentagon firehouse “about three minutes apart.”~Honegger
I’m sorry Ms Honegger, but you have that wrong. I just watched that video…just now.
What Boger says about “three minutes” is that it was about three minutes after Ms Kidd had left for the restroom that he saw the plane coming at him, and he makes very clear that it had flown over the Navy Annex, and over the Citgo and to the right side of each which as you know is the NOC side.
The only mention of another plane is one that he did not see, but says he thought he heard a plane “spool up” earlier, and he assumed at that date, after being influenced by a documentary that he mentions, that the plane had gone past and come around again.
I also agree that it is incredible to believe that Boger just sat and watched as the plane came in at him and didn’t duck until it actually exploded. The interview says “It is amazing that you reacted that quickly.”
NO what is amazing if he is remembering correctly is that he reacted so slowly. I in fact do not believe it. Like anyone else the body is going to react to danger on it’s own, he ducked and experienced the explosion, felt the percussion, saw the flash of it but did NOT see the plane impact or see it explode.
Yes yes yes, the last portion is only my opinion, but as far as I’m concerned it is the most reasonable opinion in this instance. The essential point here is that Boger did not see two planes approach his tower as you assert he said.
\\][//
I want to say early in this discussion that I do not find Ms Honegger’s work without merit. In fact I find it incredibly wonderful and thorough, especially in the proofs of bombs inside the Pentagon.
The only thing that spoils it for me is this insistence – unfounded in my opinion – that there were 2 planes and that one exploded next to the fire station helipad complex. In my study of the photo evidence of the aftermath of that area, I find it impossible to conclude any such explosion of an inbound aircraft.
As per the assertions of a helicopter being on that helipad within seconds of all of this is to my mind totally unfounded. How could Boger of all the witnesses miss this?
I would also like to say that this framing of the CIT as bumptious and arrogant to be one of the worst parts of all of this petty infighting. It is these very charges, which began quite early and have become relentless by this time that gives them every good reason to be cautious when dealing with their intensely vocal and virulent detractors. Ms Honegger and James Hufferd mention the word “paranoid”. I would reply with that old saw, “it’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you.”
And I do detect a concerted effort to knock down the CIT, perhaps much of it simply bandwagoning…but it must certainly have a proximate cause built by design.
\\][//
The term “death by a thousand cuts” has survived for some time, despite being an archaic metaphor (well, CIA renditionists and some “Special Forces personnel” — read psychopathic torturers — may still traffic in actual blades being used on defenceless human bodies). Now we have, in BarbH’s case, “obfuscation by a thousand endorsements.” or, as the inelegant more contemporary saying has it: “Bullshit baffles brains.” I also note the amount of time and energy going into the back ‘n’ forth here. Definitely not saying there is no gain from robust debate of Craig’s well founded, insightful and timely article. Just asking myself questions such as “Which of the discussants are paid for their time and energy investment?” and “Do any discussants have an agenda that goes beyond truth-seeking and honest exchanges based on truth-seeking?” No need for anyone to take time to weigh in on my questions, as they’re less questions than observations.
Frankly Barrie,
I find the whole issue of Honegger’s endorsements neither here nor there. As an argument it is akin to an appeal to authority, and as such lends nothing to her arguments, and in fact detracts as a matter of ‘False Argumentation’.
I am more curious as to whether anyone, including Honegger herself is going to make an attempt at the counter arguments her position is receiving here. She poses as hot to debate Ranke and the CIT position. Well Ranke hasn’t appeared here yet, but the CIT position is well represented so far and will only grow stronger as this thread stays active.
It may be strong language to say this, but she seems to have successfully set up two patsies, that is fall-guys, for the live conference. If she really has the chops to debate, this is the place to show them.
\\][//
Barbara’s comment of 7:17 am today is 2,464 words.
Yet when I asked on the teleconference listserv last week if there was a written summary of her theory, that would save me from having to watch a 3 hour YouTube, there was no reply. Not from her, not from her supporters.
If Barbara wants to reach a large audience, she must make her thesis more available, as few of us are going to sit through a 3 hour video of a static camera aimed at Barbara at a podium.
If she had written 2,464 words explaining how the heck her cockamamie theory could possibly be true, I’d read it. But I suspect that obfuscation is the nature of her game, and thus is serves her purposes to bury her theory in as much irrelevant blather as possible.
Where is her “elevator speech?” This is the short statement of her theory, in a nutshell. CIT’s work is complex, but it could still be stated in one paragraph if necessary:
“The plane took a path that could not have caused the damage to the building, generator and light poles. All of the credible witnesses in a position to see the plane on its approach to the Pentagon, place it on a path north of the Citgo station. To knock down the light poles and cause the other damage, the plane would’ve had to fly SOUTH of the Citgo station. So the damage path was created, not by a plane, but by workers on the ground. The Pentagon faked a plane crash on its own property.”
How about it Barbara? Can you summarize your theory in just 95 words? James Hufferd and George Ripley, since you are big fans, surely this would not be hard for you?
Great point Sheila I too would like to hear the “elevator speech” for Barbara’s theory. I am going to attempt my elevator speech for the NOC evidence.
Over twelve well placed, highly credible, eye-witnesses who cooroborate each other prove that the plane which approached the Pentagon on 9/11 flew a path which made it impossible to have caused the damage observed to the pentagon and made it impossible to have struck the pentagon. The damage is thereby proven as staged and the plane is proven to have flown over the pentagon.
Ha! I did it in 65 words! So nanny nanny boo boo I am better than you you. Just kidding Sheila and trying to add some humor to the situation. I really would like to hear Barbara’s elevator speech though.
“and the plane is proven to have flown over the pentagon.” If you leave off this last phrase I will agree.
George Ripley,
You say:
“and the plane is proven to have flown over the pentagon.” If you leave off this last phrase I will agree.”
Look George, both Sheila and Adam were advancing ‘Abstracts’ or “Elevator Speeches’….which always is just the ‘assertion’ – “We propose this is what happened and will present such evidence as will prove such”, is the typical scientific template for an Abstract.
You still do not seem to grasp the simple equation that the proofs of a North of Citgo approach to the Pentagon entails. And yes, once all of the testimonies and physical evidence is analysed there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the plane flew on the ‘North Path’. You need to examine this body of evidence yourself rather than continuing to argue from a position of ignorance on this matter.
Once you comprehend that the damage to the Pentagon proves a very certain vector, or path, that cannot have been caused by the proven vector of the plane, it is clear, again beyond reasonable doubt that the plane did not hit the building causing said damage. At this point you have two choices as to what happened to the plane:
1] It simply disappeared.
2] It flew over the building.
If you can come up with a third alternative that takes all of the data into account, then that is what everyone wants to see proven.
\\][//
Soon as some serious witnesses to the flyover step forward. Until then I remain puzzled. And it doesn’t really matter. The official story is a lie.
@Ruffadam
Quote:
“Over twelve well placed, highly credible, eye-witnesses who cooroborate each other prove that the plane which approached the Pentagon on 9/11 flew a path which made it impossible to have caused the damage observed to the pentagon and made it impossible to have struck the pentagon. The damage is thereby proven as staged and the plane is proven to have flown over the pentagon.”
A conclusion reached based on part of the evidence , ignoring all the rest of the evidence and then declaring the rest of the evidence false because it is contradicted by that conclusion- in which it played no part. None of the evidence contradicting the conclusion was addressed in arriving at the conclusion. And the conclusion is declared proven and beyond a reasonable doubt. A good way to do that is just ignore the evidence against it until you reach your conclusion. They should try that in court cases- just present a few prosecution witnesses, get the jury to decide if what they are saying is true and get them to reach their verdict. Don’t bother with that defense case since they already know the defendant is guilty. Save everyone a lot of time and effort.
So, A, what criteria do you use when evaluating what evidence is credible and what isn’t? How do you deal with contradictory eyewitness accounts? Tell us which pieces of 9/11 evidence you find persuasive and why.
“A conclusion reached based on part of the evidence , ignoring all the rest of the evidence and then declaring the rest of the evidence false because it is contradicted by that conclusion- in which it played no part.”~A Wright
As a general statement this is absolutely true!
As a statement that characterizes the investigation of the Pentagon event of 9/11 by the members of this thread, it is absolutely false.
The falsity comes from your ignorance of the details of this investigation. You remain willfully ignorant of said details, and continue once again to blab about generalities.
All of the witnesses have in fact been taken into account. All of them, and I have told you precisely where to find the assessments of these witnesses and their testimonies.
The physical evidence has also been thoroughly investigated. By putting both aspects together we have come to conclusions that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a large aircraft did NOT hit the Pentagon.
Since you do not know shit about any of the details of this case it is time you stop your blather here. Either address specific physical evidence or specific witness testimony or stop harassing this forum.
\\][//
Okay George, then it is your opinion that there are equal chances of the plane flying over and it simply vanishing into thin air? Am I to take that from what you just said, about a “solid witness” to a fly away plane?
Sorry if I am a stickler, but I never believed in real magic.
\\][//
I would like some witnesses to a flyover. They should exist in abundance. One of CIT’s interviews is of a charter fishing skipper who was at the dock by National Harbor when they saw the plane do it’s 270 degree turn and saw the explosion. They immediately raced upriver to the scene. Got there in a few minutes. The riverside hi-way was bumper to bumper. Neither they, nor anyone stuck in traffic that morning, reported a plane flying over the Pentagon. ??? You tell me.?. Aren’t you a bit mystified? But does it really matter? The official story is full of holes.
As for Barbara’s presentation,… what are you all afraid of? Why do you believe it is such a threat to the truth? Why are you so locked in to a position? Especially when so many questions remain.
Barrie,
When you find a bill of lading laying around for such imagined payments, please share it! In the meantime, I’d like to know what causes you to suspect that some of the current discussants might be paid to discuss? Is there a cui bono of some sort that you detect? Could you elaborate a bit on whatever aspect there is to elaborate on? I am laboring under the supposition that we are mostly a gaggle of codgers with little better to occupy our time, or else seasoned procrastinators if there is. A penny for our thoughts might apply best when that’s just about what they’re worth!
“A penny for our thoughts might apply best when that’s just about what they’re worth!”
Ewwww…a huffing puffing snark fart!
Why the bumptious fandango?
\\][//
James according to Madsen who used to work for the NSA there is a group within the NSA called the Q-Group which is assigned solely to the ongoing 9/11 cover-up and disinformation operation. This group is reported by Madsen to be over 1,000 people strong. There really is no doubt that there are “cognitive infiltrators” or “cointelpro operatives” if you like, within the truth movement and some of them are here most likely since this blog seems to be the cutting edge of the truth movement right now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ASmO9XDsOA
“this blog seems to be the cutting edge of the truth movement right now.” How can you make that very vain statement and claim to know what the movement is doing. “The movement” is global… You are apparently unaware of the Re-Think 9/11 effort… and, once again you are totally discrediting the motives and efforts of the conference organizers. I realize that we each have egos that need to feel important, and sometimes don’t know where to direct our frustration, but let’s not shoot ourselves in the foot. Keep focused on the big picture, taking the cabal which is responsible for 9/11 to court and to justice. You can help by contributing to the pool of specific questions needing answers, and listing the specific materials needed to answer those questions. Although this can be a “fishing expedition”, the more specific we can be as to the records we need, the more likely it will be that the chinks in their armor appear. (We need minutes of specific meetings for example.) I’m not trying to point out what to you all must be obvious. I’m not a researcher, or a lawyer, so it wasn’t obvious to me. Quite likely many of you have already submitted FOIA requests… Well the time for requests seems to be over. It seems to me that if, like all the other issue groups in the movement for global justice, we really want answers, we must take it to the next level and demand them. and By God our demands should be nailed to the doors of the FBI and the Pentagon. “If I had a hammer…”
The attendees of this conference should exert their power by making these formal demands. If our valid demands (developed in this and future legitimate conferences) are not met then our movement will build as more and more citizens begin to wonder why our government won’t respond to easy legitimate questions?
Ahh yes…Adam Ruff, how could I ever forget how I discovered the Q-Group.
Scurrilous accusations based on delusion; I had no idea of what this thing was I had been said to be representing…
I really thought it was just something somebody was making up. I didn’t come across Madsen’s info until a couple months later.
And besides this Q-Group infiltration, there is the Sunstein ‘cogniitive dissonance’ infiltration crews. One can only imagine what range of ‘personality profiles’ are manufactured by such ops – anything from a JREF outright Official Story promoter – like our Mr Wright — to industrial scale ‘conspiracy theorists’ like Fetzer and his band of merry pranksters.
Your point that one or the other or perhaps a gaggle of goobers lurk behind some of the posts on le thread is worth serious pondering.
I say give them the psychopathy test and prescribe treatment…{Breaking rocks in the hot sun??}
\\][//
http://keenanroberts.wordpress.com/2010/12/26/the-strange-case-of-lloyd-england-and-his-fbi-wife-the-first-admitted-accomplices-of-911/
This article by Keenan Roberts on Lloyd England has some very good info that was dug up and caught on video by CIT.
\\][//
I find it interesting how you surmise so accurately the infiltration and cognitive dissonance angles effecting 9/11. Now, do you agree that 9/11 Truth is available for the Johnny-come-latelies and fence riders?
Yes of course 9/11 truth is available to the newbies and fence sitters it is just more difficult for them to sift through the mountains of BS put out there by the bad guys. They will have a much more difficult time of it without the knowledge base veterans have on the subject.
Dsn6,
I think that any Truth is available to anyone who is willing to put the effort into finding it. Understanding ‘cognitive dissonance’ first entails cognitive cohesion on the part of the individual seeker. Critical thinking skills can come more or less naturally to each person depending on temperament, and innate intelligence, talents and skill. It then depends on environment; experience, teaching, etc.
Of course the crucial situation in the modern world is the general milieu of coercion, programming, training and conditioning. Bernaysian Democracy is the Public Relations Regime. As such critical thinking skills are manipulated via emotional training. This is the barrier – the ‘Trance’ must be broken first of all.
\\][//
Have the organizers of this event thought to invite Lagasse, Brookes.. and the many others who have “bet their life” on the fact that the airplane approached on an angle impossible to cause the physical damage at the Pentagon?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/North-Approach-Impact-Analysis.html
If not… clearly the organizers of this event are not interested in the Truth.
And for the record… I was not invited… nor any of our current Aviators such as Ralph Kolstad.. Rusty Aimer… Jeff Latas…. the list goes on….
With that said.. I did get an email a few months ago regarding a conference… I didn’t bother to read it and deleted it. I do not remember anything with wording of a DC Conference… nor did I see any follow-up.
Very good Mr Balsamo,
I posted a link to a PDF of this same exposition on the thread just before this one.
This is a most valuable addition to the 9/11 Pentagon literature. I cannot give high enough praise for this piece.
Thank you, \\][// – Willy Whitten
I hope you all will submit the names of selected speakers for future conferences to the next organizers of a conference. Heck, organize one yourselves. (You’ve heard the saying, “God so loved the world that he didn’t send a committee.”) If they will come, get the best of the best. We wanted Craig Ranke. Heck, sometimes the best don’t show. Or maybe they are getting too old, or are ill, or have other problems. Come on folks, if this is the “Leadership Conference” step up and organize something. We can do another one at the Sheraton if you want. I would like to see one take place in Cleveland. Someone needs to make public the questions remaining about what did or didn’t take place there.
The organizers wanted basics. The organizers hope that other organizers will organize future conferences in cities and towns all over the country to present the information that is lacking. to other members of the public and in so doing build the movement. Rob, come on, don’t throw such allegations around. We are not the enemy. Ask your questions of them.
and, keep relating to the big picture and keep moving in a focused way towards the real goal.
You know George,
You seem like a nice guy. From my perspective, your input as far as event organizing is valid and helpful. It is however not helpful to us or yourself to speak to the Pentagon evidence_until_you put a lot of time into its study.
I like your background, I like your stance on not trusting the “Federal Government”. I just think that should extend to the State governments as well, as they are totally manipulated by the same hand that manipulates the puppets in DC.
I think you really should look deeper into the larger global conspiracy and get that panorama perspective.
\\][//
@Rob Balsamo
This is what I suggested on a previous thread, that the eyewitnesses themselves would be invited to speak at a conference addressing the issue of ‘What happened at the Pentagon’ , since they were there at the time. The difference though is that I suggested that all of the witnesses be invited and not just a few selected ones.
Of course, A. Wright. Can you point out all the ones that were on the alleged impact side, in multiple opposing vantage points, who could actually see the Pentagon and the former Citgo, who unequivocally place the plane in a low level descent on the official South path/South of Citgo? How about all the witnesses who could actually see the Pentagon who all corroborated the OFFICIAL DETAILS of the official impact?
How about the expert witnesses, A. Wright? Would you like to elaborate on exactly which expert you would call up to affirm that a 757 on the official south path can hit the Pentagon low and level in the first floor, especially when one considers the gov’t’s own alleged black box data?
Craig McKee posted this article on August 19, 2013
Barbara Honegger commented once on August 20, 2013 – 7:17 AM
It is now August 21, and there have been 57 comments put to this thread, many of which have asked for clarifications from Ms Honegger.
As of yet none have been forthcoming. I should think as the premier expert on the 9/11 Pentagon event, answers to such simple inquiries should be at the ready on the tips of her fingertips.
If She were at a live debate such as the one proposed, but not taking place, for this conference, would she stall for a whole day before answering such questions of her critics or debate opponents?
I think it fine that she has a couple of champions here to sing her praises and give commentary from their points of view as if they represented Honegger in some way. But they obviously cannot answer for her. She needs to answer herself.
While she may believe it is within her rights to save such answers for the event itself, it is my opinion that she then should have made no appearance on this thread whatsoever.
We await your presence with baited breath madam.
\\][//
For Barbara to attempt a judicious reply to all of the demeaning and hectoring demands, more than questions, herein would be like attempting to catch a torrential rainstorm in a bucket. She, I know, will answer gladly and graciously questions that are posed respectfully. And I haven’t seen many here like that. And don’t ask me for examples of the hectoring demands — just look! If you really wanted the truth, you would welcome her giant contribution to uncovering it, as most even among our top movement leaders really do.
James, what I would like is for Barbara to read my response to her comment and to acknowledge where her points were flat wrong. She attributes some things to me that I never wrote, and she mischaracterizes other things. She ridiculed my point about Lankford and Ranke being invited around the same time – but as I explained, she had it backwards. In fact, she backed up my point without realizing she was doing that. That’s pretty black and white, and I would appreciate an acknowledgment of that.
At the very least, Barbara owes a response to Craig McKee’s well thought out response to her comment.
“At the very least, Barbara owes a response to Craig McKee’s well thought out response of her comment.” No, I don’t think she does, any more than Craig Ranke “owed” it to the movement to show up at the conference.
Ah George, now you’re really losing me. Apples and oranges, my good man.
Barbara made a long comment that was filled with inaccuracies. You can see them by simply reading my article and then her comment. It’s very clear that she accused me of several things that were not true. And you don’t think she has to respond? I would think you’d be a little embarrassed to have posted this opinion. You sure you don’t want to take it back and try again?
I don’t remember every back and forth between you, but my impression is you have also been very “snarky” towards her along the way. Why should she want to get into a “he said/she said” hectoring rant with you or anyone else. Do you think we are going to solve every last riddle about this thing if we stay up late enough arguing? These things have a way of working out, give it the time it needs.
I don’t think I’ve been snarky at all towards Barbara. I think you’re confusing me with others.
Oh but James, you assured us that Barbara is always good at answering her critics.
Are you backing off of that bold assertion now?
There is a lot of discussion here, not so many “demands” as you characterize them.
You say:
“If you really wanted the truth, you would welcome her giant contribution to uncovering it…”
Well FIRST James, lets parse out what is actually “truth” aye? Is it truth that an aircraft exploded near the helipad? That is the stickler to this whole thing here. Is it the truth that a helicopter that Boger did not happen to see, sitting right there, come anywhere near that heliport as the plane was headed right at him?
Let’s have it James…we’ve got a problem with certain aspect of Barbara’s particular “truth”. If you don’t recognize that…you can bet your ass she does. Sure she can shine us on…go on her merry way as if this forum thread never took place. Remain a celebrity 9/11 Truth “Leader”…
It’s up to her which path she takes at this point. Flip a coin__heads or tales?
\\][//
Well said James.
James
Check out her “giant contribution” here (still the unfinished article because I’ve almost finished the major flaws, now I have to sift through the minor, yet glaringly outdated disinfo that’s peppered throughout her presentation.:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392
In fact, ask the “truth leaders” to spend a bit of time reading it too instead of listening to whispers in their ears.
If they don’t want to spend time on it, they should butt the hell out.
The following goes for George too.
You said earlier “so what” about the flyover (words to that effect) but you want people to get off Ms Honegger’s case when discussing her Global Hawk blown up by a helicopter six or seven minutes before the official time? Really George?
Why be so snarky? What does it accomplish?
It’s getting crowded and long lines between buttons in some instances.
Lets be sure to address who it is we are talking to in our posts now….
okay George…. and everyone else too … I address George here because I don’t know who he is saying is snarky.
\\][//
“I address George here because I don’t know who he is saying is snarky.” In the effort to get through this gauntlet I have forgotten which of the snarky commenters i was referring to… there have been several it might have been. It doesn’t matter who, perpetuating the rancor doesn’t help anyone. Furthermore, it is a tool of those who would keep the movement divided. The real leaders in this group will move beyond it. I can understand how differences of opinion can get heated, but avoiding the gratuitous insult will do much more to move us forward as the allies we truly are than the momentary self satisfaction of a splendid insult, so well thrust.
Who are you referring to here? Your comment is before HR’s comment, so I was assuming you were directing it to either Craig or me,
ATTN: George Ripley and others
Regarding the Pentagon surveillance videos…
There are no more videos. The FOIA requests yielded all videos available which allegedly “show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon”. There are no other videos available that show anything else. This is from the Gov’t’s own response to the FOIA request based on the very specific wording of the FOIA request – which demanded to see all video showing “the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon”.
Whether this is true or not, this is their story and they are sticking to it. Obviously all videos were confiscated and scrubbed/edited/manipulated- which is clear in the case of the two fraudulent videos released from the two similar angles and the Citgo video…
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-security_video.html
http://thepentacon.com/Topic8.htm
Most clever… “all video showing “the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon”.”
Ergo, if Flight 77 didn’t hit the Pentagon — because (a) it really flew over it or (b) it was a military aircraft or drone — then they can claim with a straight-face to have given up all videos showing the impact: zero.
//
Of course. So to keep asking over and over for something they will never release is an excercise in futility.
Their flight path and story is intimately tied to data and a very specific flight path. There is no way they will release a clear video showing anything. That is WHY all of the videos have been vague, ambiguous, grainy and really didn’t show anything… except for the two gate cam videos which show grainy, photoshopped inserts of a low and level object later “shown” to be a “757” by frauds like Integrated Consultants.
I would like to reiterate what I said earlier in an earlier comment. However, in place of Thomas Eagar, who is not a truther at all, let me substitute the name Michael C. Ruppert: someone who is a truther (groundbreaking research on the war games) but is opposed to controlled demolition. Imagine the following session:
And just as “controlled demolition” conclusion did not originate with AE911Truth, but was around long before Gage came onto the scene, it similarly is not “the CIT position” that the plane didn’t hit.
And imagine if all three parties signed some insipid “consensus” statement at the end, saying that while we don’t all agree on everything, but we must be united in demanding answers from the government.
Would supporters of AE911Truth be excited about such a “theme?”
Adam,
I think this example is an extremely useful way of illustrating the problem that some of us have with the notion that what happened at the Pentagon is unknown. It would be one thing if the case being made for a large plane impact were a compelling one. But it isn’t.
Craig,
Thanks. In your article, you say:
This, I think, is one of the most central nuggets of the article that transcends the specific issue of the conference.
A few weeks ago, when Craig Ranke put out his “statement” on the DC conference, he said:
On FB in the 9/11 truth movement group (the one with 33K members), when someone posted Ranke’s statement, an admin “Ken Doc” cited the above quote, and said (I’m paraphrasing, don’t have the energy to go back for exact words):
“This is a patently false statement and Ranke is playing dumb if he says there’s no controversy. On the one hand, you have people like David Griffin, Barrie Zwicker, and Kevin Barrett, who heartily support CIT and their conclusions. On the other hand, you have people like Richard Gage, David Chandler and Jim Hoffman who are just as hearty in their viewpoint that CIT is not only wrong but intentional disinfo.” (This admin, or course, refused to consider the possibility that those latter people were not acting in good faith because he had “utmost respect” for those peoples’ WTC work.)
However, the charges brought against CIT by those latter people have been thoroughly rebutted in writing, and those rebuttals have been neither acknowledged nor challenged by the detractors. So as I said before, the debate is already won.
But there are some who will, because of the split amongst “leaders” in the movement, insist that the situation is “in limbo” until we see an “ultimate showdown,” i.e. Ranke and a hard core detractor in the same room.
Or, they’ll consider it “controversial” UNTIL Chandler, Hoffman, Ryan, Legge, et al all convert and throw their leadership support behind the NOC evidence. This is precisely why the movement does not need “leaders.”
Mr Syed,
I have heard all three debate; Ruppert, Gage, and Wood.
On debating skills alone, Ruppert would win hands down.
On the facts alone, Gage would win hands down.
On wacky entertainment value alone, Wood would win hands up and flailing!
\\][//
If it were possible for such a cantankerous bunch to unite around one thing, that demand for honest answers would be it.
Have you ever read an Agatha Christie novel where Inspector Poirot in the climactic scene turns to the room full of suspects and says, “I demand to know who the murderer is!”
Good one Craig. But if we don’t get them to answer, which we have the right to do, they will continue to dance around the cement and we will never get them nailed down. The point is to keep them talking… It is our turn to keep the bright lights on them in the interrogation which we are presenting to the court of public opinion. Keep the interrogation moving forward or we have let them off the hook.
Honest answers from whom may I ask? Aye Mr Ripley? Believe it or not, the perpetrators of great crimes do not make a habit of admitting the truth of their dastardly deeds! Curious is it not?
Ever since the question was asked, “why didn’t Nixon destroy the tapes?” we have seen a wiser bunch of Moriarty’s dig into deeper cover.
But seriously, the bottom line here is that the System itself is the perp…not some secret cabal hiding inside of it. So each of us has to be a Sherlock Holmes able to recognize the truth. There is that thing from Lord Acton to recall…and it applies to ALL “leaders”.
\\][//
Ever since the question was asked, “why didn’t Nixon destroy the tapes?” we have seen a wiser bunch of Moriarty’s dig into deeper cover.
But seriously, the bottom line here is that the System itself is the perp…not some secret cabal hiding inside of it.
Good comment as to the Nixon tapes… and I don’t disagree with you that the system is bad and getting worse, … our only hope being that the people are getting mad and are waking up.
Q-group. Thats nice. A name. “Q”-Licensed to LIE.’ It must be on a big plaque deep up PENTBOM, The noble/eagle holding Machiavelli as bible open in one claw and neoconazionist Strauss head in Orwellian rats cage the other. A thousand paid liars of USA.con : Que bono.
But, professionals of the complete deepstate psychosis. understand this.
The aircraft, approaching NORTH of citgo, is a spell-breaker. It rips the fabric of illusion like the belly of the pig, and, once that spell is broken, once the understanding NO AIRCRAFT ‘vaporized’ into the building SOCT77, the WHOLE fkn story evaporates into intricate manufactures of LIE. The individual undergoes certain changes no amount of confusion repairs. You’re going to need more than a thousand paid liars.
That break can not be undone.
George,
Tell me, do you think that the official claim that an airliner hit the Pentagon holds water?
“George,
Tell me, do you think that the official claim that an airliner hit the Pentagon holds water?”
I am not at all inclined to believe that and I would like them to prove that one did.
Good night all.
George Ripley – AUGUST 21, 2013 – 10:33 PM:
“I would like some witnesses to a flyover. They should exist in abundance.”
I would like some too George, but consider this, there is an airport just over the river on the other side. With all of the excitement on the west side of the Pentagon, who is going to be looking for a plane? No one knew there had been a plane involved at that point. Anyone seeing a plane flying across the river and landing at that airport wouldn’t see it as anything unusual…typical every day occurrence for the people there.
Of course there would have been a pre-planned group to see to the plane as it came in and landed.
I don’t think the report of the plane doubling back again is reasonable – it just stands to reason that they would get that plane landed as quickly as possible. In the confusion and activity focused on the other side of the building I think it is very possible they could pull this off without suspicions of where that plane had come from.
\\][//
George Ripley – AUGUST 21, 2013 – 10:33 PM:
“I would like some witnesses to a flyover. They should exist in abundance.”
“I would like some too George, but consider this, there is an airport just over the river on the other side.”
I live in DC and have given the likelihood of an unobserved flyover much consideration from all angles and have heard all the rationale of those who say there is an airport nearby and the flyover plane might have gotten lost in normal traffic. (Actually the airport is just downriver on the same side.) Knowing the space as I do, it seems completely impossible to me that a large plane on such a course could have been completely unobserved. There are some major hiways surrounding the Pentagon and as pointed out, one of CIT’s own witnesses said the traffic along the river was bumper to bumper. Such a plane could not have executed a banking maneuver over the Pentagon and would have taken time to gain altitude. It’s course would have been at 90 degrees to the flight pattern. I think it is impossible for it to have been unobserved. I really don’t know what happened. And I don’t think it matters. As Craig suggested, focus on whether a big plane crashed into the Pentagon or not. The question of the flyover is a distraction.
George
This is an argument from incredulity logical falacy are you aware of that? There are logical reasons why many people in the area would not have been looking at or could not see the flyover.
There also may well be any number of witnesses to a flyover who:
1. Were never interviewed.
2. Ignored what they saw considering it normal air traffic near an airport.
3. Were interviewed but the interview was suppressed.
4. Were pressured to keep quiet about what they saw or lie about it.
5. Never reported what they saw for any number of reasons such as they left the area, didn’t want to get involved, didn’t think what they saw was important, etc.
This argument from incredulity logical fallacy George is really the primary reason Hoffman and all those who followed him have rejected the flyover evidence. In this case the logical fallacy takes on the following form.
1. Because many people were in the area therefore many people would have seen the flyover.
This is not true for the reasons I explained above. To put it in other words George the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
“There are logical reasons why many people in the area would not have been looking at or could not see the flyover.”
Have you ever been to Arlington, Va, and been on the hiways which completely surround the Pentagon?
Do you know that the major hiway congestion in DC is considered among the worst in the country, rivaling as first or second worst Los Angeles traffic?
Are you aware that when you are on the hiway south and southwest of the Pentagon you are practically at roof level of the Pentagon?
Are you aware of the proximity of all possible vectors of a flyover to likely observation?
What about the air traffic controllers at National Airport? They saw nothing unusual to report? And the suggestion is that a plane snuck into their lineup with perfect timing so as not to be in the way of other incoming air traffic. I guess that would be a reasonable risk, and it is very clear that each event was very well choreographed. (that goes for Shanksville as well).
Besides George the flyover is established by the fact that the plane flew north of Citgo. This is a fact regardless of how many or how few witnesses there are who saw the plane fly over. The north path proves flyover it simply does. The plane either dissapeared or flew over and away.
“I live in DC and have given the likelihood of an unobserved flyover much consideration”~George Ripley
But what I have proposed is NOT an “unobserved flyover” – What I propose is that there would be no reason for the people on the other side of the Pentagon to see anything unusual about an airplane in the air from that perspective. Only the people on the west side staging area would have any idea of the involvement of a plane in the event…the STORY of a plane hitting the Pentagon did not develop until later.
“The question of the flyover is a distraction.”
This is only true in a limited way, because in fact, the first question out of most people’s mouth is, “Well then, what happened to the plane?”
They don’t believe in magic any more than you or I do George.
\\][//
“But what I have proposed is NOT an “unobserved flyover” – What I propose is that there would be no reason for the people on the other side of the Pentagon to see anything unusual about an airplane in the air from that perspective.”
What I’m trying to tell you from the perspective of one who has lived here for 13 years is that that is malarkey.
George, you said earlier that you are not inclined to believe that an airliner hit the Pentagon. But you also say you don’t believe in the flyover. Could you tell me how the two can be reconciled? If there was a plane that approached the building – as seems to clearly be the case – then it either hit the building or flew past it. No? What’s the alternative?
“George, you said earlier that you are not inclined to believe that an airliner hit the Pentagon. But you also say you don’t believe in the flyover. Could you tell me how the two can be reconciled? If there was a plane that approached the building – as seems to clearly be the case – then it either hit the building or flew past it. No? What’s the alternative?”
I’m left stranded on a perch that I can’t seem to get off of, I’m stumped. I’m like a post turtle, and the world seems too confusing. Would that one of could say convincingly, “Elementary my dear Ripley.”
No, it is not that I don’t believe that a flyover is impossible, (it would be a dazzling stunt…) I just don’t believe they would have tried to pull it off… too much at stake…. and one (imho) weak witness is not enough to convince me … So I’m stumped. — pssst, / …. and it doesn’t matter. What matters is what happened or didn’t happen along the face and along side of the building and also what happened inside the. That is Craig Mckee’s suggestion I believe.)
I think it is fair to point out that (again imho) CIT has seemed uninterested in B. H.’s analysis of what happened inside the building… Is there an unwillingness to work together here,….?! (-It’s not as if I am totally new to this whole effort.-)
George,
CIT made a film simply showing the surroundings of the Pentagon. Your “malarkey” assertion is simply not true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-z6r-45lwM
(This is part 1.)
“What I’m trying to tell you from the perspective of one who has lived here for 13 years is that that is malarkey.”~George Ripley
Well that is fine George, but what I am telling you as a sane and rational human being is that it is more reasonable to assume the plane flew over and away than that it disappeared into thin air.
You therefore want to fall back into the “it doesn’t matter” position, to sooth the conflict, but that type of “conflict resolution”, of leaving certain questions unresolved for the sake of “getting along”, never really works out in the long run, because it does NOT resolve the conflict.
So let me state my position very frankly and clearly; It is IMPOSSIBLE for a plane to disappear into mid air, therefore; no matter how improbable, no matter how unlikely you see the alternative – it is the ONLY one left that is POSSIBLE.
\\][//
“So let me state my position very frankly and clearly; It is IMPOSSIBLE for a plane to disappear into mid air, therefore; no matter how improbable, no matter how unlikely you see the alternative – it is the ONLY one left that is POSSIBLE.”
I am very impressed with the CIT research and analysis and have long been on record about that position. I find it incredulous however that no one but Roosevelt witnessed the fly over. and I never have considered him very credible… Hold the presses! – These emails have been getting confusing because the comment set up requires too much back and forth, and then I don’t see my responses right away because Craig has to get around to his moderating,.. but I’m trying to keep up. — I think it was someone named Broken record who I read a post from who laid out a very good critique of my position. Oh and he said there is another witness named Eric who saw the flyover, I think it was Eric. Anyway, it was a good hard honest critique. i’m down with that, fair enough. But look, am I disqualified from helping organize a conference because I’m not an expert…? Maybe that is why I am helping organize a conference. and we are disappointed we didn’t get the CIT expert…, and I do know more than I did yesterday.
So this conversation is moving productively.
I don’t see my posts on this long thread. I’m just responding to posts one after the other. Did you get one where I suggested that this group meet in person in DC sometime to discuss next steps? I think it would be a good thing to do.
Sorry, I seem to have rambled.
“What about the air traffic controllers at National Airport? They saw nothing unusual to report?”~George Ripley
These would be the very people on a list of suspects, as well as a ground crew waiting to conceal the new arrival as quickly as possible. If our hypothesis is true, then this would be a key part of the op, and the key personnel at that airport would have been crucial actors.
Let’s face it George, if this is a PSYOP then there are going to be active agents to the proceedings, one cannot presume innocence of all parties all the way around with a crime this huge.
\\][//
It’s actually very likely that the flyover plane did NOT immediately land at Reagan. The flyaway witness, Roosevelt Roberts, actually stated that the plane did NOT appear to be headed for a landing at Reagan. At 9:41, Peter Jennings reported on ABC that there was a plane “circling the White House.” Could this be the decoy yet, after the Pentagon flyover?
Remember that the witnesses described this plane as “white.” Not the required silver of American Airlines. At 9:54, CNN reported that “ten minutes ago,” meaning around 9:44, roughly six minutes after the Pentagon event, there was a “white jet” circling around the White House area.
This is in all likelihood the decoy jet.
“It’s actually very likely that the flyover plane did NOT immediately land at Reagan. The flyaway witness, Roosevelt Roberts”~Adam Syed
Yes in fact the ONE and only flyaway witness.
I will not assert that it is a certainty that the flyover aircraft landed at Reagan. But as far as the white plane circling DC, it is my understanding that this was a Boeing E-4 Advanced Airborne Command Post, and the videos and photos seem to confirm this.
I don’t think this would plane would be used as the Pentagon decoy.
\\][//
Your incredulity is not counter-evidence. The north side flight path AND pull-up/ascent over Rt.27 prove the plane flew over the Pentagon.
Obviously people saw the flyover/flyaway. Roosevelt Roberts saw it – “, commercial airliner, just above the light poles in south parking lot”. Erik Dihle’s co-workers saw it.
“Some people were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going.”
~Witness, Erik Dihle Source: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=499
So where are those people, Mr. Ripley?
Remember also, two planes just hit the twin towers in an apparent terrorist attack, so people were already conditioned to believe that planes were hitting buildings
Regardless, flyover witnesses are divided into different categories.
-People who only saw a plane flying away.
-People who saw a plane flying away from an explosion.
-People who saw the whole event – plane approach, the pull-up, explosion/fireball, and the fly-away of the plane.
People who saw the plane flying away or flying away from an explosion clearly would think and even be told it was a second plane and would simply not take a stance on flyover as they are obviously being told planes were hitting buildings on 9/11 and they saw the fireball – so in their mind a plane must have hit.
Now if you count for limited views on I-395, people looking at the road they’re driving on and listening to the news, people in the high rises being glued to TV’s and radios in regards to NYC – you are going to have limited witnesses. And for the ones who did see the whole thing, what then? It’s not like they all know each other and can band together and march into news stations and demand they be heard. Most if not all would be in a state of pure confusion as to what they saw versus what they are saying on the news. By the time they put two and two together it’s too late – history has been written and it’s too big stop. Just like Lloyde England said.
Which brings me to your overall behavior…
“I really don’t know what happened. And I don’t think it matters. As Craig suggested, focus on whether a big plane crashed into the Pentagon or not. The question of the flyover is a distraction.”
You don’t know what happened and you don’ think it matters, yet you are involved in a conference practically dedicated to the topic. You also seem to have invested quite a bit of time on this blog trying to address this issue that the flyover is just “a distraction”. We should, as you put it, “focus on whether a big plane crashed into the Pentagon or not”. So you clearly feel at this point we should focus on the notion of a “big plane” crashing ie the official story, or whether a “big plane” didn’t. So if a “big plane” didn’t crash – what happened? Seems to me you are sneakily implying the option of a “small plane” ie Agent Honegger’s disinfo. Because if a “big plane” didn’t crash, then it would be a flyover – yet, strangely, you tell us it the “flyover is distraction”.
What is revealing to me is that if the flyover is a distraction, then what is the north side flight path? What about the problematic and fraudulent black box data? How come you don’t spend your time trying to promote these very special and strong pieces of evidence? How come I don’t even really see you mention it? How come you don’t make a big stink about staged light poles and an implicated and complicit cab driver making confessions of involvement? How come you are not bringing attention to black box data that doesn’t even support an impact or represent authentic data? You seem to be focused on making the flyover seem absurd, while promoting a conference and defending a promoter disinformation that suggests small plane crashed into helipad first and then a second plane flies through the smoke with a helicopter mixed in. You don’t seem to have a problem with the lack of witnesses to this ridiculousness.
The north of Citgo witnesses are all at different and opposing vantage points. They are the ONLY people that could logically be found, be in that area at the time, and be able to tell the world which side of the gas station the plane was on. Remember, Sgt. Lagasse is the one who inadvertently let the north of citgo flight path slip – the other witnesses simply corroborated it. They all, independently, placed it on the north of the gas station, in a banking turn. Some are Pentagon Police officers and were willing to testify to what they saw even after learning the implications of what they saw. How does that strike you, Mr. Ripley? They stood by where they saw even after learning the implications. How come you don’t find that to be the most important 9/11 evidence there is?
How come even anti- 9/11 truth “debunkers” know that a north of Citgo flight path=flyover and yet you don’t…
“You can’t endorse North of Citgo, and then try to say but you don’t believe in the flyover, because if the plane really was NoC, then it could not have caused the physical damage seen.” ~Pat Curley, Screw loose change blog
Is it that you don’t endorse a north of Citgo flight path, Mr. Ripley? It seems to me that your role has been to convince people that when it comes to the Pentagon, we/they “really don’t know what happened” and that they shouldn’t “think it matters”. I think that is going to be the overall goal and tone of this conference in order to perpetuate another 12 years of doubt and confusion when it comes to the pentagon attack discussion and the North-of-Citgo/flyover evidence.
Personally, I find you and this conference very suspicious.
George you ask: “Have you ever been to Arlington, Va, and been on the hiways which completely surround the Pentagon?”
Yes I have back in 2007 and I went to the Citgo station which had been renamed NEX and I took several pictures from the location nearest to the Pentagon I could get while still on the station grounds. I could NOT see the damage site from the Citgo station because of the elevated roadway and bridge (where Lloyde England’s car was photographed) which blocked the view. I also toured the area around the Pentagon at that time so yes I am familiar with the topography of the area. From many areas and roadways around the Pentagon you cannot see the Pentagon. That is a fact.
“From many areas and roadways around the Pentagon you cannot see the Pentagon. That is a fact.”
Yes, but all the super hiways are elevated at almost rooftop level of the Pentagon and less then 1/4 mile away. The riverside drive is not elevated but has an almost open of the Pentagon’s east face. ( I have already referenced an eyewitness account videoed by CIT which described bumper to bumper traffic on the riverside drive.) The 14th St Bridge expressway going south west has an elevated and unobstructed view of the east and south side of the entire Pentagon. I don’t know what the traffic conditions were, but no witness has stepped forth who saw a flyover, which almost certainly would have almost gone over their head.
“I don’t know what the traffic conditions were, but no witness has stepped forth who saw a flyover, which almost certainly would have almost gone over their head.”
~~George Ripley
Well hot damn George, that settles it, the plane vanished into thin air! {grin}
\\][//
Elementary my dear Ripley,
Let me begin by addressing this:
“…and one (imho) weak witness is not enough to convince me..”
You are addressing the ‘flyover witness’, but if you follow me you will see that you don’t even need a single flyover witness to come to the conclusion that the plane had to fly over.
There are some 15 strong witnesses who saw the plane fly NOC path. It is established beyond reasonable doubt that in the entire witness pool these witnesses were best placed to determine the actual path the plane took to the Pentagon.
The elementary aspect of this has been pointed out time and again – if the plane flew in on this vector it is IMPOSSIBLE that it hit the building at the angle that caused the damage path in the building.
It is that simple Ripley. The only way you can reject flyover is to reject NOC.
If you do reject NOC you will fall into the abyss of absurdity.
So you had better do some homework and familiarize yourself with the materials you have already admitted you are not familiar with.
\\][//
James Hufferd — AUGUST 20, 2013 – 2:18 PM, says:
“Ruff, Barbara has been responding amply to every question anyone posed all along. She’s never been reticent or clandestine about anything, although you may not always have been present on the forums involved to know that.”
. . . . .. .. .. .. . . . … ..
Okay James…about that “responding amply to every question” thing you assert there…
That was then this is now? Those were softball questions–these are hardball?
Do you suppose that Barbara isn’t actually reading this thread? Is this blog beneath her dignity?
Perhaps a prosecutorial cross-examination is not to her liking. But this is an important issue, I don’t think pussyfooting is a satisfactory route to take. Absolutely no one is above criticism. And the criticism here is well founded. I know you think that Ms Honegger deserves the respect due to royalty. And I have found that serf mentality in exchanges with you here in the past. Surely you don’t so quickly forget the past?
I do not mean any disrespect for Ms Honegger, but I think frank and open discussion is imperative on these issues…we don’t have another lifetime to coax kitty to drink her milk.
We don’t have time for primadonna posing and southern-bell vapors.
\\][//
Well I guess I am the guilty party when it comes to “snarkyness” so I guess I can be blamed now for the fact that Barbara will not answer questions or respond to criticism of her theory. Fine blame me, I will back off and not get involved in the discussion at all since my presence apparently is keeping Barbara away from responding to others who have asked very reasonable questions of her.
Now with that having been said we will see if Barbara is actually just doing a hit and run here (as I suspect) or not eh? I am serious, I won’t say another word to her, but when after a reasonable amount of time she does not meaningfully respond to anyone I am going to come back and take off the gloves I have been wearing so far. Yes I have been wearing gloves and taking it very easy so far. Anyway I will check back in from time to time and verify that what what I suspect about Barbara is either true or false. Time will tell. Craig McKee and HR1 have posed valid questions and made reasonable points Barbara should respond to.
Sheila and I have also asked reasonable questions of Barbara, mine on the morning of August 20, Sheila’s in the afternoon.
Then it is reasonable to expect, and hope for, a reasonable reply.
“Then it is reasonable to expect, and hope for, a reasonable reply.”~Mr Ripley
You have graciously responded to Mr Zarembka on the matter of a reply…
Now why is it that I suspect some bias afforded to Mr Zarembka from you, as he is one of the “well respected leaders of the truth movement” – while you seem to consider most of the members of this current council on T&S as ‘grunts’ who are not worthy of a reply from her majesty Barbara Honegger?
I know you have never stated such directly George, but it bleeds through the subtext of everything you have been saying here.
I am not insulted George, as this is typical of the cliquish behavior that goes on in most aspects of human behavior.
\\][//
hybridrogue1 commented on Pentagon session at DC 9/11 conference marred by organizational ‘issues,’ buys into false premise of disunity.
~Mr Ripley You have graciously responded to Mr Zarembka on the matter of a reply…
Now why is it that I suspect some bias afforded to Mr Zarembka from you, as he is one of the “well respected leaders of the truth movement” – while you seem to consider most of the members of this current council on T&S as ‘grunts’ who are not worthy of a reply from her majesty Barbara Honegger?
I know you have never stated such directly George, but it bleeds through the subtext of everything you have been saying here. I am not insulted George, as this is typical of the cliquish behavior that goes on in most aspects of human behavior.
I apologize if I have come across as anything but sincere… I certainly don’t mean to get into a unproductive discussion. I don’t have time for it either.
I have said all along, for months, even years, the CIT research is very good. There is a lot of confusion, there is a lot of lying, there are a lot of hurt egos, there is a stunning lack of witnesses to the flyover. There are years of divisive rancor. While the main controversy. has to do with what occurred outside the building, there is little effort to assimilate and work with evidence as to what happened inside the building during the same time frame.
“You have graciously responded to Mr Zarembka on the matter of a reply…
Now why is it that I suspect some bias afforded to Mr Zarembka from you, as he is one of the “well respected leaders of the truth movement” –”
I respect Paul and his name was mentioned as a speaker on the “money trail” subject for the conference at about the time Mark Gaffney and his book Black 9/11 surfaced. He was to accept the invitation and given time constraints we didn’t get to also bringing in Paul. I would not have known much about Paul’s work except that we met in Toronto where I was in attendance with Sen. Mike Gravel. So I do have a rapport with Paul built on an in person meeting. I would no more want to insult him, as anyone else in this group. Again, I think an in person meeting of this group would be good. If the CIT position as to what happened outside can be found to fit the evidence as to what happened inside and the case is made more unassailable, I think it would be worthy of another conference here next year. You guys organize it, I’m not the expert. Make this next one the big year. Put our efforts of this year to shame. Look, all we want is the truth… let’s get there, and let’s try to be, I mean really try to be, harmonious about it. … and helpful to the inevitable idiot neophyte who comes bumbling in with questions. Take your frustration out on the golf course or splitting wood.
Yes Paul I did not intend to leave you and Sheila out of my comment. You have both asked very reasonable questions and others have as well. I just don’t think we are going to get any answers to them, but we will see. I am thoroughly familiar with the old stone walling technique.
“If the CIT position as to what happened outside can be found to fit the evidence as to what happened inside and the case is made more unassailable…”~Mr Ripley
Well yes George, it is rather obvious that the hypothesis that no aircraft of any kind hit the Pentagon leads to one reasonable explanation – that explosives were placed inside the building.
It’s unfortunate you haven’t been able to afford yourself to just the articles on the Pentagon published here on T&S, as this scenario has been hashed out time and again.
It is Barbara’s filling in the details of the internal bomb evidence that I consider one of the worthy portions of her research. If we could get around the weakest portion of her assertions, that of the exploding Global Hawk, and the added helicopter nonsense, then there would be a pretty good melding of points of view.
But Ms Honegger obviously feels that the exploding aircraft at the helipad, being her most ‘unique’ contribution, is also her ticket to elevation. I disagree, I think the thoroughness and detail of the rest of her research is her finest hour. I have found no convincing foundation for the helipad incident she describes. Thus we are all stuck in neutral.
\\][//
“This will transform the discussion of what happened on 9/11.”
– Professor David Ray Griffin
I actually agree with Griffin’s statement here. It is rather neutral when one considers it.
Honegger’s unique point, the contentious point of her presentation, has certainly put a fire into the discussion of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11.
Then if we go through the remainder of the endorsements, I can agree with most all of them in one degree or another, because as I have said before, her presentation is powerful and packed with a lot of information. A lot I find compelling.
Now to tie this comment in with our discussions with Mr Ripley on this thread. What could have been Ms Honegger’s motive in proposing an explosion of a flying object [drone – missile – whatever] at the helipad?
Is this not an attempt to answer “what happened to the plane if it didn’t hit the Pentagon?”
It may have been the original impetus for the hypothesis, but the North path plane complicates this in that it would seem to have to involve 2 planes, in which case we are again left with the original question of “what happened to the plane?”
So rather than solve the original problem we now end up with an even more complex problem. And that problem is now expanded to include yet a 3rd flying craft at the Pentagon in the time frame of the explosive events there. And this is where this all begins to warble and go off key.
The key that is off is Honegger’s key witness, Sean Boger. Boger’s testimony is clear on two points. One of these is that the plane came from over the Navy Annex “closer to the cemetery side” – over the gas station “more to his right”.
The second point is that he actually saw the aircraft hit the Pentagon.
Now anyone in this discussion knows that a northern approach means it is impossible that the plane hit the Pentagon; this the the vector problem. This is why I assert that the most reasonable way to solve the incongruities of this testimony and others is that at the moment of impact the witness flinched, dodged, or ducked – whatever word you wish to choose. This is a universal automatic motor-response for human beings. The physiological/psychological aspects of this response are well understood. The psychological aspect of this is what I would call the “fill-in” process, where the brain fills in a blank-spot of perception with what “must have happened” according to the sequence, even though the input was down for some fraction of a second. This is by the way, common knowledge to stage magicians, and why “slight of hand” is so successful.
Again, the witnesses in the best positions to observe the coordinates of the aircraft witnessed at the Pentagon the morning of 9/11 place the aircraft as coming in from the north of Citgo position. This conclusion is deemed beyond a reasonable doubt by those who have studied the entirety of the witness pool. It follows from this conclusion that the aircraft so witnessed could not have possibly caused the known damage of the Pentagon, because of the vector of the north approach does not line up with that damage.
\\][//
HR,
I agree that Honegger packs disinfo around lots of good stuff. Similarly, Kevin Ryan’s book has MUCH good info in it. But it contains disinfo sprinkled in. Do we “forgive” Ryan for this and give him a pass on it, because he’s a “leader?”
I remember when, in 2008, 911blogger owner “Reprehensor” came down firm with an editorial policy banning the topics of WTC NPTs, DEWs, and holocaust revisionism. Here is what he said, when vilifying the individuals who promote those topics:
http://911blogger.com/node/17206
Likewise, Ryan (and Honegger) should not be given a pass on promoting disinfo.
Mr Syed,
I am NOT giving a pass to Honegger at all. I am actually trying to make it clear that she must…MUST, give up this bullshit exploding Global Hawk nonsense or be forever tainted as a disinformant.
I hope that my position is now clear to both you and her…and anyone else concerned with this matter.
Our certain little differences aside Mr Syed, I consider you one of the best here, so don’t take my critiques as any more than the minor ones that they are. I still think the plane landed at Reagan. But I will change that opinion if further information can prove me wrong.
\\][//
THE UNTOUCHABLES
In court papers filed today (PDF), the United States Department of Justice requested that George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz be granted procedural immunity in a case alleging that they planned and waged the Iraq War in violation of international law.
Totally outrageous!
It is part of the insanity to expect anything but insanity in a world run by maniacs.
And this is why I keep saying that it is naïve to expect justice for 9/11 within this current system. It is naïve to expect that demands for proofs of their own culpability to EVER be forthcoming. These futile “statements of unity and consensus” from portions of the 9/11 Truth Movement become Kafkaesque in their own light when the ground floor reality of political power is put into the equation.
Then why fight for the truth to be revealed?
It matters simply for the sake of truth itself.
\\][//
George Ripley…
Apparently you are one of the organizers for the upcoming DC Conference?
If so… was it you or one of your other organizers who sent me an email a few months ago regarding a conference invitation? And if so… why no follow up?
If not… why not?
Have you invited anyone from our organization to talk about aerodynamics and the FDR/radar data provided by govt agencies which conflicts with the govt story?
George Ripley…
Apparently you are one of the organizers for the upcoming DC Conference?
If so… was it you or one of your other organizers who sent me an email a few months ago regarding a conference invitation? And if so… why no follow up?
If not… why not?
Have you invited anyone from our organization to talk about aerodynamics and the FDR/radar data provided by govt agencies which conflicts with the govt story?
***************************************************************************************
This is an easy one Rob. I was unsure about giving Matt sole responsibility for how the Pentagon “debate” (or whatever was going to take place) but it seemed cut and dried and he seemed the man to do it having had so much interaction with the Truth movement and, particularly, with CIT. It didn’t seem like it would be too hard to set up such an event. But, I wanted to help with the planning and thought I would reach out to you on the back side in case he got into trouble perhaps you and I would have talked. I don’t know much about your work, but have always been respectful of it… and know you are involved as a movement leader. So I tried to reach you and left a message. Apparently you weren’t interested enough to return my call, and Matt got his wheels churning and, unfortunately calls were missed. These things aren’t easy to set up…
So why didn’t you follow up? —
———-
“Have you invited anyone from our organization to talk about aerodynamics and the FDR/radar data provided by govt agencies which conflicts with the govt story?”
No, but if we organize a Sheraton/ Pentagon event here next year we should cover that issue…. or where-ever the next full on Pentagon coverage extravaganza event occurs (covering absolutely all the material!) I want to see a conference in Cleveland.
If you guys really want to nail this down you will organize such a Pentagon event. Make it big and get funding for it. — Have all of us ever met? Well we should. — Alright, I’ll invite you all to come to DC to meet and to talk about the many questions, including the one which Craig seemed to like, where do we go next to push this effort, to name and punish the guilty, to the next step. Is March a good time? April? November?
But listen, you’ve got to work with others whether you like each other or not.
Hello Mr. Ripley,
Can you let us know your stance on the overwhelmingly and independently corroborated north of Citgo flight path as well as Lloyde England being implicated by this flight path and giving a virtual confession of involvement?
Are you folks going to cover him?
“Return your call?”
I have never heard of you before today when I read your reply to my first post above.
When exactly did you “call” me?
If so… was it you or one of your other organizers who sent me an email a few months ago regarding a conference invitation? And if so… why no follow up?
If not… why not?
Rob
“Return your call?”
I have never heard of you before today when I read your reply to my first post above.
When exactly did you “call” me?
I don’t remember Rob, to the best of my recollection, I made a call, or maybe sent an e-mail, to you, or someone else on the issue of the Pentagon thinking that there are many good minds who have worked on this issue and that perhaps it would be a good idea to reach out and make a contact with someone respected on the subject in case things don’t fully come together with Matt. I got no response so I left it at that. This is a pretty fluid deal you know, we’re just trying. You know. When you put on a conference I’ll support you, you might need it… You have only so many speakers slots. Not all your 1st choices even respond, time passes. People get antsy. and then they get confrontational maybe. That is no way to move forward. Please.
Ya know Ripley, maybe it’s a good idea for promoters such as yourself to be up solid on the subjects of the conferences they are promoting. Doncha think?
And this PC nonsense:
“But listen, you’ve got to work with others whether you like each other or not.”
No it is not working with people that you don’t “like” – it is compromising your principles to work with people that you KNOW are full of shit.
You say, “It’s not as if I am totally new to this whole effort.”
Yea, you are not new to the effort in that you have been overly influenced by Honegger’s bullshit helipad “crash” nonsense.
You think it “fair” to point out that CIT seems uninterested in Honegger’s other analysis. I think it utterly reasonable for CIT to set Honegger’s crap aside as soon as she says this nonsense about accepting the NOC witnesses but not CIT’s “interpretation” of it! What the fuck OTHER “interpretation” can their possibly be??
It is as plain as the crooked nose on the evil witch of the south that the ONLY interpretation of a north path approach is that the plane didn’t hit the building….
It is obvious that Honegger is twisting these NOC testimonies into SOC. And all of us here know how dishonest that is. She takes a “glance to his left” of one of the helipad firemen running away to avoid the incoming craft and leans on that to dismiss all the other solid NOC testimony – and you can’t see through this because you are admittedly ignorant of CIT and P4T’s vast trove of information…
Good gawd, it blows my mind to run up against supposed adults that can’t think their own way out of a cardboard box. And I am getting sick of hearing “it doesn’t matter” from you. Yes it does matter, it is one of the most important matters in the whole 9/11 debate.
\\][//
Whatever… you can never please everyone. … and not everyone is as smart as some. And by the way, I know very little about Barbara’s info either. I am not fully versed on much about the Pentagon issue, (maybe more than most), as has been established,… and I may not be the brightest bulb in the pack. But I will sure have a hard time forgetting the lessons from you guys. That may be a back handed compliment, but a compliment none the less.
I whole heartedly endorse and agree 100% with everything HR1 said in his comment to George Ripley time stamped: August 22, 2013 – 11:48 pm
This is what is so damned maddening about dealing with people who do not know the evidence. I tried to explain this exact point to George myself that the 13 NOC witnesses establish the fly over as a fact and even if no one saw the actual fly over the plane MUST have flown over. If you think the NOC witnesses are credible and establish the NOC path beyond a reasonable doubt there is NO CHOICE but to accept fly over. So George you either reject the NOC witnesses outright which is a ridiculous and untenable position or you admit the plane flew over. I can explain step by step if you wish why the NOC path proves fly over. It does prove it George it isn’t a theory it is a fact, an inescapable fact.
IT MATTERS GOD DAMNIT! IT MATTERS A LOT!
I received an email (not a “call”)… a few months ago regarding a conference. I receive such emails on a regular basis. I did not see anything regarding a DC Conference scheduled for 9/11. I deleted the email as I do most of them as I am really not interested in “Conferences” within the so-called “911 Truth Movement”.
With that said.. if I had seen an email regarding a “DC Conference” for the upcoming anniversary…I think I would have remembered that….
I also searched my emails (over 100,000) with the keyword “Ripley”. I have never received an email from you “George Ripley”… ever… in more than 7 years since P4T has been founded.
Just the facts…
Perhaps you have such an email in your outbox? Or perhaps you never contacted us via email…. nor called me… ever.
The evidence thus far shows the latter as the truth.
George Ripley says – ” I don’t know much about your work, but have always been respectful of it…”
George… a little piece of advice… Never form an an opinion on anyone with regard to their work before actually reviewing their work. Some may accuse you of confirmation bias. Your mileage may vary. And I do not take a liking to kiss asses.
As you were…
Back at you Rob… As you were…
I see now. Ripley’s a businessman.
And I am reminded of the fact that; There’s no business like bullshit.
\\][//
Dearest Mr. Rogue,
That comment to George Ripley was uncalled for. You don’t have to respond to everyone, every topic, every theme, as if you owned this blog. You’ve got COTO where you can act the bully and use your indelicate language. Grow up.
//
More nanny-shit from you, aye Mister Eleven?
You don’t have any place to reprimand me “as if YOU owned the blog”.
There is an owner of this blog, and when he finds something excessive he steps in.
His name is Craig McKee in case you have forgotten that.
\\][//
“I have said all along, for months, even years, the CIT research is very good.” –G. Ripley at 11:32 pm 8/22/13.
George, maybe you can fool the folks on this blog about that, but I know better. For years now, you’ve been trying to tear down, discredit, or minimize the NoC evidence. The main pattern I notice with you, is that you’ll ask what seems like an honest question, listen and agree with the answer given, concede that good points had been made–but then weeks or months later, you’re back with the same exact question, as if all memory of the previous exchange had vanished from your brain. This has been going on with you and me for two and a half years now.
It started in March, 2011, in the wake of Richard’s “complete withdrawal of support for CIT.” Sue Wheaton asked me to give a presentation on CIT, so that everyone could make sense out of this statement from Richard.
As I wrote on the DC listserve on July 2, 2013:
I was replying to George’s email to the DC listsev of June 13, in which he had asked, for the umpteenth time:
So I’ll ask you again George, what part of my previous responses to you do you remember? You never replied to that. There are essentially five main aspects to the answer, and I’ll give you some hints:
1) role the mass media played in 9/11
2) 2nd plane cover story
3) proximity of a large public facility
4) timing for grounding of flights
5) awareness of what had happened at WTC.
6) Asch conformity experiments and tribalism
Can you remember any part of my previous explanations, George? Ones which, you said at the time, you agreed with? If you can, would you please state what you remember? Unless George can do that, I suggest that there is little practical value in attempting to educate him. The result is likely to be the same: immediate agreement, followed by nearly immediate amnesia.
To my email (indented) above, George replied (in part):
Well, clearly that’s not the case. You now have not only a 2nd source, but a 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th, and it makes no difference to you. Just on this blog, you have Ruffadam, Hybridrogue, Craig McKee, Adam Syed and Broken Record to “hear about it” from.
And George, are you such a follower that you look to others to see if an issue is “rising in importance?” Can’t you decide for yourself whether a faked plane at the Pentagon is an important issue or not? You sound like a politician looking to a pollster, not a truther looking for the truth.
Really George, you are wasting everyone’s time here.
Sheila
“So I’ll ask you again George, what part of my previous responses to you do you remember? You never replied to that. There are essentially five main aspects to the answer, and I’ll give you some hints:
1) role the mass media played in 9/11
2) 2nd plane cover story
3) proximity of a large public facility
4) timing for grounding of flights
5) awareness of what had happened at WTC.
6) Asch conformity experiments and tribalism
Can you remember any part of my previous explanations, George? Ones which, you said at the time, you agreed with? If you can, would you please state what you remember? Unless George can do that, I suggest that there is little practical value in attempting to educate him. The result is likely to be the same: immediate agreement, followed by nearly immediate amnesia.”
Sheila, I don’t know exactly what part of your angry post to respond to. Once again, I admit, I am not terribly interested in spending all my time studying what did or didn’t happen at the Pentagon and am content to let others for whom that is a passion do that work. Why should I be interested in embroiling myself with the obstreperous likes of yourself? The issue of who done it and why is already settled for me and there is abundant proof. How many allies do you think you are making to the CIT cause with your venomous attacks? Really.
I’m sorry if you don’t think my questions are reasonable.
Ripley
Is that copy and paste response Number 4 or 5 from the “let’s muddy the Pentagon water” script George? I see that same phrase slapped on to the screen by other wordsmiths like yourself.
Have you read the link to Ms Honegger’s “research” that I gave?
Course you haven’t. You haven’t time.
I am answering here to a new comment from George Ripley I read up-blog quite away, so we can avoid the Reply Button issues.
He asks if I saw the suggestion on this group getting together for a discussion. Yes I did, and I think it a good idea. My personal circumstance requires it be fairly nearby, he mentions Ohio at one point, that would be doable. I am in southern Indiana. I will have to drive where ever this is set to occur — I refuse to fly due to the indignities served by TSA at airports, I simply will not put up with such goonsquad bullshit.
He asks if he is “unqualified” to be an organizer of such conferences…
This question is not so simple to answer. I do see that George appears to be willing to learn.
I say “appears”, because of the input just received from Sheila…so…well…
I think it might be beneficial if Mr Ripley were to take some notes on the various input he has had here, and to keep them available for review anytime he wishes to interact on this issue.
He might highlight these notes to indicate that he agreed with some point and try to remember why he did so.
At this point I would like to be assured that George is going to remember the highlights of this thread, and be able to discuss these issues by email or something as a lead-in for a face to face meeting.
Others might like to give their situations and input on this idea.
\\][//
If you simply look at it from a different angle – his obtuse behavior and multiple attempts to veer from the “north side of Citgo flight path=flyover=inside job” truth and steer the discussion toward his incredulity over flyover witnesses could be a sign that you are dealing with a very sophisticated infiltrator whose sole purpose is to cause division, doubt, and wasted time.
Broken R,
Oh I am certainly taking all that into consideration. Nevertheless, I would like to meet some of y’all, and if it could be coordinated around Ripley…or someone else, I think it would be a way to press forward.
It’s up to others, but I am somewhat open to it…just travel time would have to be my prime consideration.
\\][//
Alright then….ah, how about a quartet?
Anyone want to start the 9/11 Barber Shop Quartet?
Just kidding…
\\][//
@Broken Record
You sound almost like one of the CIT people, those who don’t agree with their verdict about an event must have some ulterior motive for disagreeing with them , or be listening to others with ulterior motives or ,well there must be some reason ,because they can’t disagree them. There is only one verdict, their verdict. I’ve never been on a jury but if there was another member of the jury with that mindset, hectoring and directing insinuations at other members of the jury because they didn’t agree with them, I’d try to have them dismissed from the jury, as being unfit to serve on one. They would have obviously misunderstood the role of a jury or the reasons for having one in the first place. Compounding it would be the fact that , as you have just outlined, the verdict they were putting forward was based on an irrational and illogical assessment of the evidence. What I see in CIT are people driven primarily by a prejudicial mindset and by idealogical motives, not to look at and weigh up the evidence but to produce a verdict from the evidence, one that fits in with their prejudices and with their self image as truth seeking idealists. The idea of a plane flying over the Pentagon MATTERS to them, so they won’t allow the plane just , like, crash into the building. They construct a rhetorical barrier in front of the building to prevent it at all costs from crashing into it, and a rhetorical list of basic nonsense to make it disappear without a trace into ‘the land beyond’ , a land peopled by the deaf, dumb and blind, the timid and the mentally confused, afraid and alone and unable to contact the outside world, cowering in their basements in Arlington.
“You sound almost like one of the CIT people, those who don’t agree with their verdict about an event must have some ulterior motive for disagreeing with them..”~A Wright
. . . . . .
Yea Wright, but you sound EXACTLY like one of the OCT people. In your frame, those who don’t buy the assertions of authority regardless of how absurd it is, must be nuts who can’t get along in a psychopathic society, who can’t see the glorious purposes of war and conquest.
You keep characterizing the CIT argument as an “irrational and illogical assessment of the evidence”, without yourself having any clear notion of what that evidence is in any specific manner. So you come on this forum and say the same thing over and over like some maniacal mantra of monotonous mumbo jumbo — the same hypnotic dialog you were programmed by your TV set to playback every time your emotional buttons are pushed. And you REALLY believe that this makes you ‘rational’.
You remind me of ‘The Scientific People’ in Alfred Bester’s novel,THE STARS MY DESTINATION; jaunting through the blogosphere like an illustrated & naked Tiny Tim shrieking some hysterical glossolalia while plucking an out of tune ukelele.
\\][//
For any conference ‘advancing the truth’ of 911 to conduct initial approaches to CIT and Pilots in the manner recorded makes no tangible ‘truth-seek’ sense. the insulting ho-hum i forgot to check my email lack-of-regard seems designed to antagonize these KEY 911 evidence presentations. It is fair to argue any 911 conference ‘advancing the truth’ – within Pentagon precinct – WITHOUT CIT and Pilots, is pointedly a waste of time. Has no mandate and should be sued for breach of promise.
Speaking of ‘truth’ movements (in the bowels of beast,) Cass
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/08/white-house-picks-panel-to-review-nsa-programs/
After this response to the above comments thread, I need to focus 100 percent on preparing for the D.C. Conference, so will be able to check back and answer additional questions after that.
First, one of the comments is based on a mistaken understanding. The slide with the Global Hawk in ‘Behind the Smoke Curtain’ is clearly labeled ‘Simulation’ and is only intended to show how horizontal stripes could easily be added to any drone to make it appear, especially while flying at high speed, to be a Boeing airliner; i.e. it’s not a claim that the white plane that approached the heliport at 9:32:30 and whose explosion there stopped the heliport clock at that time was a Global Hawk. Christopher Bollyn believes that it was — see http://therebel.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=675195:honegger-s-analysis-of-pentagon-bombing&catid=139:bollyn&Itemid=1310#sthash.4nFq4xGu.dpuf — but I make no claim as to what specific kind of craft it was, only that being white it could not have been an AA airliner/Flight 77, had at least one and probably two horizontal stripes to make it appear to be so, and was seen as quite large.
Second, the inclusion by CIT and its supporters of Sean Boger as an alleged witness to a flyover, rather than to a plane destruction at/near the heliport, is mind boggling,as he explicitly states that he saw it impact, i.e. if you were to choose one witness to support a non-flyover, it would be Boger. Also, the multiple witnesses to a white plane hitting/scraping/dragging its left wing on the helipad just before bursting into a fireball make it clear that it was already at the ground near the firehouse, where Boger was in the control tower, and at that point could not have physically overflown. As the plane many CIT witnesses saw, they were very clear, was white, if it was the same white plane
that almost killed heliport firefighters Wallace and Skipper next to the firehouse, it absolutely was destroyed into a fireball only seconds later and did not fly over the building.
As for the helicopter the Reagan Airport radar record shows descending below 100 feet near the heliport a few minutes before the 9:32:30 approach of the white plane that was destroyed there, witness Jeffrey Mark Parsons saw it flying in a strange erratic pattern
between his hotel across I-395 and the helipad, so it could have continued to do so below the 100-foot Reagan Airport radar floor and not actually land at the helipad before taking off only three seconds after the white plane was destroyed there, which could explain why Boger didn’t mention it. If it didn’t actually land at the helipad, but just did the strange ‘bumble bee’ maneuvers between I-395 and the heliport that Parsons saw, Boger may not have seen it. Finally, Boger’s testimonies — there were more than one — do, as the below quotes from his interviews and analysis shows, clearly support that he experienced two plane approaches approximately three minutes apart:
Statements by Pentagon heliport tower controller Sean Boger are sometimes cited as evidence that the white plane Pentagon heliport firefighters Wallace and Skipper ran to avoid just below and to the south/left of Boger’s heliport control tower hit the Pentagon wall, but Boger has given contradictory testimony on this point, which throws some doubt on both of the versions. In one version, he told the Center for Military History on Nov. 14, 2001, “This particular day [Sept. 11], we [Boger and second tower controller Jackie Kidd] heard something. We heard a rooooaaah [roar]. And so [Jackie] was like [she asked], ‘what was that?’ And we both looked out the [tower] window, but we didn’t see anything. And that was the airplane, and he [the pilot] had flown past us. But we didn’t see him, but we heard it,” [emphasis added]..X226 Then, as if with regret, he adds that he might have been able to do something – presumably prevent the plane from returning — if only he had seen it and been able to make a call to some authority in time. By contrast, in the same Nov. 2001 interview, Boger claimed that Kidd had left the control tower to go to the ladies room downstairs in the firehouse after which, then alone in the tower, he did see an incoming plane: “…I look out the [heliport control tower] window and I just hear a [roar] — I just see the nose and the wing of an aircraft just like coming right at us, and he didn’t veer. And then you just heard the noise, and then he just smacked into the building.” The loud noise Boger heard just before he says it crashed was likely the wing of the plane seen by many witnesses to have hit the helipad before hit exploded into a fireball. He continued, “And when it hit the building, I am watching the plane go all the way into the building. So once the plane went into the building, it exploded, and once it exploded, I hit the floor and covered up my head… I knew it was a pretty big aircraft. It had to be like a 757 or 767…” Given the 180-degree difference in Boger’s two versions — that he and Kidd only heard but didn’t also see a plane at all, and that after she had gone to the restroom he saw a plane come in and then heard a loud noise before an explosion, he was either lying about one of the accounts or experienced two incoming planes, one of which overflew the building and the other of which crashed/ exploded – or the same plane came around twice, first when Kidd was also in the control tower and again soon after when she was not. In a phone interview with Aldo Marquis of Citizens Investigation Team on Nov. 1, 2007, Boger appeared to either merge the two experiences or to not mention one of them, stating: “And I just happened to be looking out the [heliport control tower] window. And as I was looking out the window, I could see a plane.” This clearly could not have been the first experience he had related to the Center for Military History six years earlier and only about a month after the attack when his memory was fresh, in which he said he and Kidd had heard but not seen a plane that then flew past/over the building – or which they assumed had overflown as there was no explosion or fireball at that time. Critically, he then breaks off and adds a comment that’s not in the 2001 interview: “It [the plane he had just said he’d actually seen coming towards the control tower] was actually, like, three minutes later.” The question is, three minutes later than what? Presumably, three minutes later than the experience he and Kidd had just had of hearing but not seeing an approaching plane that overflew. If Marquis asked Boger this critical question, the audio of the phone interview posted on CIT’s website contains neither the question nor the answer. Then, after noting that the plane he saw coming towards the control tower was “three minutes later” than the earlier experience of only hearing a plane that flew over, he continues, “The plane was coming directly at us. And, uh, when I saw it, you know, I was just in amazement and so I just – well, I just looked at it. I mean, you know, I fell to the ground and I covered my head.” By “ground” Boger must have meant the floor of the control tower, and in this rendition six years after the first he doesn’t say that he saw the plane explode out the window but instead fell and covered his head.
Putting Boger’s tetsimony together with that of the two heliport firefighters Wallace and Skipper leads to the weight of the evidence supporting that Boger had two plane experiences separated by about three minutes: one, when Kidd was also in the control tower, of hearing but not seeing a plane that overflew, and about three minutes later of actually seeing either a second plane or the return of the first plane that then hit at/near the heliport and exploded near the building. The time of this event is c. 9:32:30, as it stopped the heliport clock at that time – more than five minutes before the official story says Flight 77 was still dozens of miles outside Washington.
But probably the most important part of Boger’s testimony is what he left out completely – that a military Marine Corps helicopter had been flying in erratic patterns between I-395 and the heiport for more than four minutes before the plane that made the second approach he saw hit its left wing on the heliport before exploding. Boger must have been ordered not to mention this, which is in line with the Pentagon’s decade-long insistence, contrary to the Reagan Airport radar record, that no helicopter was at the heliport until after the Pentagon attack, which attack time the official story claims wasn’t until almost 9:38 when it was, in fact, at 9:32:30.
I won’t be able to check back until after the D.C. Conference, at which time I’d be happy to answer any additional comments/questions.
“Then, after noting that the plane he saw coming towards the control tower was “three minutes later” than the earlier experience of only hearing a plane that flew over..”
Barbara, you said this before, but you have no basis for it. He clearly says that it was about three minutes after Kidd had left for the restroom. You can only postulate how long it was from the time they both heard the ‘roar’ and the time she left the tower. She would have had to suddenly get up to powder her nose immediately after the ‘roar’ incident for the next plane sighting of the one Boger clearly claims came over the Navy Annex and to the north of Citgo. The essential point is that your “three minutes later” from the ‘roar’ is unsubstantiated by the testimony that you seem (to me) to be torturing into fitting your theory. You simply cannot confidently say how long it was between the ear testimony and the eye testimony.
\\][//
“Second, the inclusion by CIT and its supporters of Sean Boger as an alleged witness to a flyover, rather than to a plane destruction at/near the heliport, is mind boggling,as he explicitly states that he saw it impact.”~Honegger – AUGUST 23, 2013 – 10:16 PM
Yes Barbara, he says he saw it impact, he says he saw it go right into the building.
You yourself are saying that he did not see the plane impact the building, that it did not go into the building.
This wanting it both ways is what puts your story in the category of begging the question.
You want your take on the testimony – while denying others take on the testimony with no basis to say that your view has more weight to it.
It is in fact more rational to propose that Boger flinched, ducked, hit the deck as the plane was coming at him and did not see any of the explosive event. I go through this in more detail above, but it is a common automatic motor response in all humans.
This would mean he did not see ANYTHING of the explosive event, and that event was likely the bombs going off at the official “impact point” — ie; no aircraft exploded, at the official impact site nor near the helipad.
This is why the most compelling part of Boger’s testimony is that the plane that he saw coming towards the Pentagon came over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo.
Keep in mind almost all of the witnesses that prove the NOC were convinced the plane crashed into the Pentagon. And we are all agreed that it is impossible to have caused the damage at the official impact point. Even you are on board there, are you not?
What is the reason you want to keep pushing that the plane came in on a more southerly course? You say you honor the NOC witnesses but still lean on the slight fragment of Wallace or Skipper of “glancing to the right” (south) as he ran for his life. This one little snippet you seem to want to blow up to discredit all of the other NOC testimonies.
Now, I don’t know if anyone has ever said this up front and to your face before, but I think the weight you put to ‘stopped clocks’ as evidence of such import is baloney. We don’t know how properly synchronized these clocks were – not beyond a reasonable doubt. Military precision has had a lot of tarnishing from the time of the “good old days”. I think betting the house on a broken clock is not the smartest stand to take.
\\][//
Willy,
Sean Boger must have seen “another plane” because he saw it NOC. In fact, the majority of witnesses within the Pentagon basin, and the rest who don’t place it “south of the Navy Annex” must have seen that “other plane” minutes after they all missed that Global Hawk being vaporized by a helicopter at the helipad.
Jeeesus….
This is very important. Certainly the helicopter is a big ‘left out’. But. I am a long way from being able to argue the veracity or possibility of that or any of your presentation as evidence. You will be doing that soon enough. For me, this is about the lost opportunity of your evidence being tested – contested – by CIT and the Pilots. The literature could certainly have done with the record being established during the conference.
Honegger is misinterpreting our criticisms and arguments just like Ripley was.
We are NOT claiming Boger as a “flyover witness”! We make no such claim, no one has said that he or any of the NOC witnesses saw the flyover. We are saying that they did not see impact. That is two different propositions.
What makes this argument so bizarre is that Honegger herself is claiming that the witnesses did not see impact. But she insists that they saw the explosion of the aircraft nevertheless, even though their description of the ‘explosions’ are intimately tied to the details of the craft entering the building and exploding as it did.
Boger says as plain as the English language can be stated, that he saw the plane go into the building. But it is impossible. It obviously didn’t go into the side of the building near the helipad, and it couldn’t have entered the building at the official “impact point” (trajectory problem).
If Boger is mistaken in seeing the plane hit and enter the building, he is mistaken about seeing it explode, because both events are simultaneous.
\\][//
The similarities of A Wright and Ripley and even Honegger are striking.
It’s like leaving a magic show in Las Vegas, and hearing the kids arguing that, “everybody saw with their own eyes that the lady got cut in half, and then was put back together!”
So we get this tired old argument that people cannot be tricked into thinking they saw something that didn’t actually happen. In light of just the history of stage illusions, this argument is simply juvenile and frankly, absurd.
\\][//
“So, what happened to the conference’s real raison d’etre, its reason for existing in the first place? In addition to the concern I alluded to above, the conference centerpiece has been damaged because of baffling communication and organizational “issues”.”~Craig McKee
And the more we think about this, the more it appears to resemble the apologia of the official-story, the claim that the 9/11 event was due to incompetence; that the intelligence community was not communicating with itself, and the whole obfuscation and misdirection that ends up with “no-one is to blame” – in fact they must all be promoted, pass Go and collect $200.
And then we are deplored as being “obstreperous” for suspecting these “bumbling”acts are indeed purposeful and designed by infiltrators and disinformants!
“Those who fail to learn the lessons of history…”..etc..etc..
\\][//
RIP Bob Bowman. I personally alerted Bowman, in 2009, to the NOC evidence, sitting next to him at dinner. He had come to Cincinnati to appear on our TV show, giving his “presidential inaugural address” in the afternoon. Then we all went to the famous “Montgomery Inn.” He was a great man.
That’s sad news , I hadn’t heard that. Condolences to his family and friends.
Thank you for posting this sad news Mr Syed.
I had been notified personally earlier, but felt it was more appropriate for someone who knew Bob personally to make the public announcement here.
Dr. Bowman was one of the first in the public sphere to valiantly step forward on the Truth issues of 9/11, showing moral courage on top of the physical courage he had shown his whole life.
He will be missed by many, but his spirit will remain alive in the hearts of those who took courage from his example.
\\][//
“..but I make no claim as to what specific kind of craft it was, only that being white it could not have been an AA airliner/Flight 77..”~Honegger
I don’t think you have successfully established that the plane was white; it is only the stray anomalous testimonies that say that the aircraft was “white”. There are also testimonies that claim the jet was smaller, like a Learjet or other business type commuter aircraft.
\\][//
Okay, this is for George’s curiosity as to why the flyover wouldn’t have been obvious:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863&view=findpost&p=22008858
George, you said that we should focus on disproving the official narrative on the Pentagon. That’s exactly what CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth have done. Those who have headed the campaign against their work both quote the official narrative and use theories that contradict it based on no evidence whatsoever.
They change their stance as and when it suits depending on just how tight the corner is that they’ve painted themselves into.
Or suddenly develop amnesia.
And this is for Barbara (make sure to run through the points raised at the following link before preparing your presentation!)
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392&view=findpost&p=10809482
Why does the alleged drone need to be “south of the Navy Annex” Barbara? It wasn’t witnessed on that path. It shouldn’t affect the alleged planned disintegration of the drone at the helipad area. You don’t believe an aircraft struck the light poles or went through the alleged impact zone, or through the facade for that at any point for that matter.
In fact you said:
Exactly. So why would the drone need to be on the “south of Annex path”?
@Craig
Great write up man! If you read the link I gave you’ll see why it took so long to prepare. I’m actually still finishing it up.
Could you do me a favour and pass it on to any of those you’re familiar with who endorsed her work?
OSS,
I am going through your new posting at P4T…
I have just gone through the first couple of entries…it is awesome in thoroughness!
It is in fact just the top quality report we have come to expect from you.
I look forward to going through this all the way through. But I wanted to give you a well deserved “BRAVO!” and express my appreciation.
\\][//
Cheers Willy!
OSS,
I’ve just started looking at your material on Honegger, and I’m really looking forward to going through it in depth. I think this sort of analysis is long overdue, and I’m glad you took it on.
I’m also going through Honegger’s three-hour presentation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fvJ8nFa5Qk), and I happened to start with a bit in the middle when she is talking about various things happening as a result of the first Pentagon “event,” (which she contends took place at 9:32) including the evacuation of the White House. One thing struck me right away was her statement that it was the event that prompted the removal of Bush from the Florida classroom. At about the 1:25:00 mark she says:
“It was the Pentagon attack that finally caused all of Washington officialdom to react as if they were really being attacked, not the World Trade Center attacks.”
“At approximately 9:32, the Pentagon attack also finally triggered the Secret Service to remove Bush from the Florida classroom.”
and then in more detail:
“After inexplicitly [I’m assuming she means inexplicably] allowing Bush to sit for 8 to 9 minutes in a Florida classroom after he had already been told, according to him and Andrew Card, but we have to take their word for it, don’t we, that the second World Trade Center tower had been hit and that “America was under attack” Card allegedly told him in his ear, the Secret Service finally acted as if the World Trade Center on attacks were a true emergency but only after the Pentagon was attacked at the actual time the time of the attack that I’m telling you about: 9:32 and 30 seconds. Only then did they whisk Bush out of the Florida classroom and at approximately 9:32 taking him to his limousine, which left at 9:35.”
But Bush had left the classroom almost 20 minutes earlier than that, had he not? And he had not been whisked out; he had taken his time. In fact, he only left the school after addressing the nation. According to the History Commons timeline (http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?day_of_9/11=bush&timeline=complete_911_timeline), Bush stayed with the students in the classroom from 9:06 until 9:16. From 9:16 until 9:29 he worked on his speech, which he delivered sometime after 9:30.
Do we have any evidence to suggest that Bush left the school because of what was happening at the Pentagon? I can’t see it.
Thanks, OSS, for taking one for the team and deconstructing Honegger’s theories. Niels Harrit has called her “the most honest Pentagon researcher.”
Looking forward to reading it in depth tonight. Regarding the Pentagon and how it relates to Bush in the classroom: yes, Barbara’s claims don’t at all seem corroborated by the timeline evidence.
“Niels Harrit has called her “the most honest Pentagon researcher.”~Mr Syed
What we have here, in my opinion, and that extends to a lot of the more ‘academic’ parties involved in this research is the “You scratched my back, so I’ll scratch yours.”
And this is a big part of the way cliques are formed and operate. We see this in the backing of Ryan’s work by a certain clique_and Ryan backing Legge’s work [same clique]…
And after awhile it becomes an almost subconscious confidence game, collecting accolades and passing them out in kind.
So we must deal with such frailties in human nature, which at times can put us in the position of choosing ‘friendship’ over frank and honest assessment. It can be a very hard choice emotionally.
\\][//
Well said HR. That’s exactly how it seems to work; if someone is not a conscious disinfo agent, yet they’re spreading disinfo, it’s because of this phenomenon. Various factors come into play, namely groupthink, “friendship” and cognitive dissonance. I NEVER believed for sure that a plane crashed into the Pentagon. However, until I discovered the NOC evidence, I assumed Jim Hoffman’s view was simply a mere difference of opinion among well meaning researchers; I certainly wasn’t suspicious of him at the time; now I realize he’s one of the most transparent gatekeepers there is.
Remember what I said before about “Hof and Huf.” Both were arguably the original 2 promoters of controlled demolition. Then, roughly 2004-05, Hufschmid outed himself as an anti-Semitic crank, blaming “the Jews” on all the world’s problems; the truth movement was horrified and immediately relegated him to the “banished stepson” category. At roughly that same time that Hufschmid jumped the shark, Hoffman developed his persona as a “conservative, responsible” truther who deeply cares about the movement’s credibility, and only wants it to succeed, yadaydaya, and how we need to stringently critique ourselves and eliminate bad theories before the JREFers do it for us… and, using this “responsibility” mask, he went on to gatekeep so many other aspects of the official story while promoting CD.
It was apparently Hoffman’s website that got Steve Jones into the movement, so with Jones, we have a “leader” who highly respects Hoffman. When Jim Fetzer attacked Steve Jones in 2007 and split up Scholars into 2 groups, Kevin Ryan got offended at Fetzer (understandably) and became galvanized toward Steve Jones as the real deal; since Jones was nudged into the movement by Hoffman, we now also have Kevin Ryan respecting Hoffman, and hence respecting his Pentagon view (which includes the view that the no-plane-crashers are intentional disinfo).
So yes, friendships and personal allegiances can account for quite a lot. As you say, it can be an emotionally tough choice, if you’ve allowed yourself to become personally attached to someone.
Speaking of which, Craig and I saw the other day on Facebook some of the most grovelling, rock star hero worship of Richard Gage we’ve ever seen. Craig could only reply, “Oh brother.”
CLOCKS
Yes we have the historical story of the clock that supposedly shows the EXACT time of the Great San Francisco Earthquake. But this could be based partially on myth as well. We do not know beyond a reasonable doubt that this clock was precisely on the right time geocentrically. It is assumed. And therefore we can assume the time is close to middling as to what time it was when it fell and broke.
Why do commandos make sure to set their watches each according to another just before an operation? We would assume they all have accurate time pieces. But they still take the precaution to make sure they are all exact to the second.
So why are we to assume that the clocks in the Pentagon were all checked to be certain they were all set to the second to exact synchronicity? They weren’t expecting an operation, at least not openly, so where does this certainty arise that they were all synchronized? Well, it comes from Honeggers assertions, nowhere else.
\\][//
CLOCKS 2:
The round wood-framed wall clock featured in Barbara’s video which is now displayed in a memorial shrine somewhere with the time stopped at 9.32 is IMHO another case of opportunistic photo journalism, an iconic image much like the ones of the stopped clocks from Hiroshima and the San Francisco earthquake.
Would a vintage analog timepiece, likely part of a decorative wall feature of the Heliport’s control room, perhaps surrounded by old photos and other historic Pentagon paraphernalia be actually synchronised to the digital clocks in the operator’s console? …. I doubt it. The clock’s mechanism was probably worn if it was a vintage timepiece. Nice old clock but just decoration.
What makes for an iconic ‘stopped clock’ photo recording the time of a historic event in this electronic age of digital communications? A blank digital screen? Just doesn’t have the same impact aye?
Al
I never forget a cheap dig Whitesand,
Best you keep it in mind as well … (grin).
\\][//
More on Clocks__Plus Thoughts on Human Perception of Time.
Fidgety neurotic clock and watch checkers are rare but for those waiting to get off work or similar reasons.
Most people are aware that the perception of time has to do with mood. If one is bored, time seems to pass painfully slow, when engaged in something interesting time goes by quickly, when having fun “time flies”.
For these established psychological reasons, I would caution all concerned here to take this into account when assessing testimonies. Unless some event is captured in a time-stamped fashion, video, digital audio, emails, etc, we should take testimony of time lapses as general estimates.
I will take Sean Boger’s testimony as example. We are all familiar with it, he estimates that it was some three minutes after Ms Kidd left for the restroom that he first noticed the plane coming at the tower from the direction of the Naval Annex. I think that must be seen as a generalization to begin with. But then there is the conversation that he and Kidd had while together before she left. And this conversation lasts for a completely indeterminate length of time. It is said that they both heard a jet “roar” and this seems to have sparked the conversation about Boger wondering that an errant aircraft coming in for a landing had never fallen short and hit the Pentagon. So how can we say for certain how long it was from the time they heard this sound and Ms Kidd finally gets up to leave? Three minutes? Five minutes? Ten? It simply cannot be nailed down.
Let us be very careful about taking these testimonies too literally.
\\][//
On the subject of the clocks , as far as I’m aware while the renovation was going that part of the Pentagon was being powered by the generator. They were just finishing up that renovation so I would presume at some stage they had changed over from the generator to main power which probably took place at night and probably took a few minutes to do which could possibly explain why the clocks would be a few minutes slow if people hadn’t gone around to correct them. I don’t know if this is the case , it is just a suggestion.
One of the things that is so discouraging about the Honegger affair is that her information on other topics seem so well formulated, and I would like to look to it as trustworthy. But given what we have found with her ‘heliport incident’, the way that she has misframed things, exaggerated, and stretched testimonies thin…
Well I can’t just assume that the rest of her research would pass muster any better.
And that is a shame, because her exposition on the internal events, internal bombs, etc, would be so compelling to the NOC findings. But as it is, until her other work is assessed as carefully as we have assessed this one unfortunate aspect, I for one cannot recommend her work.
\\][//
I am amazed at how many genuine truthers out there are convinced that Honegger is the gold standard for Pentagon research. And how ironic that she was courted by both the conservative Toronto Hearings AND the big tent Vancouver Hearings.
Let me reiterate in the exact terms I used in my previous comment:
>But as it is, until her other work is assessed as carefully as we have assessed this one unfortunate aspect, I for one cannot recommend her work.
And now add this, I am NOT rejecting her “other work” wholesale. I am saying that I will not be able to “recommend” it – UNTIL it is “assessed as carefully” as this heliport issue has.
I hope this clears up any misconceptions anyone may have had.
\\][//
It isn’t a question of trusting the 9/11 information sources. We shouldn’t. Not a single one of them.
We should distrust them all, and therefore determine the validity of each nugget independently.
As objective reviewers, our job is to mine, re-fine, and re-purpose nuggets of truth from their information sources. Anything short of this, any broad-brush dismissals based on taint-by-association, only helps the goals of disinformation.
In order to debunk disinformation, it has to be done legitimately — one nugget at a time with the caveat that they won’t all be bad. Proving one thing false does not prove all things false any more than proving one thing true would make all things true from that source true. When we know disinformation tactics are deployed, the only consequence is that nothing can be taken at face value.
Moreover, the disinformation source ought to remain in play until all nuggets of truth are discovered and re-purposed in truthful derivative works before the original source can be jettison. Period.
We should question those forum blow-hards who take an ignorant, zero-tolerance position when it comes to errors (or omissions) in the works being reviewed, particularly when no replacement vehicle exists for the nuggets of truth. They should point out the 9/11 works that have no errors — accidental or intentional.
//
You are grossly distorting what I said in regards to your “nuggets of truth” argument. I ACTUALLY said that mistakes are understandable and can be forgiven. I also ACTUALLY said that I reject everything from a particular researcher ONLY AFTER FINDING DELIBERATE DISINFORMATION in their work. I go on to explain that once they deliberately try to deceive you that it is unwise to trust ANYTHING they say from then on because they may be trying to deceive you again. That is what I actually said.
You have now grossly distorted what I said and attempted to assign an entirely new meaning to it (your own) and I find that to be dishonest to the extreme. I expect a retraction from you for this “mistake” and if none is forthcoming I am going to assume from now on that it wasn’t a mistake at all but was in fact deliberate. At that point I will regard you as a disinformationist who should be ignored, much like Judy Wood.
Dear Mr. Adam Ruff wrote on 2013-08-27:
I disagree. We shall see who is distorting what. [Here’s Mr. Ruff’s original 2013-08-15 statement of ignorance, and my 2013-08-16 response. Links provided because they are on another thread.]
Mr. Ruff goes on to spin:
In other words, once a given researcher has been proven to have a single instance (or area) of “DELIBERATE DISINFORMATION”, then Mr. Ruff “rejects EVERYTHING from them”… even the VALID nuggets of truth that nobody has ever questioned or had issue with (or addressed). How stupid is that?
If this were an academic endeavor (like physics), maybe Mr. Ruff would be justified. But it is not. It just so happens to be in a realm that has the United States Government and its agencies ~ACTIVELY~ producing disinformation.
Moreover, Mr. Ruff purposely leaves two voids. The second void is an alternative analysis that explains a certain set of evidence, because obviously he may have felt that the analysis in question might be deliberate disinformation. More shocking, the first void is simply presenting a certain set of evidence so that it gets public consideration; Mr. Ruff rejects this and throws it out. [And if I error in this, Mr. Ruff should correct me by stepping through Dr. Wood’s work image-by-image and list all of the other places/publications (1) where this evidence is presented and (2) properly analyzed.]
Mr. Ruff continues:
I agree. To paraphrase Ronald Reagen, “(dis)trust but verify.”
In other words, just because sincere seekers of truth have reason to distrust a particular researcher, this does not relieve the seeker of the obligation to independently review ~all~ information from that information source precisely to validate nuggets of truth and to expose the dross of disinformation.
When an information source is proven untrustworthy, it just means that nothing can be accepted at face value and requires validation. It does mean neither that studious efforts into that research should be halted nor that validated portions of that research should be rejected.
Mr. Ruff continues with his faux outrage:
No distortion was made except by Mr. Ruff in trying to save his ignorant ass, because he just clarified under no uncertain terms that he would reject everything including valid nuggets of truth from a particular researcher upon discovering deliberate disinformation.
Of course on this front, Mr. Ruff is a liar. How so?
(1) Has he discarded all reports and all information contained therein produced by agencies of the US Government, particularly when they have been proven to have disinformation? No.
(2) Dr. Jones has fed the world deliberate disinformation about (a) nano-thermite and its capabilities and (b) nuclear devices that could account for the tritium, yet Mr. Ruff has yet to denounce him, let alone reject everything from the man.
Mr. Ruff, no retraction is requisite from me, because you are the one with the ignorant and unsupportable position. And you ain’t very good about spinning your way out of it.
There you go again. I’m still waiting for you to stick your nose up the crack of Dr. Wood’s textbook (and Mr. Ryan’s). I want you to point out the specific instances of disinformation while also preserving the valid nuggets of truth.
As another indication of Mr. Ruff’s level of dishonesty, he promised me awhile ago that he would ignore my postings. Meanwhile, ample evidence exists that he hasn’t, including a lame-ass hit-and-run on 9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW. I’m still waiting for him to prove the left-hand side of the challenging equality as being valid at the WTC on 9/11: “no radiation = no nukes.” Show me the reports that systematically, thoroughly, and timely measure all forms of radiation at or below background levels.
And as long as he’s gorded me into rising up to respond to his totally stupid rejection explanation, here’s a nugget of truth brought more fully to my attention by Kevin Ryan’s book that I (unlike he) am open-minded enough to continue reading.
Among the drills happening on 9/11 were Apollo Guardian, Global Guardian, and Vigilant Guardian.
From http://www.dod.mil/pubs/dswa/document.html
From http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=apollo_guardian
It should be pointed out that the annual Global Guardian drill both pre- and post-9/11 has always been in October, yet in 2001 they re-scheduled it for September.
If 9/11 had no nuclear component, why was Global Guardian scheduled for the 9/11 drill dates?
It should be pointed out that Apollo Guardian was sponsored by Space Command. What would space command have to do with the exercises?
BRIEF DETOUR: A hallmark of 9/11 has been the conflating of individual events with one another when really they need to be separated. For instance, “we saw on the telly aircraft hitting the towers,” therefore it is assumed that the Pentagon and the Shanksville hole were hit by aircraft.
With 20/20 hindsight into September Clues, one of its meme’s was “no planes hit the towers because it was digital fakery.” The disinformation effort had many purposes but was designed to fail. The failure was a success, because once the 9/11 Truth Movement had been through the wringer on the “No Planes Theory” (at the tower), they are in no more mood to consider the valid instances of “no plane in Shanksville hole” and “no plane hitting the Pentagon.”
Many other examples of this exist, such as assuming that the destructive mechanisms that destroyed WTC-1 were identical to WTC-2, were identical to WTC-7, were identical to WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6. They didn’t have to be.
I’ve never disputed the involvement of nano-thermite (but I could be convinced it wasn’t given that nano-thermite did not come up in the USGS dust samples and wasn’t scraped off of beams and analyzed). What I disputed was nano-thermite’s “primary role” in the destruction and being unable to account for pulverization, hot-spot duration, and anomalous vehicle damage along West Broadway and the car park.
Dr. Wood’s textbook has many nuggets of truth and — surprise, surprise — scant few actual operational theories that give a cohesive explanation for the observed destruction. [The lack of an objective & thorough review by any leader of the 9/11 Truth Movement should be a glaring flag.] Of the elements — mostly from her website — to which someone could point of Dr. Wood advocating a theory like “directed energy weapons”, she could not power it or explain in a real-world operational sense how it would get its energy, while at the same time giving nuclear themes a disinfo treatment. Her detractors always want to couch her work as “beams from space.”
With regards to the towers, I believe that neutron nuclear DEW achieved it. Given the hot-spots below WTC-7, it may have been the same.
However, the giant crater in WTC-6, the bore-holes in WTC-5, and the leveling of the WTC-4 main edifice at a line with its North Wing? Apollo Guardian, a US Space Command exercise? And the overplaying of the belittling and derogatory hand against the entirety of Dr. Wood’s presented evidence and concepts as “beams from space”? Well, maybe beams from space were involved for those buildings. (I’m on the fence, but open to the suggestion.)
I mean, if I were going to try to pull off a massive destruction project at the WTC, I would use mixed methods for two reasons. (1) To validate various weapons, from nano-thermite to neutron nuclear DEW to space-based lasers (powered by Tesla or Hurricane Erin). (2) To be able to play the evidence of one off of the evidence of another to confuse the honest researcher and general public; to purposely distract and have the public make simplified extrapolating assumptions; to purposely throw off research into one root cause by conflating with the evidence from another.
In Summary: Mr. Ruff is mentally handicapped from providing the proper scope to the efforts of sincere 9/11 Truth seekers, because he is too eager to reject everything from (allegedly) discredited sources without first salvaging the valid nuggets of truth and assuring they have a reasonable alternative explanation. Plays right into the hands of disinformation purposes.
Ergo, who is the disinformationalist?
//
Again, for the slightest excuse Señor blows a thousand plus word wad all over this page…and just so happens to pitch his/her/its nukeedoodoo spamjacket in the mix!
Not a single thread goes buy without this loathsome boring sales pitch – REGARDLESS OF THE SUBJECT.
“Ergo, who is the disinformationalist?”~Señor
It is obvious YOU ARE! Disrupting every thread with cognitive dissonance. You are a virus, a one poster plague, a fatigue on the spirit, a monotonous motormouth.
A pox on you!
\\][//
Dear Mr. Rogue,
Meh.
Mr. Adam Ruff brought up Dr. Wood first, in a dubious manner, I might add. Like you, he has no testicles to extract the nuggets of truth from therein. Like you, he thinks he can play cheesy word games and not get marks of “F” for a lame sophomoric effort that employs over-generalizations that can and should be rammed uncomfortably back into his and your orifices.
Mr. Ruff: “I reject everything from a particular researcher ONLY AFTER FINDING DELIBERATE DISINFORMATION in their work.”
“Everything… in their work” that is rejected isn’t limited to “the dubious and deceitful points,” and is a very big brush that sweeps away both the bad and ugly as well as the good. “Everything… in their work” would include nuggets of truth, validated points, points that no one disputes, and items that no one else addresses.
So works the hands of disinformation.
Glad to see that you so readily and eagerly expose your masterbating hand in such endeavors as well. Over-generalizations regularly trip you up, as does high school chemistry, math, etc.
P.S. What’s your posting count — I mean, hypnotic sales pitch count — on this thread and the last one? Yesterday, I stop counting but it was like 52/172 (30%) and 113/290 (38%). Today it grows like your Pinochio nose.
Ergo, “REGARDLESS OF THE SUBJECT” who has to weigh in with his “learned opinion” in overwhelming measures? Who is “a virus, a one poster plague, a fatigue on the spirit, a monotonous motormouth?… It is ovious YOU ARE!”
Your stellar *cough* debunking attempts at neu nookiedoo — mostly with such witty ad hominem — reflects those disinformation charges back onto you. Gracious, amigo!
Like I said Eleven, the most meager excuse for your perpetual twirlytwat.
\\][//
SEO why don’t you throw the full text of war and peace into every comment you make that way you can be sure no one will have the time or patience to read it. Christ on a cracker man you are seriously disturbed.
Anyway here is the relevant quote from my post which backs up what I said above please note what I ACTUALLY SAID since you linked to the comment yourself but obviously never read it in the first place:
“Once I identify intentionally misleading or deceptive information in someones work I reject all of their work because it simply cannot be trusted as accurate or truthful any longer. If someone tries to pull a con job on you once you should not give them a second chance because they might just succeed the second time.
Mistakes are one thing, they can be overlooked and/or forgiven but intentional disinformation cannot and should not be overlooked because it is evidence that the person has an agenda other than truth.”
As to the rest of your insane ranting I am not going to spend my time reading it. Your reasoning is unreasonable and your logic is illogical. My original criteria for rejecting someones work or not stand and nothing you have said changes the fact that my logic is sound. Giving a con artist a second chance to con you is just stupid. Your “look for the nuggets of truth” argument is stupid and I reject it completely. Furthermore I am no longer interested in reading anything you have to say. You have intentionally distorted what I said and therefore you are a disinformationist in my book. From here on out I reject everything you have to say and will ignore it all unless and until I choose not to.
I request that Craig McKee read over these posts carefully and admonish SEO for grossly distorting what I actually said and put him on notice that such distortions and outright lies will not be tolerated.
I will here point out that the Timing of Señor suddenly flushing of his septic tanks onto this thread; ‘JUST HAPPENS’ to coincide with OSS finishing his Honegger Report on P4T. Of course no coincident theorist worth their salt would make anything of such perfectly timed DISTRACTION techniques.
And of course pointing something this glaringly obvious out, will be interpreted as “ad homenim” by our pretend el Zorro. Whereas all of the long twisted rhetorical twine he spins to stretch across an abyss of the absurd as an excuse to call myself and Mr Ruff “Liars”; should be taken as just an “innocent truther looking for nuggets” in the 9/11 Dumpster.
I hope that “dear mister” Señor will have the decency to spare this forum another 3,000 word apologia to smother the conversation here yet more.
\\][//
Dear Mr. Ruff,
With your 2013-08-27 posting we have ample evidence now that you, along with Mr. Rogue, flunked sophomore English in high school, because (a) you seem to have no appreciation for reasoned writing, even if lengthy, (b) you get burned for the third time in the row by the misuse of over-generalizations (e.g., “everthing” and “all”), and (c)_ your ego is too big to see your ignorance in not recognizing when your argumentative position has been utterly destroyed. Case in point with emphasis added:
There’s that catchy phrase, “I reject all of their work” that is little different from your ignorant & misguided explanation in this thread “I reject everything from a particular researcher”… once, of course, intentionally misleading or deceptive information is discovered. “All” and “everything” leave no room for exceptions (e.g., those pesky gaddammit nuggets of truth that ain’t nobody had no issues with).
It isn’t a question about whether or not we can trust their work, because obviously, we can’t.
But the proper recourse to suspected disinformation is to:
(1) Label and compartmentalize the instances of blatant disinformation.
(2) Rewind and review their past and present (and future) work with a jaundice eye to classify items as (a) probably valid, (b) probably invalid, or (c)_ don’t know.
(3) Research independently to solidify classifications.
(4) [Optional] Speculate into their disinformation motives and goals.
Finding instances of disinformation — particularly in the realm of 9/11 that has active disinformationalists practicing in government agency reports, the mainstream media, and cyberspace — does not absolve fair & objective researchers from reviewing their work anew for items of merit. You get no free passes that permit a rejection of a body of work, its substantiating evidence, and nuggets of truth out-of-hand; you’ve got to justify the rejection on each and every item individually.
Remember the 20th hijacker, KSM? He was tortured so badly that he admitted to terrorists actions that he couldn’t have possibly been involved with. If Mr. Rogue were rendered to Guantanamo for a thrilling weekend, he’d come back admitting bestial relations with his birds. The threats don’t even have to be physically against us, but perhaps hinted at a loved one, and many of us (me) would flip-flop 180 degrees on a debate position.
The crafty ones under such pressure would bow to the disinfo demands but maintain their integrity by inserting clues:
The relevance of the above quotes is that (1) we need to study the evidence presented in Dr. Wood’s textbook and not get distracted (e.g., by Dr. Wood’s explanations) from seeing what the evidence is telling us — massive influx of energy; (2) we need to keep looking for that “something” that maintained those hot-spots.
Again a reflection on your poor grades in sophomore English, I love how you get burned a second time for an offense of the exact same nature. You write:
Wait a minute! Rewind! Back-up!
How can you conclude that “[my] reasoning is unreasonable and [my] logic is illogical” when you admit in the preceding sentence that “[you are] not going to spend [your] time reading it”?
Really puts a fine point on who is being unreasonable and illogical when you have the ability to come to such conclusions about my statements without having read them. [Because you fall into sophomoric traps so easily, don’t come back and try to say “actually I did read your work objectively and fairly and thus came to those conclusions” because I’ll make hay out of you being a blowhard liar.]
This fits well into the theme of willful ignorance that you display. (Mockingly) “I reject the notion of looking for nuggets of truth, because there is no such thing. Either it is all true or everything is false; ain’t no in between. And don’t expect me to be pointing out sources of 9/11 information who meet my own ignorant criteria of being 100% truth, because… because… I’m too ignorant to know that there ain’t such a thing.”
Unlike the con-artists in the streets, who take their deck of cards with them and undoubtedly cleaned out Mr. Ruff many times over in his ignorant youth, the con-artists who ply their trade in agency reports, self-published books, mass media, and cyberspace, have to content with fair and objective readers’ ability to re-read passages, to verify with other sources, and to get a good handle on classifying each nugget of information as (a) probably valid, (b) probably invalid, or (c)_ don’t know.
Mr. Ruff’s habit of not reading things (and boasting about it) is akin to him giving the con-artist his money without the cards being dealt, much less flipped.
Mr. Ruff concludes:
Oh, please do, Mr. Ruff! Please do! Being a man of letters himself, Mr. McKee will undoubtedly agree with my speculation into your high school grades for sophomore English. And he’ll be scratching his head over how you could REPEATEDLY create and fall into the same stupid, ignorant, reasoning pitfalls, particularly when they were pointed out to you.
“Distortion and outright lies?” Just saying it is, does not make it so. And as my postings prove, if such exist in this exchange, they come from boastful and ignorant you (and Mr. Rogue).
+++++++++
Seeing how Mr. Ruff admits he can’t read long “War & Peace” masterpieces, I might as well use this opportunity to address Mr. Rogue. It makes it so much easier for the ignorant readers like Mr. Ruff to scroll right over.
Mr. Rogue sets news standards for fair, objective, rational, and logical debate with these four entries: [1] 2013-08-27 at 3:58 pm; [2] 2013-08-27 at 8:02 pm; [3] 2013-08-28 at 11:32 am; and [4] 2013-08-28 at 12:01 pm. Readers should note that only two of the four are here; #2 & #3 are on Mr. Rogue’s COTO homecourt where he does not allow debate. Ain’t a single piece of substance to back up his hypnotic assertions regarding the demerits of my comments.
After Mr. Ruff got his hat handed to him for his imprecise usage of language and for his disinformation games that aim to REJECT entire swaths of valid nuggets of truth, Mr. Rogue’s limp-wristed and misogynistic defense (2013-08-27) can only muster in its entirety:
Gems demonstrating his charming wit:
Mr. Rogue charges 2013-08-28:
Yes, let us look at the timing. Mr. Ruff and you have ignorantly bull-dozed many times that “you don’t need to read no stinkin’ book in order to pass judgment and REJECT all information contained therein, regardless of valid nuggets of truth not being preserved in alternative publications.” Just one thread over, Mr. Ruff was trying this technique on Kevin Ryan’s book, and got called on it in a major reputation-impacting way. Idiot that he is, he recycles the same exact tripe here without correcting or even acknowledging its deficiencies. In fact, he tries to spin it to the moderator (Mr. McKee) as if I’ve lied and distorted his words. Coincidence?
If there be any coincidences with the review of Ms. Honegger’s work and my comments, it would be an admonishment for readers to be fair and objective, open-minded and tolerant, and vigilant to recognize & preserve nuggets of truth despite instances of bullshit in the same work.
I can obligue your wishes. Including quotations from you and Mr. Ruff, this posting is only 1,505 words.
//
I think this new work by OSS should be re-presented with all of the jpg illustrations in the body of the presentation. It is one powerful presentation as is, it’s only deficit is in having to bring up those jpgs separately.
I am not criticizing OSS in anyway – I understand the limitations involved in the present venue. But if this could be made into a Powerpoint presentation, and taken to conference…that would be dynamite!
\\][//
At the Pilots forum, you have to be logged in to see the images within the post, rather than URLs you have to click on. OSS might also be compiling all this at the CIT forum, where you don’t have to be logged in; the way a thread looks is the same to both cases.
Thanks for that info Mr Syed, I have forgotten my Pilots password. It has been a long time since I logged on there.
This should definitely be seen on line. But it is high time this info combined with the whole CIT- Pilots combination be presented at a live conference. Cumulatively it is a tour d’force !
\\][//
Reading OSS’s research on the Pentagon event and Honegger’s theory now over at P4T. I want to thank you OSS for doing it and let you know it is appreciated. I will post about it when I have finished looking it all over.
Adam Ruff
Let’s combine the testimony of William Middleton and Jeffrey Mark Parsons; who said he saw an AA flight take off from Reagan National, but that it took off “towards the Pentagon” and was adamant that the planes normally took off in the other direction.
Could it be possible that the plane Parsons said he saw take off from Reagan was the same plane Middleton observed? Could the plane seen by the CIT witnesses actually have originated right there at Reagan?
Remember the radar gap for flt 77, there is no continuity of that plane. It was in fact considered crashed at one point by air controllers. Perhaps it did, but more likely set down in that corner of Kentucky where it began to loop back east…
\\][//
The plane Parsons saw flying away was seen AFTER the explosion at the Pentagon at 9:38. Chris Stephens at Reagan National halted all flights at 9:06. The plane Parsons saw can ONLY be the flyover plane on it’s exit.
Parsons is a flyaway witness.
Dear Mr. B. Record,
Are you sure about (a) who halted the flights, (b) where they halted them from, and (c) the time they were halted?
I don’t have references in front of me, but (a) the name Chris Stephens doesn’t ring a bell in this context [but I could be wrong]; (b) the newby chief FAA honcho, whose name I forget, made the unprecedented decision to ground all >4,000 in-flight aircraft just a few minutes after the Pentagon fly-over.
Correct my faulty recollection, but I don’t recall any instances of a single airport pre-emptively halting all flights… But if they did, was it both incoming and outgoing or just outgoing… either way it’d prove helpful to the ruse of flyover.
Until proven otherwise, I dispute the claims of (a) Reagan national halting flights by itself, and (b) the 9:06 time. You comments about Parson remain in play as potentially valid, though.
//
CORRECTION: Parsons saw this AA plane, he guessed, 30 seconds before the explosion at the Pentagon, flying in a northern direction which he thought was odd. He was convinced the pilot of this plane would have been witness t the attack. But it can only be the flyaway plane as Stephenson halted flights after the second plane hit the south tower at 9:03. American Airlines also called him after the second strike and ordered that none of their planes be allowed to take off. FAA Command was said to have halted flights at 9:06…
“Chris Stephenson, 44, controller-in-charge at Reagan National Airport tower
After the second jet hit the Trade Center, the airport tower that overlooks the Washington Monument and the Capitol from across the Potomac River was roiling with activity.
Stephenson’s initial concern was following FAA orders to halt takeoffs. He stopped takeoffs for flights headed toward New York, then Boston. Within a few minutes, no one was allowed to take off.
About this time, someone from American Airlines telephoned. “We don’t want any of our airplanes going airborne,” the caller said. “Send them back to the gate.”
“I just told them, ‘Nobody’s going anywhere,'”Stephenson said.
SOURCE: http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-08-11-voices_x.htm
Official story mouthpiece, Lynn Spencer…
09:06 FAA Command Center bans take-offs for all (ground stop order) for all air traffic landing within or transitioning through New York Center’s airspace from that Center’s airports as well as the three adjacent centers: Boston, Cleveland and Washington(“first tier”).
SOURCE: http:// cleartheskies.com/timeline.html
Sorry, Mr. B. Record, but your correction doesn’t completely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_for_the_day_of_the_September_11_attacks
Flight 77 did its Pentagon ruse at 9:37 [not 9:06]. It was the NY airports that banned flights in their airspace at 9:06, not Washington, DC. The point is that aircraft were not restricted from flying in the DC space at 9:30.
It was Ben Sliney of the FAA — first day as head honcho — who ordered at 9:42 the grounding of all flights. Not sure where he was physically located.
The military and FAA changed their story so many times, with a complicit media never asking any probing or clarifying questions. Old shit hangs out a long time on the internet. I don’t trust too many articles that allegedly interview someone and quote them, because they undoubtedly get put into the frame of being a hero beyond reproach, assuming me can even (a) trust the quotation wasn’t made up and (b) trust the context of the quotation.
//
You are mistaken or you are purposefully spreading disinformation.
One of my main points is that AA was already grounding their own flights at Reagan National after the second plane hit. Chris Stephenson stated this in the article I linked. Parsons said he believed was an AA plane which flies in the face of the of AA requesting that their plane not be able to fly . Regardless of the actual time Reagan National stopped flights, national ground stop was initiated BEFORE the 9:38 attack time which is when Parsons saw this airliner taking off to the north (30 seconds before the attack) – which he felt was odd. Here is a ATCSCC Advisory which shows National Groundstop to be 9:29.
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh291/abcwatermelon/groundstopnotam.jpg
In fact, from your own Wikipedia link it states the following…
9:26: The FAA bans takeoffs of all civilian aircraft regardless of destination—a national groundstop. All military bases in the United States are ordered to increase threat conditions to Delta status.
9:26. Not 9:42.
You also mislead the readers with your Ben Sliney comment. At 9:42 he was “grounding” all flights – not issuing a “national groundstop”. Grounded means he forced all planes in the air to land…
9:42: Ben Sliney of the FAA issues the execution order for SCATANA grounding all air traffic over the United States and diverting any incoming international traffic to alternate destinations.
“After two planes had crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, Sliney gave the order to land every plane in the air over the U.S. at the time (SCATANA), effectively shutting down U.S. airspace. There were roughly 4,200 aircraft in flight.”
SOURCE:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Sliney#Actions_on_September_11.2C_2001
So, Mr. B. Record, guess we’re in agreement.
Until we clarified it, the wording of your original posting had me (and lurker readers) misunderstanding when certain events happened, what their scope was, by whom, and to what effect.
From reading Mr. Ryan’s book (among other sources), I knew that Ben Sliney made the BIG order to bring all flights in the air to the ground (and to not allow any flights to take off) nation-wide. I knew that this was minutes after the Pentagon ruse at 9:42. (My not-so-obvious point was that Flight 77 at 9:37 hadn’t yet been ordered out of the sky to the nearest airport. The window of time it needed to make an escape or land when all the confusion starts.)
Upon clarification, I was not aware of the earlier orders that (a) requested all AA flights to not be allowed to take off, (b) ordered all not-yet-airborne flights at certain airports (Dulles/Reagan National airport) to stay on the ground. These orders and who gave them had me confused with Ben Sliney and his grounding orders.
// clarification is not spreading disinformation
No, we are not in agreement and never were.
You said… “The point is that aircraft were not restricted from flying in the DC space at 9:30.”
You were trying to imply that Parsons simply saw another plane that would naturally be “flying in the DC air space” at “9:30” (the wrong attack time btw) because you either mistakenly or purposefully stated that Ben Sliney “grounded”(implying groundstop) all planes at 9:42.
All aircraft were restricted from “taking off” at 9:26-9:29 next to/toward the Pentagon seconds before the attack. We weren’t simply talking about a plane “flying in DC airpsace”. We were talking about Parsons seeing an AA plane taking off at/after 9:37:15, the official and agreed upon attack time. There is NO plane than can be taking off other than the flyover plane.
I consider you to be a possible disinfo conduit due to your behavior toward this evidence and because your promotion of the Judy Woods nonsense.
Dear Mr. B. Record,
You were talking about Parsons. I was not (and wasn’t really paying attention that you might have been or how critical it was to twisting your panties into a wad.)
I was talking about a plane that was flying (over) and the mistaken impression I got from you that no planes should have been flying, due to the orders to not let them take off. Different orders than pulling all flying planes from the sky, an order that didn’t come until the Pentagon trick was pulled off.
Nonsense. I promote the nuggets of truth from Dr. Wood. I’ve stood on her shoulders and those of the Anomymous Physicists to suss out an alternative that more fully matches the evidence.
Based upon your comments and their reflection of little of effort on your part to truly classify nuggets of truth from nuggets of nonsense in all disinformation vehicles (the only jalopies that 9/11 Truthers drive), I’d tell you to grow a pair were it not for these awesome words observed today:
For what it’s worth, I’m “a duped useful idiot”, not “a disinfo conduit.” I can be convinced of many things, with properly applied math, science, and analysis.
//
This is Jeffrey Mark Parsons official testimony as per his sighting of the AA plane taking off at Reagan:
“I was looking out my window. I have a perfect view of Reagan National Airport. An American Airlines plane had just taken off, I mean, not 30 seconds before this plane [Flight 77] hit the Pentagon, taking off to the north, to the, different than the normal way. In other words, they were taking off toward the Pentagon.”~Parsons
[US Naval Historical Center, 12/13/2001; Goldberg et al., 2007, pp. 258]
If this “30 seconds” before the Pentagon explosion is true, then how can it be reconciled that the AA flight seen by Parsons has any bearing on this case? Is this even his actual testimony? Also included in this section is this:
US Navy historian John Darrell Sherwood interviewing Jeffrey Mark Parsons assistant chief patrol agent with the United States Border Patrol.
>> Witness Told, ‘Don’t Tell Anyone about’ Incident {helicopter}.”
It seems from the record that myth creation is the agenda to this operation of Sherwood’s.
\\][//
Now, what I would find to be legitimate questions, as we have determined that 9/11 is a systemic PSYOP; is what was this assistant chief patrol agent with the United States Border Patrol, Jeffrey Mark Parsons doing perched in the perfect catbird seat overlooking the Pentagon and Reagan National airport for some weeks or a month leading up to 9/11?
We all have some grasp as to the price of rooms at this Pentagon City Hotel. Would it not seem reasonable to ask if perhaps Parson was on a mission? Would it not be reasonable to suspect that his mission might have been connected to the up and coming psychological operation?
A second person of interest to me is Penny Eglas. From what I gather, she has connections to the military industrial complex as well. Does anyone have a more full profile of this person? What her job is? Where she works and who for? I did a little digging, but almost everything I came across involved her testimony on the Pentagon, and didn’t provide but the slightest sketch of who and what she was/is.
The story of this fragment of aircraft is muddled. She claimed that it falling through her sunroof was something the media made up__in an interview with Jeff Hill, who is also found to be somewhat of a mud doll maker. She told him that she actually picked the infamous piece up while outside of her car.
Everything warbles with so many of these “witnesses,” and it makes one wonder how “independent” some actually are.
\\][//
There is a strong possibility that he simply saw the flyaway plane and merely deduced/assumed it took off from Reagan. If he caught the plane after it flew out low over the South Parking lot and banked out into an ascent and then U-Turn perhaps to him it looked like it was taking off from Reagan.
Some witnesses commented on how they thought that the Pentagon explosion lacked a percussive force or that they thought it would have been louder. While others reported a loud explosive thud.
If there were two separate explosions – a pyrotechnic one as the plane passes and internal bombs sending off the thunderous boom seconds apart. This could be the reason why he sees the plane taking off and the attack as two separate events.
Either way, there shouldn’t be an AA plane or any airliners taking off from Reagan at 9:37:15.
Seo et al: Have you read the book, Planes Without Passengers by Dean Hartwell? And if so, what did you think of it?
No. I’m stuck in Kevin Ryan’s book, the “Percy Jackson and the Olympians” series, and a whole array of children’s books refreshed bi-weekly from the library.
Willy
I had to use the jpg links because the larger images mess up the forum format and really slows it down.
I’ve put up the last(?) post on Ms Honegger’s treatment of the NOC witnesses
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392&view=findpost&p=10809504
Re the Boger “5 minute” description.
It was more in reference to corroborate Middleton’s “5 minutes”, not as an exact period of time but a time frame. It wasn’t “seconds” nor 15 minutes. Know what I mean?
And around the same timeframe Scoggins reported an aircraft 6 miles southeast of the White House, then less than a minute later, six miles southwest.
Steve Anderson in Roslyn, 2km away, also allegedly heard the roar of jet engines which may have been the intersection of the C130 and the decoy jet when the C130 was “south of the Mall” (in the pilot’s own words. The decoy jet was said to be in a 40° bank at high speed in a descent. Maybe this is the “rooooar” Boger heard?
Either way there’s corroboration for an unidentified aircraft from multiple locations north, south, west and east of the Pentagon crossing into Washington and back in to Arlington.
Sorry for waffling on. The thought just came to me about Anderson.
“It was more in reference to corroborate Middleton’s “5 minutes”, not as an exact period of time but a time frame. It wasn’t “seconds” nor 15 minutes. Know what I mean?”~OSS
Yes, we are talking in general imprecise time frames…that is what we both mean.
All as a part of a big “magic act”, distractions throughout the whole theater.
\\][//
Sorry OSS, I have a technical problem.
Will be back once I figure it out.
\\][//
Reblogged this on Hybridrogue1's Blog.
“Through all of the smoke, mirrors and mental gymnastics needed to decipher just what Ms Honegger’s multiple, unsubstantiated (to the point of pure invention) “theories”, what stood out to me was her insistence that the aircraft involved in the “violent event” arrived from “south of the Navy Annex”.
“Why?”
This is from Onesliceshort’s summation on his excellent analysis of Barbara Honegger’s theory of an aircraft exploding near the Pentagon heliport on 9/11. I quote it here because this is the part of Honegger’s theory that baffles me most as well.
I do hope that anyone who reads this thread here, makes sure to read the Onesliceshort Report on Honegger on Pilots for 9/11 Truth at the URL just a few comments above.
\\][//
@Adam Ruff
“Once I identify intentionally misleading or deceptive information in someone’s work I reject all of their work because it simply cannot be trusted as accurate or truthful any longer. If someone tries to pull a con job on you once you should not give them a second chance because they might just succeed the second time.
Mistakes are one thing, they can be overlooked and/or forgiven but intentional disinformation cannot and should not be overlooked because it is evidence that the person has an agenda other than truth.”
So much for Pilots for 911 truth and CIT in that case.
Unless you can justify and back up this last statement, which I don’t believe you can, I’m going to have to assume that you are peddling intentional disinformation.
A. Wright
Point out the “disinformation” at CIT or Pilotsfor911Truth.
A Wright
You’ve heard the bullshit and lies that are being spun by the same cartel of crooks and murderers in the US government regarding Syria this week, following hot on the heels of the lies that lead to (and will cause for generations to come) genocide in Iraq and Libya.
These are the same people who weaved the 9/11 Commission Report.
Call me old fashioned but I’d say anybody quoting that pile of disinformation or relying solely on the word of the same bunch of sociopaths is the mother of all disinformationists.
There’s gonna be another mile high pile of dead kids shortly. Including “western” casualties when they let their “Jihadist” puppets loose on the US and Europe (most likely Russia) with their brand new Libya/Saudi/Qatari/_insert blank supplied chemical weapons. All because of thie same shower of bastards.
I know I speak for most here when I say I’m tired of keyboard commandos like yourself shovelling horseshit in support of these psychopaths (YOU).
This isn’t an internet forum kiddy game. People are trying to sift through the horseshit and inform others of how their governments lie, murder and generally don’t give a flying f*ck about them. End of story.
They cover up for, protect and blackmail paedophiles, genocidists, human traffickers, drug cartels, leaching every last drop of imagined wealth that 99% of us believe we have.
No, this rant isn’t about some sort of personal slight taken because you’ve insulted people that I respect, but because of your blissfully ignorant, all encompassing “stance” on the official story. You defend people who would steal your house, sacrifice your family for war profit and protect those in high positions who would rape your kids.
TWA800 for Christ sake. I suppose the OKC John Doe 2 doesn’t exist? I forgot, you’ll pretend you never saw this question. Wouldn’t want to let your guard down now would we?
I know people like “George Ripley”, whoever the hell he is, would jump on this post as “proof” that people like me are ignorant savages but I remember a blog by an English guy called Stefan who said that the main giveaway that somebody is a paid distractor, or simply a shit stirrer, is the coldness and complete lack of emotion when discussing any issue as serious as 9/11.
Either have a mature, sourced, responsive</b conversation with people here or piss off.
Peace
OSS
URL to Arabesque coming in 3…2…1… 😉
Well, that Mr Wright would make such a remarkably bold and nakedly ignorant statement comes as no surprise. Wright is the typical Amerikan TVZombie, programmed to playback television script without the slightest idea that these are not his own thoughts. It is the fact that he is so typical, such a common place widget that is the gravest of danger to this planet.
About humanitarian imperialism, Max Forte writes:
“Desperate to finally be seen as the liberators of Arabs, rescuing poor victims with the finest of American exports (human rights), some would understandably feel compelled to exploit the suffering of others (residents fleeing Sirte) and turn that into something worthy of celebration. This is an example of the abduction process at the centre of Western, liberal humanitarianism: it can only function by first directly or indirectly creating the suffering of others, and by then seeing every hand as an outstretched hand, pleading or welcoming. We see (or imagine) helpless others, gobbling morsels of food that we hand them, brown mouths chugging down water from our plastic bottles, and we feel accomplished. Our moral might is reaffirmed by the physical plight of others. Clearly, the humanitarian relation is not a relation between equals. We are not our “brothers’ keepers” then, but rather we are more like animal keepers. Bombing for us is really just an animal management technology, and our relationship to the world remains a zoological one.” (Slouching Towards Sirte, p. 97.)
\\][//
A.Wright,
I agree with OSS’s statement about you completely. You are not credible at all as a person seeking the truth. I don’t buy your BS. When you have a legitimate point to argue about CIT or P4T (involving actual information not just your worthless opinion) I will look at it but until then I have no interest in you or what you have to say. So as OSS said to you, make a legitimate, sourced, rational, argument or piss off.
If people think that I was over the top, I’m not sorry. Maybe it appeared to be a clumsy rant but my “wordsmithery” and communication skills aren’t exactly honed in, but I always tell it like it is.
We can cross literal swords through debate but it’s now got to the point that we have to cut the crap. I’m not saying “let’s shout each other down with insults”. Let’s call a spade a spade.
I’ve been researching some grisly, heart wrenching sourced and proven material lately that encompasses how we are at the mercy of a group of corrupt, sadistic sociopaths who view all of us as currency.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22374
I’m going to go back into that dark place. I’ve a lot of information to sift through.
Mr. Adam Ruff writes (2013-08-28) to Mr. A.Wright paraphrasing Mr. OSS:
Doesn’t apply to just Mr. A.Wright. I expect the same from Mr. Ruff, who obviously can boast them as being a standard for all to follow. (In paraphrasing Mr. OSS, I wonder why Mr. Ruff left off the adjectives “mature” and “responsive”? Coincidence?)
And I expect it taken down to the nugget of truth (or disinfo) level, particularly if the disinformation ploy has been to insert these various nuggets only into a disinformation vehicle designed to fail so that they would die in its crash as well.
If this is too cryptic for Mr. Ruff, he made the unsubstantiated, hit-and-run contention (2013-08-08) that the WTC had no radiation, with which I and the illnesses of the sick first responders disagree. This contention he should prove with “a mature, responsive, legitimate, sourced, rational, argument.” As part of this, he should qualify to the radiation types specifically, their expected or designed duration, the nuclear devices in question, etc.
In this endeavor, Mr. Ruff should be careful that he doesn’t hoist himself up by his own petards…
… What if the “researcher” is an agency of the US Government? Other than the suppression of this report he seeks to make his case, have instances of their “deliberate disinformation” been found in other agency reports, making it worthy of rejection without reading?
[The report’s suppression might have been easier to accomplish than outright lying to manipulate the measurment data in tables into the range “at or below trace background levels.” Remember, to accomplish the same in the tritium papers, they had to re-define (without telling you) “trace background levels” to be 55 times greater than it was previously.]
Meanwhile, the unserious nature of Mr. A.Wright was known to the participants of this forum a couple of months before Mr. Rogue started flooding us in 2012. I probably have to use my fingers and some of my toes to count the number of times Mr. Rogue promised to throw the towel in at me [despite, or rather, because I do make “mature, responsive, legitimate, sourced, rational arguments”], yet he has never thrown the towel at Mr. A.Wright, despite being deserving. Mr. Ruff makes promises regarding whom he’s not going to read or respond to, but I don’t recall him making such about Mr. A.Wright, despite being deserving. Coincidence?
Here’s how Mr. A.Wright needs to be handled. Option 1 is to not rise to the bait.
Option 2 is when you have nothing better to do. You respectfully address him, address the issue, and thank him for his participation, because without him, you wouldn’t get the opportunity to expound upon the depths of the truth of the 9/11 or world events for all of the future, newby, lurker readers and the database archeologists. When he starts grinding around in circles over territory already covered, you provide a substantiating link for this (for lurker reader’s benefit and to prove claims of “circus carousel”), and then you leave it alone. No links? No go; you forfeit for attempting hypnotic lies. Bad, irrelevant, or unsupportive links? Like Lance Armstrong (or lying on a resume), you’ll eventually forfeit.
It takes more organization, but Mr. Rogue can attest that it is effective and can drive an opponent off of the rails into the weeds and to ad hominem-ville, which then depicts them as “the insane, raving lunatic” despite their attempts to afix this label to you.
P.S. “Wright is the typical Amerikan TVZombie…” ~Mr. Rogue. I disagree. Mr. A.Wright, according to him and you forgot, isn’t in or from the USA. I wager he’s in Alice Springs.
// Only 659 words, and my one-trick pony — neu nookiedoo — only gets mentioned here in my signature.
“P.S. “Wright is the typical Amerikan TVZombie…” ~Mr. Rogue. I disagree. Mr. A.Wright, according to him and you forgot, isn’t in or from the USA. I wager he’s in Alice Springs.”~Señor
I will respond to this by noting that Canada is in Amerika…as in the North Amerikan Union. That TV and it’s Zombified viewers is a “typical Amerikan” phenomena, which is extant throughout the so-called “Western World”. So where ever Mr Wright is, just like anyone else suffering the hypnotic trance of television he is indeed a typical Amerikan TVZombie, as the template is in fact Amerikan.
Perhaps Mr Ruff understands these facts better than his enraged critic who takes it upon himself to treat all here as neophytes in his kindergarten class:
7] “the first-responder ailments.” – This point is addressed *in the very thread I am accused of ignoring this issue; Extreme Toxicity of the WTC Dust is due to its Nano-Particulate Nature:
“*Asbestos in the WTC Dust was reduced to thin bundles and fibrils as opposed to the complex particles found in a building having asbestos-containing surfacing materials. Gypsum in the WTC Dust is finely pulverized to a degree not seen in other building debris. Mineral wool fibers have a short and fractured nature that can be attributed to the catastrophic collapse. *Lead was present as ultra fine spherical particles. Some particles show evidence of being exposed to a conflagration such as spherical metals and silicates, and vesicular particles (round open porous structure having a Swiss cheese appearance as a result of boiling and evaporation). -Materials transformed by high temperature (burning). These transformed materials include: spherical iron particles, spherical and vesicular silicates, and vesicular carbonaceous particles. These heat processed constituents are rarely, if ever, found together with mineral wool and gypsum in “typical” indoor dusts.”
~RJ Lee report
This stuff was a caustic as Drano. Asbestos can cause some types of lymphoma and the towers were full of it. [*MARCH 5, 2013 – 9:30 AM]
http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/carnival-dmaxifuckanus/
\\][//
“I expect the same from Mr. Ruff”__”And I expect it taken down to the nugget of truth..”~Señor
YOU “EXPECT”??? YOU? Who gives a fuck what YOU expect?
Nookeedoodoo Taco:
A Supposition built on Conjecture spiced with Speculation and wrapped in Bullshit!
Now I am sure YOU “EXPECT” to turn this thread into a debate over whether my recipe for that taco is correct or not, thus fulfilling your mandate of derailing this whole conversation into an argument over your bullshit theory again.
No dice, that is all a done deal now.
All can see the counter argument to the 12 points you claim over and again has never been made; at the URL in my last post. As far as I am concerned that’s all you get. It is sufficient regardless of what YOU expect.
\\][//
Señor
Normally, I don’t. A(ye) (W)right’s timing to make that comment couldn’t have been worse.
On the one hand, I was sifting through Barbara Honegger’s presentation, scoured through all research on witnesses, images, video and the “official narrative” books and fire reports — not á la debunk — but to find out more about the timing issue.
I’ll give you a hint at how mindnumbing the task was. I saw a flame in the second floor window (in a live Fox News report) of the Pentagon that matched one of the few images that actually contained exif data – just to doublecheck the validity of the timestamp.
I’m not blowing my own trumpet, just giving an idea of how thoroughly I have to check things.
All the while, there was the background noise of the whore media selling the Syria bullshit, images of dozens of literal lambs to the slaughter of toddlers the same age as my nephews.
When I got here to post the link, arrogant smartass Mr Ripley, who endorsed Honegger’s work was busy with his Brian Goodesque rhetoric.
On the one hand we had one person who endorsed and defended pure disinfo from within the “truth” ranks. The chorus of “truth leaders” who are content with a half-arsed impact scenario no matter how idiotic it is. And have no idea about the Pentagon op, nor have they watched the 3 hour presentation. On the other we had Mr “tactical writing, disappearances and generalizations” Wright.
Both sets of wordsmiths will reappear at some point with the same tired horseshit.
I’ve no time for tippytoeing around these people any more. They need to be called out.
PS. Yeah, I’ve a feeling he’s from the land of Skippy too.
Wow
http://911ts.org/
WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING ABOUT BARBARA HONEGGER’S PRESENTATION:
“This will transform the discussion of what happened on 9/11.”
— Professor David Ray Griffin, World Dean of 9/11 Truth Research
“This presentation blew…me…away!”
— Richard Gage, AIA, Founder, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
“Barbara Honegger is the most underappreciated, greatest 9/11 Truth person on the planet.”
— Professor Kevin Barrett, 9/11 Author and Radio Talk Show Host
“I think you’re the only Pentagon researcher who is both honest and presents a coherent model.”
— Professor Niels Harrit
“Well done on an excellent presentation!”
— Annie Machon, Former MI5 British Intelligence
“This is the very best I’ve seen on the Pentagon attack.”
— Gregory Ziegler, Former U.S. Army Counterintellligence
“Breathtakingly amazing work! Completely stunning in its logic, order of presentation and painstaking detail of research.”
— Lt Dennis Morrisseau, Vermont 9/11 Truth
“The talk was amazing and revelatory — one of the most compelling I’ve seen in the 9/11 Truth Movement.”
— Byron Bellitsos, Executive Director, Senator Mike Gravel’s State Initiatives Campaign for a New 9/11 Investigation
“Amazing work! Truly historic!”
— Connie Cook Smith, Peoria Illinois 9/11 Truth
“You’ve done a great job and an outstanding service to the 9/11 Truth Community and to our country,
tirelessly separating the wheat from the chaff on the Pentagon question. We are all extremely grateful for this.”
— Dr. Tim Eastman, Ph.D., Plasma Physicist
“This is by far the best information I’ve seen on anything having to do with 9/11. I showed your DVD to my group and
everyone was blown away by the amount and quality of the information and completeness of the picture you gave us.”
— Dr. James Hufferd, Ph.D., Founder, 911 Truth of Central Iowa and Coordinator of 911grassroots.org
“Very effective, powerful and convincing regarding the Pentagon attack. Your standard should be
the 9/11 Truth Movement standard.”
— Elizabeth Gould, with Paul Fitzgerald co-author of Invisible History: Afghanistan’s Untold Story and Crossing Zero:
The Af-Pak War at the Turning Point of American Empire, Former Documentary Producers for CBS News, ABC Nightline
and PBS TV
“This is a great presentation, indeed. Thank you for condensing so much information on so many aspects
of the Pentagon event.”
— George Ripley, Washington, D.C. 9/11 Truth and National Organizer for Senator Mike Gravel’s State Initiatives
Campaign for a New 9/11 Investigation
“Your presentation on the evidence that massive damage that was caused at the Pentagon by explosives
on 9/11 is amazing!”
— Richard Krushnic, Greater Boston Area 9/11 Truth Alliance
I wonder how much pressure Gage has received to retract THIS endorsement.
Today I sent an email to Professor Jones with the URL to OSS’ critique of Barbara Honegger’s theory on the heliport crash at the Pentagon.
I pointed out his accolades for the presentation Honegger gives, implying his duty to review counter material.
I KNOW the professor does not like to hear critiques of his fellow academics by mere laymen, so I don’t think I will receive a reply. But at least I have documented evidence that he has been given notice.
\\][//
A. Wright,
You have made a charge here that CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth are peddling disinformation. You have been challenged to back this by me and others. As it is not permissible here to launch accusations and ask questions of others without responding to challenges and answering questions yourself, I expect that as a condition of your continued participation on this site you will substantiate your claim.
I predict A.Wright will disappear for a while and then come back later having ignored you Craig. I am glad to see you holding his feet to the fire. He made the claim that CIT and P4T are putting out disinformation and now he has to back up his claim. So let’s see what you have to back up what you said A.Wright.
So Let Us Speak to the Issue of Ad Hominem:
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/the-gay-porn-of-hybridrogue1/
Of course what this anonymous entity calling itself ‘Señor El Once’ aka [DELETED] and who knows what else, was the source of many of my posts to his Nookiedoodoo thread – taken from his latest Defamation Jamboree on Truth and Shadows:
So Señor drops his phony veneer of ‘gentleman scholar’ with this:
. . . . .
FEBRUARY 25, 2013 – 3:36 PM:
“And I am defaming you, Mr. fookin’ no-nookin’ a$$hole Rogue.”
FEBRUARY 27, 2013 – 1:25 PM:
“Let me put this in a form that your simple mind will understand: Fuck you, Mr. Rogue, and your bullshit chowder about defamation of Dr. Jones.”
” I call him “simple-minded” with respect to nukes and write “fuck you, Mr. Rogue” (because I know him so well.)”
FEBRUARY 28, 2013 – 7:50 PM:
“..you write on COTO & here about “the true nature of things”, then WTF? You’re not just being a clueless idiot; you’re being a purposeful a$$hole whose motives we’ll need to question for why you are here… in overbearing quantities.”
MARCH 3, 2013 – 8:28 PM:
“I called Mr. Rogue a liar, a cheat, and agent, and I stand by that assessment.”
“Because Agent Rogue’s superiors were not satisfied that his ad hominem against me would be adequate..”
“Liar, cheat, and Agent that Mr. Rogue is…”
“Were he not a liar, a cheat, and an agent, Mr. Rogue would have seen the light a long time ago.”
“Agent Rogue, where’s your little pincer buddy Mr. A Wright?”
MARCH 4, 2013 – 1:13 PM:
“I called Mr. Rogue repeatedly a liar, a cheat, and agent… each with substantiation. So desperately does Agent Rogue desire the last word to solidify his dominance, he proves again what a liar, cheat, and agent he is.”
“it is more of a question of Agent Rogue failing an integrity test”
“Mr. Rogue continues playing the agent to suppress nuclear means-&-methods by spouting the lie..”
” just him demonstrating what a lying cheat he is.”
“Lying, cheating agent Rogue wants to keep framing things as minuscule and “a trillionth” and to steer readers into believing it means “nothing” and is equivalent to “zero.”
MARCH 4, 2013 – 7:30 PM:
“Agent Rogue does not disappoint us with a further example of his lying and cheating ways.”
“But because he is an agent with an agenda to PREVENT knowledge of nuclear means-&-methods..”
“And of course, this is the song-and-dance that Dr. Jones enlightens us with to “prove” that fission or fusion nukes weren’t used. This is what the ignorant cheat and liar, Agent Rogue, wants us to believe to.”
” here is a “fucking lie” from Agent Rogue;
[So rather than there being LESS radioactivity from a Neutron type device we have enhanced radiation.]”
“Gloating Agent Rogue, as is true to his lying and cheating ways..”
“It ain’t as cheatin’, lyin’ Agent Rogue frames it..”
“Agent Rogue is just paid not to see it, and to pull any trick he can to prevent others from seeing the truth, too.”
“When an agent is paid to promote an agenda, he can never admit fault or error; he can never give an inch; he can never allow his target (e.g., me) the last word on the agenda topic; he has to dominate the forum; he will pull out every nasty trick in the book in order to hold the line given by the agenda…”
“Mr. Rogue isn’t free to think for himself or to consider drawing different trend lines through the data points that are present. Agents never tire of going through the same merry-go-round points over-and-over, which Mr. Rogue has done not just with me, but with fellow agents Mr. A.Wright, Mr. TamborineMan, etc.”
“I stand by by assessment that Mr. Rogue is a liar, a cheat, and an agent, as well as being an asshole. I’m sorry. The luster of having an agent as a sounding board has wore off; Mr. Rogue belongs back on this COTO crew-cut home court.”
MARCH 5, 2013 – 5:23 PM:
“Agent Rogue demonstrates that he is a convincing liar and cheat..”
” Mr. Rogue being a liar, a cheat, and an agent.”
“Why is Agent Rogue defending Dr. Jones so viciously?”
MARCH 5, 2013 – 3:28 PM:
” Mr. Rogue is a liar, a cheat, and an agent.”
“Weasel, weasel, weasel! My, does Agent Rogue squirm!”
“And before I forget, here’s another example of Agent Rogue’s fucking “genius”
“Agent Rogue proves that he was lying about being a “genius” in any subject at any point in his life.”
“proving what a lying fucking cheat Agent Rogue is!”
” Mr. Rogue, you are and have been T&S’s govt infiltration, no doubt.”
“[*Ear-to-ear grin with middle-fingers raised in an appreciative salute to Agent Rogue*]”
MARCH 5, 2013 – 7:05 PM:
” TEN-TO-ONE!!! Agent Rogue never shuts the fuck up!!!”
“Agent Rogue makes his living by saying “no” and ridiculing other’s work.”
“Agent Rogue and his clackerless cowbell needs to be put out to pasture.”
“Agent Rogue may technically have his own blog, but if he doesn’t use it, he’s a liar to even consider himself a blogger.”
“P.S. Agent Rogue acts the innocent: “NSA ‘Q Team’ Agent… Whatever in the fuck that is supposed to mean.” It was explained several times, thereby proving Agent Rogue lied about being a genius artist among countless other lies to steer this forum.”
. . . . . . . .
“Because Agent Rogue’s superiors were not satisfied that his ad hominem against me would be adequate..”~Anonymous Entity known as ‘Señor’
The staggering hypocrisy of a complaint of “ad hominem” – after reading the ungodly list of ad hominem ‘Señor spewed onto the forum at Truth and Shadows, is a tell for anyone with the slightest lucidity.
I do believe this anonymous entity should take on a new assignment and keep his filth off of COTO.
. . . . .
I posted this reply to the URL above, that led to an Anal Hurlant of defamation and slurs against my self. So I repeated some of what he had done on Truth and Shadows in the same manner.
. . . . .
HOWEVER; a few comments later I went back to the link for Maxifucks story on COTO and found this:
ERROR 404 – FILE NOT FOUND
Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn’t here.
. . . . .
So I assume the administrators deleted the vile thing.
\\][//
{Mr. McKee, I had a linking error in my 2nd attempt. Could you please delete and use this one instead?}
Oh man! Do I ever feel special! It wasn’t just these three postings from Mr. Rogue.
[1] 2013-08-29 – 2:51 pm
[2] 2013-08-29 – 3:22 pm
[3] 2013-08-29 – 5:34 pm
To my surprise, Mr. Rogue lets slip out Carnival d’Maxifuckanus (2013-03-06) dedicated to me, when I thought PROLOGUE was his only one-sided homage to me. Such attention from an “Autodidact Polymath” who “worked for Disney, Universal Studios, Stan Winston Studios, and many others too numerous to mention” (February 10, 2012 – 12:46 pm); who has “>35 years of studying the arts of espionage and has doctorates equivalent in studies several times over in the field of intelligence analysis, and forensic history, the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation, mass psychology, and epistemology” (2009-03-23 at 12:42:29 PM); and who has been an intelligence analyst for more than 35 years and 9-11 Psyop… is an issue that [he understands] quite well (2009-03-23 at 10:47:49 AM). One tiny thing, however, is consistently missing from his post-doctoral efforts: reference links.
I wrote in Option 2 about how to handle a disingenuous opponent:
Regarding his [third] retread posting (2013-08-29 – 5:34 pm and here) that tries to summarize all of the bad filthy words that I’ve used to describe Mr. Rogue — cheat, liar, weasel, (in the past) agent –, the cherry-picked quotations from me lack substantiating links.
Ah, too bad! Mr. Rogue forfeits on a technicality while demonstrating a major deficiency in his “doctorates equivalent studies in … the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation”. Had he provided substantiating links to the source locations where I allegedly wrote those terrible things, the context could be reviewed and his premises validated (or not). Mr. Rogue is afraid of the “or not.”
The strawman premise and distraction that Mr. Rogue builds:
The reason that I call it a “strawman premise and distraction” is that context proves that it is not me “dropping [a] phony veneer of ‘gentleman scholar’”. No, it is me “dropping down to Mr. Rogue’s level” using language and words that he understands better and doing an excellent job of mocking him. What is worse for Mr. Rogue is that context also proves that I substantiate with Mr. Rogue’s own exhibit how I come to such dastardly opinions: “cheat, liar, weasel, (in the past) agent.”
I don’t know why Mr. Rogue keeps kicking that sleeping “agent” dog. Lacking proof other than my suspicions from his stubborn debates with me, it is not something that I’ve been holding to since even last November. “Cheat, liar, weasel” is another issue, and maybe him kicking the sleeping agent dog is just another example of that.
Meanwhile, Mr. OSS wrote:
Mr. Adam Ruff dropped “mature” and “responsive” from his paraphrasing (coincidence?):
SEO wrote:
Mr. Rogue comes unhinged with:
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Gotta walk the talk. So, yeah, “I EXPECT” and so do many others (including Mr. McKee.)
Seeing how Mr. Rogue brings it up, what does he expect? Rhetorical question, because Carnival d’Maxifuckanus (2013-03-06) and PROLOGUE already demonstrate the standards of “mature, responsive, legitimate, sourced, rational arguments” that Mr. Rogue — “an intelligence analyst for more than 35 years” with a “doctorates equivalent in studies several times over in … the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation” — EXPECTS from himself and others.
Mr. Rogue slams some hypnotic suggestion down (2013-08-29):
Ho-hum. I made 12 points. He claims that his Carnival d’Maxifuckanus has the counter-arguments to the twelve. In actuality, cheating Mr. Rogue won’t let me post “mature, responsive, legitimate, sourced, rational counter-counter-arguments“ to that blog or PROLOGUE; I know because I tried on 2013-03-19, but it was deleted. That’s why you’ll have to go “The Judy Wood Enigma” (2013-04-15) to see his counter-arguments get destroyed, point-by-point and ample examples highlighted of him cheating, lying, and being a weasel in his effort.
Yep, it demonstrates a lot about the character of Mr. Rogue that he would link to his one-sided Carnival d’Maxifuckanus instead of a two-sided “The Judy Wood Enigma”.
With 243 comments to this thread at the time of writing, Mr. Rogue has 77 (31.7%) while I have only seven times less at 11 (4.5%). I am such a loser against Mr. Rogue.
Mr. Rogue, thank you for your participation. You are so cute when you come unhinged.
//
Seo: My sentiments are with you. I tend to believe I have a very good memory, and if memory serves, within the last year Willie stated he had a high school diploma. This serves as no reflection on intelligence so here’s my point: For someone to have “only” a high school diploma as a basic educational level serving as the ground floor, I found a lot of his language to mirror Frank Luntz in wordsmithing, let alone the high vocabulary which is not typical of a high school graduate. Some of his words went over my head, even with my ownership of a master’s degree. He likes to use the phrase Ultra Vires at times. This was troubling and cue one.
Next, was the amazing amount of gratuitous posts he wrote. I wondered, is the man bored or obsessed or both? In my evolutionary discoveries, I continued to feel more troubled about this, asking why so many posts. The epiphany occurred. This was about filibustering the site so that people get tired of all the posts repeated ad nauseam. They eventually leave, the lurkers, Johnny-come-latelies, fence riders and even honest, sincere truthers. Cue two.
I’ve attempted to serve the role as somewhat of a diplomat here, especially when another gets out of hand with snarky, mean spirited comments. People who get blown out of the water tend to either stop participating in the process (which is bad) or get turned off by the truth movement (think of inverted pr work here). In my attempt to correct Willy, I’ve been told to stop being his nanny and to mind my own business. Cue three.
I’ve come to the conclusion that Willy’s motives are rather occluded. Juxtapose his work with the work of Henryfitzmac on all things 9/11 at ICH. HFM wants you to not believe the eyeball test and all the best available evidence regarding 9/11 and to come to doubt yourself to get back to accepting the OCT. Willy is more clever. He’ll get you on obstruction, wordsmithing and if these don’t work, a sucker punch of snark like you’ve never seen. What is the motive you ask? To get you to drop the ball and go home, never to probe and ask any more questions. He’ll take over, why he’s Frank Luntz, I mean Willy, of course.
Now ask yourself this important question: Would a bonafide 9/11 Truther obstruct, filibuster and engage in all-out snark like he has? Has DRG done this? Without question, NO!
For a man who points the finger at those dividing this movement, add his name to the pile who already have.
2013-09-03
Dear Mr. Dsn6,
Thank you for your sentiments (2013-09-13).
I will not dwell long on Mr. Rogue, because he expressed (August 31, 2013 at 9:40 pm):
Sounds like good advice.
So that you get a bigger picture before butting heads with him, Mr. Dsn6, I paraphrase what Mr. Rogue has mentioned about himself over time.
Starting from his youth, he was allegedly a “autodidact polymath” (paraphrased by me as, “self-taught cuz ain’t nobody than can done teach ‘im nuthin'”) and a genius in art. Art became his focus early in life, and his talents & paid opportunities to express those talents made post-high school formal education a waste of time. Being an “autodidact polymath” and artistic genius, though, I’m sure he was very intellectually curious and a voracious reader, which explains all of his “doctorates equivalent studies” and why he has such a good vocabulary and writing skills.
Mr. Dsn6 asks:
The benefits of retirement. The points you bring out in cue two are valid, though, that Mr. Rogue should take to heart. His frequency in posting was always something that I flagged: in general on all articles and to me specifically. I mean, when a single posting from me generates three or (in cases) TEN postings in response — and only few of them have cherry-picked sentences worthy of response –, then maybe at the very least this displays a haste that needs to be tempered down into one posting, full of thought, delayed for completion of thought and cooling of emotions, and that addresses item-by-item what piques his interest (or ire).
I think technology isn’t his friend in this regard: mobile technology. Small screens; no keyboards; no mouse or trackball; limited authoring software; limited patience with off-list authoring; and cost-limited data downloads. Makes writing off-line more challenging, and inspires tweeterish length postings.
I only called Mr. Rogue an agent when I wanted to push his buttons. It is not a position that I hold to. I can’t prove it. But I can prove the other things I’ve called him: (L-word, C-word, and W-word). Outside of my hobby-horse area, I disagree with less than 5% of what he writes. Retirement, stubbornness, “autodidact polymath”, and large artistic ego (short for, “can’t admit when he’s wrong”) more easily explains his nature.
Oh, I’ve asked the question to myself several times in the past, all right, and it inspired me to push his buttons. A parallel and more trouble-some question is why he plays word-smithing games to cover over issues with whom & what he champions? A great example is side-stepping valid criticism of an individual’s work and spinning it into being defamation of the individual’s character and a personal attack on the individual.
Even before I completed this, Mr. Rogue thinks of us as a tag-team. Not that it “was so” or “planned”, but if it “becomes so” organicly, consider this me tagging you, Mr. Dsn6. And now this September 3, 2013 ?12:34 pm posting as well.
I’m not familiar with the “Frank Luntz” references (but just now googled it to an American political consultant, pollster, and Republican Party strategist with a specialty of “testing language and finding words that will help his clients sell their product or turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate”: not sure it is applicable.)
//
@Craig McKee
I would say in the last couple of threads here pretty much everyone in the truth movement has been accused of ‘peddling disinformation’ from Barbara Honegger to George Ripley etc. Why is it when I say Pilots for Truth and CIT are, I get this formal ‘reading of the rules’ ? Do they have some special protection?
Look at the NTSB animation for the final part of the flight of AA77 before it hit the Pentagon and then compare it to Jesse Venturas ‘Conspiracy Theory’ about the Pentagon, where Rusty Aimer recreates it in a flight simulator and tell me if they match up.
I hate to sound like a Monty Python script, but, “That is not an argument”!
Wright asks if “Pilots for Truth and CIT … have some special protection?” It is not their “protection” that is given here, it is our agreement with their analysis. We have made that agreement via countless commentaries here, that you simply do not grasp and cannot make lucid arguments against.
And you STILL have not attempted to make a reasonable argument, but to offer a video, with no attendant commentary to make clear that you even understand the content of said video.
If there is anyone here that is satisfied with this, let them speak up. For myself I see it as another not so artful dodge.
\\][//
It’s a system based on bribes. Didn’t you get the memo?
Your comment hints at a point but doesn’t MAKE one. So if you can show us how CIT and Pilots are peddling disinfo, then by all means, do so!
He’s referring to Barbara Honegger’s “Behind the Smoke Curtain”.
It’s disinformation. Or do you agree with what she says?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNMakBEECqA
The guy at the controls had as much alleged skills as Hani Hanjur. If we take the OCT at its word, he was following the loop before the descent
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/5029/bp0j.jpg
He lost it coming out of the loop.
The whole point was that he had to fly at 500 knots coming out of the loop, find his bearings, then descend (124fps) at one point within the Pentagon basin. Of course he lost it.
If he had followed the NTSB animation to the letter he would have flown over the building 😉
Please point out the “disinformation”.
A.Wright can’t point out any disinformation because there isn’t any but he might be able to locate some misinformation. I doubt, until he looks up the definitions of the two words as a result of this post, that Wright knows the difference between (dis)information and (mis)information in the first place. He just figures he can just level unsubstantiated charges all he wants, ridicule us and the truth movement, ignore our responses, ignore our questions to him, and prance along forever getting away with the same routine while we go in circles repeatedly responding to him. It is a game to him and the game is to waste as much of our time as possible with minimal effort and to derail our conversations with minimal effort. The only way to deal with such people is to hold their feet to the fire and make them back up their words and if they fail to do so boot em off the forum as a disruptive troll.
@Onesliceshort
What do I think of Barbara Honegger and her presentation? Not to put too fine a point on it, and it’s nothing personal, but I think it’s just a load of nonsense. It’s the kind of thing that could only survive in the protected environment of the 911 truth movement where anything that contradicts the dreaded ‘official story’ has instant credibility and anyone who criticizes it must be against the truth. It’s only when it comes up against other people in the truth movement championing some equally foolish theory that simple common sense is rediscovered in order to point out the illogical inane nature of it.
What you sidestepped in you post was the speed of the plane as it was going around this loop. Rusty Aimer on this TV show puts this presenter in a 757 flight simulator to see if he can fly the flightpath of the plane. He starts the turn at 311 knots and then as it goes around he pushes the throttles forward ,increasing the speed, to 360 knots, then over 400 knots, to 424 knots, saying how difficult it is to maintain the radius of turn. He continues around the turn and then straightens up and goes up to 500 knots as he approaches the building he is trying to hit. The FDR animation on the other hand shows a speed of just 290 knots as it starts to turn. The speed then rises to a maximum of only 303 knots before to decreasing down into the 290’s , 280’s going down as low as 264 knots. As it reaches the end of the turn it is around 300 again before the planes starts to accelerate quickly towards the building, going up to 462 knots in the last frame. Where was Rusty Aimer getting his figures? Was he just making them up? He either doesn’t know what he is talking about or he is making stuff up and misleading the people watching this program. This was a mainstream TV show where you would imagine Pilots for Truth, who talk about how they deal in accurate data and facts would be getting their basic facts right and not just concocting them.
From the first time I came across P4T it has been obvious to me that they were not interested in the objective assessment of the evidence. The first article they had on the Pentagon, and it is still there on the flight 77 Pentagon page, just indicates the prejudicial way every piece of evidence is looked at. Even though they have insufficient data to make any reasonable assumptions they make the assumptions that suit the idea that the final flightpath of the plane was so very difficult that only an experienced pilot could achieve it. They could make any number of different assumptions but they choose the ones that would make the maneuver difficult and then say how difficult it would be. I wonder how many people read that and thought these expert pilots must know what they are talking about and had their perceptions of the event distorted from the start. How many people read it now and think it’s accurate. You only have to look at the FDR data to see that the assumptions are wrong and unwarranted , with glib junenile comments added (I presume by Pilots for Truth?) including ‘Anyone have a book to read while this maneuver is completed’.
There was undecoded information on the FDR that brought the altitude down at the end of the recording.
“There was undecoded information on the FDR that brought the altitude down at the end of the recording.”~A Wright
Which FDR Wright? The one found by the entrance or the one found near the C-ring?
Are you talking about the one that was decoded before any of the FDRs were found?
Are you talking about the one that was identified by it’s serial number as actually being the part in the aircraft? {That would be NONE of them}.
So you have been reading Legge and Stutt. You know Legge has proven in various ways that the Twin Towers were felled by explosives don’t you? Is he a “wacky truther” on that subject but a real swell guy when it comes to the Pentagon?
You say, “From the first time I came across P4T it has been obvious to me that they were not interested in the objective assessment of the evidence.”
Isn’t that curious: From the first time I came across A Wright it has been obvious to me that he is not interested in the objective assessment of the evidence.
\\][//
You are aware that Aimer and the Pilot attempted this more than once during the show right Wright? You are also aware that Conspiracy Theory edited the segment heavily for time and other reasons right Wright?
Let’s put all the cards on the table though Wright and show the NTSB data you claim differs from the P4T data. So show us the data Wright a;right.
@Hybridrogue1
Which FDR data were P4T basing their flight simulator on?
“Which FDR data were P4T basing their flight simulator on?”
It was based on an ‘NTSB Animation’…you would have to ask the NTSB what FDR data the animation was based on.
\\][//
A Wright
The usual spamfest of insults and generalizations but not actually getting down to the nitty gritty.
In future give specific areas to debate.
As for the flight simulation
I forgot to mention that the NTSB animation also shows the aircraft flying north of the Navy Annex.
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/1364/egmi.jpg
He’ll claim that the NTSB animation is “wrong”.
That the NTSB “time of impact” is “wrong”.
The merits of any “debate” on those two points are irrelevant.
CIT nor Pilotsfor911Truth has never used this data to say “look, this proves an inside job”.
CIT rejects all government released data sets.
Pilotsfor911Truth has shown that the alleged FDR data as it was released, does not add up to impact.
The NTSB has never commented on nor altered those two claims. One an FOIA released video where they claimed that the only error was the “clock annotation”
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/ua93cover.jpg
And the alleged impact time was said to have been correlated from multiple radar data
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/jimritter.jpg
What pseudoskeptics claim on those two issues is irrelevant.
The par for the course with any “controversy” regarding the official 9/11 narrative or any cover up, is that pseudoskeptics take it upon themselves to “fill the blanks” and disregard any official accounts (whether released by the government, government appointed bodies or government mouthpieces) that don’t “fit”.
That the true altitude gleaned from the Pressure Altitude readings of the alleged FDR data is wrong.
That the sourced specs for the limitations of the Radar Altimeter of 330fps (while the OCT aircraft allegedly flew at 800fps) is “wrong”.
That the calculations for the gs based on the alleged FDR data and the alleged “pull up” whereby the gatecam, directional damage and lack of foundation damage demands this “pull up”, is “wrong”.
That the OCT descent into the Pentagon was “actually” smoother even though the same Radalt parameter they’ve pinned their colours to show a 124fps descent and immediate pull up 0.7 seconds before the lightpoles
That pilots who have flight time in 757s and 767s who know that these alleged low level flights of standard commercial aircraft is ridiculous are “wrong”
Radalt topo
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21125&view=findpost&p=10795386
3:08
They were coming to the end of the loop into the “straight”. Yeah maybe they were going faster in the final turn than the alleged loop speed at this point but it was a recreation of the event carried out by a Cessna pilot!
Also towards the end of the loop, the speeds mentioned by Rusty Aimer are slower than those shown on the alleged RADES data:
Calculation of the minimum speeds based on RADES data:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=86499&t=322707
Why “minimum”?
(Which means an even longer distance was covered both through the curvature of the turn and the descent, thus a faster speed)
http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/6772/masterplot2jn9.png
Note the alleged speeds as the aircraft is coming out of the loop on the alleged final straight towards the Pentagon:
lat/long points 18 to 19 — 452mph or 392 knots
and lat/long points 19 to 20 — 375mph or 325 knots
The alleged speed on this “straight” was 580mph/500 knots according to Stutt.
So what’s the problem?
Okay Wright, now we have the Ventura segment you point out posted by OSS. It is obvious from that segment that the flight simulator Aimer demonstrated in is using the NTSB data that P4T has previously analyzed. It is obvious as well that just as claimed the hit is impossible – and especially so for a pilot with the skills of Hanjur…
So what was your point, as this in fact boosts our point? The official story cannot be true!
I am still curious as to what your were thinking…
\\][//
And there it is as I predicted
Says who? The NTSB or FBI acknowledged this did they? Please provide a link.
The FDR manufacturer acknowledged this did they? Please provide a quote where the FDR manufacturer admits that the most important final seconds of an aircrash won’t be recorded because of a fault in their data collection system.
Jim Ritter admitted that all of the radar calculations were “off” by “4 or 6 or 8 seconds”, did he? Links please.
Are you, A. “OKC John Doe 2 doesn’t exist” Wright questioning the validity of the official data, or saying that something is fishy about the “incontrovertible hard evidence” and reliability of electronic data and multiple radar readings? That they are wrong?
Yes you are.
Last night (August 28, 2013) the 9/11 Truth Teleconference debated a resolution that I had submitted, Barrie Zwicker seconding, regarding the upcoming conference in D.C. entitled “9/11: Advancing the Truth”. The debate on the resolution was interrupted by a Q&A with Elizabeth Woodworth of the 9/11 Consensus Panel, but returned to the resolution thereafter. The resolution as submitted is below.
The long audio of the teleconference is now available at http://houston911truth.net/audio/082813.wav and contains many interesting discussions that I will not try to summarize.
—–
AGENDA ITEM: Resolution regarding the 9/11: Advancing the Truth conference [postponed from previous teleconference] (20 min)
The language of the pending resolution can be found in the draft minutes below. Following the interim discussion on our listserve, Paul Zarembka has expressed an intention to offer the following substitute motion, which, because of its length, is copied below for the reference of participants:
Whereas George Ripley, an organizer for the “9/11: Advancing the Truth” conference to take place on September 14-15, 2013 in Washington, D.C., said on the 9/11 Truth Teleconference call on June 26, 2013 that a prime purpose of the conference has been to debate the CIT evidence regarding the Pentagon event, and
Whereas Dwain Deets, Barbara Honegger, and Matt Sullivan are scheduled for 15th to make a four-hour presentation and discussion on the Pentagon event, and
Whereas Dwain Deets and Barbara Honegger are speaking on the Pentagon event without significant elements of their positions having been carefully vetted by others,
Therefore, be it resolved
that the 9/11 Truth Teleconference recommends that Dwain Deets and Barbara Honegger make clear statements at the conference as to their own positions, as well as their areas of agreement and disagreement with the positions of CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and
that the Teleconference recommends that, in addition to fully laying his position that no airliner hit the Pentagon,” that Matt Sullivan specify in which respects he believes that this research is inconsistent with the positions taken by Deets and Honegger, and
that the Teleconference is concerned with Barbara Honegger having a second billing on the day prior to the Pentagon discussion and thus that she be asked to refrain from using that prior talk as a preliminary for the Pentagon talk the next day, and
that the Teleconference recommends that the order of speakers for any session discussing the Pentagon event be decided by lot, and
that the idea of a “consensus” statement on the Pentagon event not be entertained, and
that this resolution be transmitted forthwith by the facilitator of the Teleconference to George Ripley and Matt Sullivan as two organizers for the D.C. conference.
Hi Paul
Could you make sure Barrie and yourself have a look at this link?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392
Cheers
Yes, I read it shortly after you posted it and welcome it. The third “Whereas” of the resolution was directly aimed at Barbara Honegger’s work needing vetting (as well as Deets’).
As you could expect, Honegger answered at the teleconference call that all those citations from others that she quotes means that her work has been vetted.
Yet, vetting means being able to withstand substantive criticisms like you have performed. A quote from David Ray Griffin, “This will transform the discussion of what happened on 9/11” and similar quotes are not what is meant by vetting. Basically, she is being political in reporting these quotes, not being scientific. It is not vetting.
By the way, have you noticed that that “over the top” quote she offered from Kevin Barrett at the Seattle link has been dropped? I asked her about that on this blog but received no reply.
I had expected that Ranke would be offering a detailed criticism of Honegger. Perhaps the baton is being passed, I don’t know, but it seems to me that your work is important. In any case, I well understand that Ranke felt that his own invitation to this conference was a setup. I look forward to reactions, in the future, of C.I.T. on Honegger.
Anyway, I want to ask you about the 9:32 clock issue. Isn’t it much simpler? The photo of the clock from the Smithsonian that she likes to exhibit has two fatal flaws as evidence, A clock that falls can experience upon impact its hands moving, particularly the larger hand — the minute hand. If the clock were at 9:38 (say), the force of the impact when the clock falls is toward 9:30. Honegger doesn’t even acknowledge this simple issue.
Second, the photo is of a clock moved from some location to the Smithsonian. There is no chain of custody reported, nor is the issue even acknowledged.
Absolutely correct Paul endorsements do not equal vetting in any way shape or form.
I would like to take as many steps as possible toward verifying with the “endorsers” that they actually said what Honegger claims they said and that they intended their words as a public endorsement of her work or simply as private comments not to be publicized. I also think it would be worthwhile to ask if their endorsements have been paraphrased or edited in any way that they do not agree with.
In any case it should be noted for the record that Honegger has AGAIN claimed (on the most recent telecon) that her heliport crash/explosion theory has been vetted and it hasn’t. It is in the process of being vetted now by the intrepid OSS who has done an outstanding and thorough job of it. This vetting process is already exposing serious flaws in her theory and exposing how poorly it is supported by the evidence. So as of today OSS has done the only “vetting” of Honegger’s theory and her theory is falling apart.
I think Barbara needs to address this issue of claiming twice now that her work has been vetted when in reality it hasn’t been. Does she recognize OSS’s vetting or is she going to go on claiming endorsements constitute real vetting and ignore OSS’s work?
OSS’s work requires a serious response from Barbara just as CIT’s critique of Chandler and Cole’s pentagon paper demands a response. In the case of Chandler and Cole no response has come inspite of the serious flaws exposed in their work by CIT. The question is now will Honegger respond to OSS’s vetting of her work or not? Will Barbara simply ignore the serious issues with her work OSS is exposing and go right ahead and present the questionable material anyway in DC? Wouldn’t that be irresponsible for a real truther to do that?
Hi Paul
Thanks for the kudos. I did that piece on my own initiative. I’ve done a few other independent pieces on other disinformationists and gathering all of the Pentagon information under one roof (witnesses, images, video, etc).
Yeah, everything seems to be centered around this one image and damage from the blast could very well have caused the minute hand to have fallen, but I had to include April Gallop’s timepiece into the equation, which she claimed had also stopped at 09:30am (and to which Honegger attributes another explosion prior to the alleged 09:32 explosion, I believe).
Thing is, there was also another clock photographed at @09:36am in a room which borders the collapsed section. And another alleged report of a person who claimed that while he was working at a computer (just as Gallop was), his timepiece reverted to “00:00:00”.
The extra details on the exact timeframe was just an attempt to find if there actually was a “gap” in the timeframes. I couldn’t find one.
The nail in the coffin for me personally was the Peter Jennings report on the “aircraft circling the White House” at 09:41am. This report had to have come from Washington. And no mention of a large smoke plume at the Pentagon allegedly 9 minutes earlier?
The first images were broadcast by MSM at 09:42am. The USAToday hi rise is just 2km away and Route 27 was allegedly crawling with journalists. I know the MSM are GL presstitutes and as guilty of a cover up as anybody, but to envisage the scenario where all of them sat on the story for a full 10 minutes in goosestep formation?
PS. I’ve a lot of time for Kevin Barrett. I’m glad he has apparently withdrawn his endorsement.
That’s good to hear, OSS, about Barrett. His endorsement is certainly over the top:
The irony there is that all the other endorsements on her page go to disprove the “most underappreciated” meme.
How did you get the “apparently” news? I was going to email him your piece as well but figured you’d already done it.
So… after all the mess from past years, why is Richard Gage stepping into the Pentagon “quagmire” again? He said to McKee in 2012 that he wasn’t going to step his little toe into these waters again.
[TONGUE IN CHEEK ALERT]
This is by far the most enigmatic endorsement. First of all, why the ellipses between the words “blew me away” I wonder. Are they Richard’s? Is Richard attempting to convey high enthusiasm, i.e.: “This presentation BLEW! ME! AWAY!”
Or could it be that the ellipses represent words taken out? Perhaps his actual statement was along the lines of: This presentation blew my mind with its muddiness and convolutions; now I have no idea WHAT to think about the Pentagon issue, except that it isn’t for me to get involved in, so please go away and don’t try to suck me back into this quagmire.
Or, how about this:
David Griffin is absolutely correct here, as seen in this blog; the discussion HAS been transformed. Thank you, OneSliceShort. 🙂
Have you sent your piece to as many people as possible, i.e. DRG?
AdamS
Yeah, I had taken from Paul Zarembka’s last post that Barrett’s “endorsement” had been removed?
I haven’t contacted anybody.
I haven’t even had the time (nor energy) to repost it at the CIT forum!
I was hoping Paul, Barrie, Craig and yourself would pass it on seeing as you guys have more avenues of contact? I know Willy has sent an email off to Jones.
Now you know why she was invited to the “best evidence conference”. What a joke man.
OSS,
I sent an email to Barrie Zwicker to make sure he sees the Honegger critique at P4T as well….
Hahahahaha…I spoze I could send one to Legge as well.
\\][//
I sent it to DRG. He replied and thanked me for sending.
Well I don’t see how any sane and lucid thinker who really goes through the CIT, P4T, and if I may add the Truth and Shadows information__could possibly come to any other conclusion than there was a north approach and the plane did not strike the Pentagon. And of course logically linked to this is that it had to have flown over.
But a lot of trash has been piled up as walls around that info…who knows how long it will take to sweep that all away..??
\\][//
This is absolutely amazing stuff OSS. First rate top notch analysis.
One suggestion though, and it’s a suggestion that needn’t even be taken up by you. It could be done by myself, McKee or anyone else with the skills to read, comprehend, summarize and articulate.
We sorely need a Reader’s Digest version of your work, IN ADDITION to this long version. Much like how the Blueprint for Truth presentation has a 30 minute, a 1 hour, and a 2 hour version.
In other words, a digestible article that sums up the meat of what you’re reporting here. Many very busy people simply do not have the time to go through your long, in depth posts and not just read them, but click on all the links, many of which have a bunch of links themselves…
In the past, I’ve also suggested to CIT that they do a Reader’s Digest version regarding debunking their detractors. Very few people are going to take the time to read the 50,000 word response to Chandler/Cole AND click on every link, and read those links as well, which in turn themselves often have links on them, etc… It would be really nice if they could make a YouTube video of about 20 minutes in length, briefly rebutting all the anti CIT talking points. On this video, they could urge people to go to the super-in-depth print rebuttals for the full version.
AdamS
I know mate, I know.
I’m a computer dinosaur and horrible video editor. There’s so much information and the necessity to corroborate and view this information from so many angles to whittle away the chaff and narrow down and refine the research.
That’s why I tried the format where the links to relevant information is compiled in the opening post of every thread that I do, including a recap of conclusions. Even the recaps can be lengthy!
One of the best solutions I’ve seen is Ligon’s excellent “pop-up” debunk of the “NOC impact” lightpoles.
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-can_north_side_plane_hit.html#northsidepoles
Maybe each government loyalist/disinformationist “argument” can be summed up in that format?
For example, the same sort of pop up/slideshow can contain images of each NOC witness with the most relevant quotes.
Or alleged “SOC witnesses”.
Or alleged “impact witnesses” complete with quotes and a repitition of the OCT speed, directional damage, etc
Or disputed building damage.
Or witnesses who described the East of Potomac flightpath.
It’s way beyond my abilities but it’s a solution.
I think this Pentagon Digest is the perfect project for our own Mr McKee.
What do you say Craig? I know you got plenty of spare time {grin} … don’t you think you could whittle all of this down to a concise presentation?
I bet you could.
\\][//
Oh my… I could never… I mean I’m simply not… I mean, do you really think so?
Aw__you’re a natch for it Craig.
Really it must be done.
It’s your duty by gawd.
\\][//
Well, I don’t usually pass up a chance to take credit for someone else’s work…
“Well, I don’t usually pass up a chance to take credit for someone else’s work…”
C’mon Craig, you know this is the perfect job for someone who has the editor’s skills you do. It will take a lot of ingenuity to do this right, and you will surely find new words for condensation purposes, leading into the normal quoted sections, and arranging this into a tight story.
But I know it’s a challenge, one not to be taken lightly. I think that’s why your the man for the job – you won’t take it lightly.
\\][//
For the record, any research of mine is everybody’s to use, copy, whatever. I don’t mind.
OSS
CIT – P4T – T&S | Trilateral Pentagon Position – NOC = Flyover
\\][//
Barbara Honegger is said to be..mentally agile…close to eidetic memory..
That’s her Achilles Heel then. She cannot claim that she forgot, or didn’t understand when she makes obvious misrepresentation of counter arguments put to her: As she did in her comments on the new Pentagon thread here @ T&S.
We hold that heel to the fire — Babs flambe…aye?
She will also be seen as quite an asset to the Pinkerton’s and Hog-Belly-Hawkers, and will be surrounded by a Praetorian Guard of “admirers”, like the front men that came in advance of her in the commentary on this thread.
Thing is to get her by the ankle and hold her there for interrogation – but , T&S has no subpoena powers…
\\][//
“This presentation blew…me…away!”
— Richard Gage, AIA, Founder, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Richard has admitted both publicly in his interview with McKee as well as privately to people that he wishes he’d never uttered a word publicly about the Pentagon, and that his stepping into the issue has been a net negative for the movement. I wonder if Richard actually said these words; and if so, were they written or spoken? If they were written, is this a paraphrase or his exact words?
And finally, most importantly of all, did Richard give Barbara permission for this to be a public endorsement? I find this to stretch credulity, after all Richard’s been through. He has indicated that he does not plan on publicly saying anything about the Pentagon again. Perhaps someone with a friendly relationship with Richard could contact him and ask if he intended his Honegger statement to be a public endorsement.
OSS,
Referring to Honegger you said:
“Now you know why she was invited to the “best evidence conference”.
I am not up on this “best evidence conference”, can you fill us in on this, the when and where and who of it?
Thanks, Willy – \\][//
Hey Willy
Get this…
The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut – Barbara Honegger
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQguLmOEGYM
28mins onwards
Compare that bended knee approach to the presentation she gave just a few months later.
We apparently don’t need to worry about the flightpath, but then she layer insists on a “south of the Navy Annex flightpath” and that whatever those dumbass acid taking NOC witnesses saw was either an anomaly or a bad trip.
Well OSS,
I have had my fill of Honegger, I watched the whole DVD – BEHIND THE SMOKE CURTAIN again ‘last night’…it is 3:25 in the morning here now. I came away from that so baffled that it is hard to put into words. Everything in that presentation is things we all know to be true and accurate history__from the time she leaves the white plane exploding on the helipad forward! Everything makes sense and comes together…
EXCEPT the white plane blowing up next to the Pentagon…and all the gymnastics to get that white plane coming in on the south path…!!!
It leaves one with a sense of wonder. WTF is going on? And I can’t help coming back to my position that this is the ONLY thing that is HERS, exclusively. The only thing she can claim as her own original finding. After all, everything else is there, is revealed, even if in bits and pieces in other research. That is just a compilation that most die-hard researchers have put together — but the exploding plane – that is UNIQUE to Barbara Honegger! A claim to fame!!
And I think it’s a damn shame.
One person’s ego having so much to do with splitting the movement down the middle on the issue of the Pentagon is tragic.
\\][//
Willy
As part of my research into her “findings”, I started reading her “Pentagon papers” (2007 – when CIT were uncovering more NOC evidence and Rob Balsamo was tearing the alleged FDR a new one).
She had claimed that there actually was an impact by a “smaller plane” and this may have been followed by a “heat seeking missile”.
She also claimed to have interviewed Lloyde England
It was actually Route 27 and not the I395.
It actually sounds like something Lloyde would say, “I realized this was history and I wanted to see for myself.” but she (or he, if this was for real) doesn’t mention the alleged 30ft section of lightpole that was supposed to have speared his windshield. She claims that he was simply observing, and saw no evidence of an aircraft having impacted the building. Just “black smoke [was] streaming up and to the right from inside-the-building fires”!
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/255/imagecyy.jpg
Hmmmm…..
Lloyde England was interviewed by CIT accompanied by what turned out to be another “flipflopper” who appeared on the scene, Russell Pickering.
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=429&view=findpost&p=2062895
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCnKLVwBsIY
Think about this. 2001 – 2006, Pentagon missile theories (of which I was once an advocate), no plane theories, “smaller plane” theories were all over the net and there was no “controversy”. Nobody wanted to touch the Pentagon with a bargepole.
CIT literally stumble across Robert Turcios (witness at Citgo) on a trip to Arlington with Dylan Avery and others and from there a whole plethora of “bloggers” (probable Sunstein entities) came out of the woodwork. Logic was turned on its head.
Solid research was backtracked on.
http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic8.htm
Another group of alleged “truthers” all suddenly pushing their own “theories”, or defending the OCT in an area of 9/11 that had been rotting.
Arabesque, Hoffman, Adam and Eric Larson, Legge, Jeff Hill, Warren Stutt
All with one single common denominator. The NOC witnesses were all “wrong”. Or, giving them “credibility” while tagging ridiculous horseshit on to their testimony.
Barbara Honegger is being presented as the “public face” of Pentagon research for a reason. She mixes a barrage of outdated, debunked and/or unprovable theories in detriment to solid evidence on the operation itself.
As long as it includes an “impact”.
OSS,
This information on Russell Pickering is most fascinating indeed.
Most troubling:
“The release of the proven manipulated video data was done to discredit Robert Turcios since he is not visible in the video.
Russell remained silent about the serious implications of his own research because he also planned to use this government supplied manipulated data to discredit Robert and/or support the notion that the plane flew on the south side (the official story).
The fact that Russell has chosen to quietly ignore information that implicates the government in a cover-up in favor of using the same government supplied information to support the official story is the most perplexing behavior I have ever witnessed from somebody who claims to fight for 9/11 truth.”
I would agree to a certain extent, but adding that such perplexing behavior is also found in those you yourself list;
Arabesque, Hoffman, Adam and Eric Larson, Legge, Jeff Hill, Warren Stutt…
And it seems to me to be fair to add Honegger to this list until further notice.
\\][//
For neophytes and those struggling with their programmed conditioning, like the unfortunate A Wright, the following is a real good 101 sort of exposition on the Pentagon event 9/11:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-can_north_side_plane_hit.html#northsidepoles
\\][//
The 9/11 Truth Teleconference that I mentioned here on August 29 has a listserv with about 15 people on it, including Barbara Honegger, Craig McKee and George Ripley. I posted the following a few hours ago pointing to OSS’s work:
–> An initial vetting of Barbara Honegger’s position on the Pentagon event has been posted at
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392
Barbara frequently quotes people in the 9/11 truth movement, but such quoting is not vetting. “Vetting” is a scientific act of engagement in which a dialogue about objections/confirmations, etc. takes place. Quoting people is a political act — and, in her case, the contexts are unreported.
Paul
Cheers. Much appreciated!
Paul,
Honegger is anything but stupid. She knows as well as anybody that these public endorsements are in no way a proper Vetting Process.
It is obvious that her making the pretense that they are, that she has no intention of going through a proper vetting process — unless there were some way she could stack the deck, like she was so successful at doing with lining up comrades as fall-guys for her at the upcoming DC conference.
\\][//
Craig,
Thanks for giving me the clue on how to listen to the teleconference.
Woodword’s appeals to authority in this discussion is quite troubling to me. All of this talk of the superiority of ‘academics’. The Delphi method is skewed as far as I am concerned it is a form of manipulation.
“If we came across irrefutably proves that a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon…”
~Woodworth
Well, we HAVE!!! And this is what blows my mind. The fact, and one that she admits to that she hasn’t studied said evidence, is a braintwister.
\\][//
Willy
Such “high standards”, eh?
I had always thought that it was up to those who actually have all of the information to prove that an aircraft struck the Pentagon.
The so called evidence of an alleged impact is a mixture of hearsay, faith in the word of discredited government bodies (alleged passenger DNA, ASCE Report, etc), completely contradictory testimony as regards the alleged “debris”, a suspension of the laws of aerodynamics and physics and basically staged anonymous photo opportunities.
Oh yeah, and the matter of an alleged physical victim of the aircraft who denies being on the official path.
OSS, Your statement is spot on…”I had always thought that it was up to those who actually have all of the information to prove that an aircraft struck the Pentagon.” Clearly they haven’t proved it, and just as clearly they have with-held information by which common observers and experienced researchers could establish for sure what happened that day. That is exactly why we are establishing for the record the evidence which we will formally request/demand they release as part of an ongoing citizen inquiry. We want the proof, we demand the proof, they have no legitimate justification for withholding the truth. Concisely put, thank you.
Mr Ripley,
While I make no objection to you attempting to cajole “the truth” out of a system built on and maintained by lies, I will state for the record one more time, that we don’t need public confessions in light of all the evidence that IS already available in the public domain.
In the very same way that we who have sane and lucid mental facilities know BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, that the JFK Assassination was a coup d’etat, we know the same about the 9/11 – in very specific detail.
To state that we know the truth despite the lack of public confessions is as valid as anything we can reasonably expect to actually accomplish.
Now, I expect YOU Mr Ripley to confront Ms Honegger and let her know that it is not acceptable to pretend that her endorsements equal a proper Vetting Process.
\\][//
If you have questions of Barbara Honegger’s research it is always appropriate to ask them.
As far as the official story being false, of course we know it is, and we should have the opportunity to prove it as soon as possible. In the meantime there are some details we would like to have cleared up. If they are unwilling to clear them up they will have to justify that position before the court of public opinion. Just sayin’. Finally, some lucky day, prosecution should begin and justice be served, in this best of all possible worlds.
George you responded to my suggestion that you make the point of the distinction between “endorsements” and “proper Vetting Processes” with this statement:
“If you have questions of Barbara Honegger’s research it is always appropriate to ask them.”
In light of all that has come down here, in this thread, and the teleconference, I find this milquetoast response to be not only limpwristed but quite disingenuous. Honegger has not made a single sincere response to anyone on this forum. Mr McKee has made this point, Mr Syed has made this point, Mr Ruff has added his opinion to this point, OSS is clearly of the same opinion.
Having the primary person dodge and weave this issue is bad enough, but to have another who clearly champions her position to do the same dodge adds insult to injury. If you honestly cannot comprehend why we are fed up with this attitude then I do not know what to make of you. If you feel that this is a hostile response, consider what it is that has prompted it. People naturally tire of getting the runaround, especially those cognizant enough to realize that is what they keep getting offered.
\\][//
Not too far back on this thread one of you guys actually started to vet Barbara’s work. I was hopeful for some good to come of it all, then the effort was dropped. It seems you would rather waste everyone’s time just casting snarky aspersions. Stick to your science and stick to the legitimate questions and there is no reason for the ongoing negativity. It serves no good purpose, it makes you look bad, and you could save everyone some time and energy. Then when the pieces of this puzzle start to fall into more focus you can either preen or otherwise and look wise doing it.
“Not too far back on this thread one of you guys actually started to vet Barbara’s work. I was hopeful for some good to come of it all, then the effort was dropped. It seems you would rather waste everyone’s time just casting snarky aspersions.”
~George Ripley
At the following URL is that very vetting you are referring to George. It seems if you would pay attention you wouldn’t keep saying ignorant things that waste everyone’s time:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392
I suggest you read this yourself and bring it to Ms Honegger’s attention as well.
\\][//
George what on Earth are you talking about when you say: “Not too far back on this thread one of you guys actually started to vet Barbara’s work. I was hopeful for some good to come of it all, then the effort was dropped.”
The effort has not been dropped at all, have you even looked at OSS’s work yet? Are you not aware of what we have been talking about on this very thread for many many days?
I have to say George you are really not paying attention at all or you are being highly disingenuous. Barbara’s work is being vetted and it is falling apart on many levels and yet she is still going to present her theory to the world at the DC conference. Very irresponsible for her to do that and for you to allow it.
This “playing dumb” routine is an obvious disnformation tactic used to avoid any real back and forth debate on her theory just for the record.
I want to acknowledge that I wrote Elizabeth Woodworth’s name incorrectly in the post above. I apologize herein, but reiterate my criticisms.
\\][//
Ms Honegger’s work has been “vetted” inside out
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392
You aren’t aware of this Mr Ripley?
What is a “Truth Movement” that is so naïve that it plays pretend that there is actually a representative government in the USA? Isn’t such a foundational truth such as the real state of affairs the ground floor issue to proceed from when seeking truth in our lives?
The pretense of ‘government’ in Amerika has become so absurd that it is Kafkaesque and ludicrous. The very idea that the ‘Truth Movement’ might successfully “petition the government for grievances” is akin to the belief in fairy-tales.
For myself this is one of the most discouraging things about post 9/11 Amerika; the cognitive dissonance of living inside of a ever hardening despotic police state, yet believing that appeals to the so-called ‘government’ for a fair hearing on the events of 9/11. It is wishful thinking. It is suicidal-delusional to live with such denial.
The US and the rest of the so-called Western world is a Panoptic Maximum Security System. To think that this system will be responsive to the inmates’ wants is the height of insanity.
To deal with reality, one must first face that reality.
\\][//
Willy
Dingdingding!
There has definitely been an automatic mental block methodically instilled in all of us throughout our lives.
Until people realize just how corrupt, ruthless and sociopathic the “elites”/cockroaches really are, and just how tight the squeeze is that they have on the jugular of this planet, for some there are always going to be inconvenient truths. Even if it means muddying the waters to stop themselves from seeing it. No matter how honorable their intentions allegedly are.
Of course there are also those who simply revert to covering their ears and screaming “lalalala” lol
My personal approach to 9/11:
1. Start off with a clean slate.
2. Ignore the media, government agencies (unless they slip up or it can be independently verified) and anybody else trying to “herd”
3. Look at all alleged evidence. All of it. And its source.
4. Have a benchmark on judging the quality, independence and “health” of the alleged evidence.
5. Categorize, cross reference and look for corroboration.
6. We can draw our own conclusions and speculate but the real blanks should only be filled in by those whose feet we can hold to the fire.
2cents (if that)
“When you watch television, you are having someone else’s dream.” ~Terence McKenna
There is no “government” — there is only the Public Relations Regime. The people are not “governed” they are enchanted. They “govern” themselves by acting out hypnotic cues. If one studies the Panopticon, which is originally a late 18th century penitentiary architectural design – one discovers the psychological aspect of ‘self monitoring’ that is set up by ‘perceived’ constant surveillance. The linkage of these psychological stresses to the wider mind controlling effects of electronic media has melded into an almost ‘Middle Earth’ situation of dark necromantic proportions.
Of course I am using allegory to make my point, but Full Spectrum Dominance is in the last stages of fruition. Beware of dark lords such as Brzezinski mouthing platitudes that give false hope that “the masses are finally coming to bear on the elites”, because of the ‘mass awakening’ Brzezinski speaks to. When he reminds that it is now easier to kill a million people that it is to control a million people, whereas in the past it was easier to control a million than to kill a million…do not be duped into believing he is giving praise to the masses. NO, he is advising killing them off by the millions, giving up the futile attempt to control them and simply eliminating them.
A great culling could be at hand. Another shift in paradigm is coming soon. As Orwell advised; remaining sane is of the essence. Keep your eyes on the road and your hands firmly on the wheel of your own consciousness.
\\][//
Watch this:
Pentagon Admits More 9/11 Remains Dumped in Landfill
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2t9PK-Kato
Then read this:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22270&view=findpost&p=10807670
Did you know that there is a Canadian documentary filmmaker named Terence McKenna who made a film called The Secret History of 9/11? This film features interviews with people like Richard Clarke, Michael Scheuer, Thomas Kean, and Lee Hamilton, and it supports the official story.
No Craig, I never heard of that Terence McKenna…
The one I quoted has been dead for years. He was a “botanist” of the psychedelic plant kind. Also the author of Time Wave Zero. And a US citizen.
\\][//
OSS,
A friendly suggestion. At this point, you might seriously wish to consider changing your Pilots avatar. As clever as it is, and as much as it represents how many of us feel, it is ultimately very distracting to the eye when logged-in people are reading the tops of your posts.
I used that avatar at WTCDemo for a little while several years back, and within a couple weeks people were begging me to change it. It’s amusing, but only for awhile.
I agree with Mr Syed OSS, the animated gravitar had me trying such things as putting my thumb over that portion of the monitor — rushing through the top part of the post to get past it, etc. it is very distracting indeed, as clever as it admittedly is.
\\][//
Consider it done William.
Oops, consider it done Adam.
Cheers, and I LOVE that Malcom X quote on your new avatar:
“If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
The assertion that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” has struck me as a dubious from the first time I heard it put forward. The idea that competing mafia dons might one be better than the other to pay for “protection” is clearly a stupid proposition. In fact this is very much the type of thinking that drives the Hegelian Dialectic, and why the fraudulent “two party system” of the Democrats verses the Republicans is a fools game that has brought us to the brink of destruction.
It is this idea, that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” that is at the bottom of the general, unthinking appeal for the “Truth Movement” to “stick together despite all differences”. It is this version of ‘the lesser evil’ argument that we get from the naïve participants in these discussions. And upon close inspection of their arguments we find in them the ‘go along to get along’ appeal, that is so clearly one of the greatest epistemic errors of human societies throughout known history.
As a realist I reject all of these sugarplum-fairy Utopian fantasies. As I have tried to make clear so often we are going to have to face reality as it is, not as we wish it could be.
\\][//
I think the following is very well said. Thank you Hy, if I may be so presumptuous as to personalize you with a nickname.
The truth is worth the struggle to achieve it, even if it takes a little longer as we inch along together. There is indeed some quantity of “going along to get along”. I don’t think, however, that means we are avoiding reality, I think that it means there is another greater reality, that being the fact that each person is a separate ego who thinks and expresses unique thoughts, for better or worse. We understand the frustration of working with every body and trying to move forward expressed in the saying “God so loved the world that he didn’t send a committee.” or “It is hard to soar with the eagles when you work with the turkeys.”,… but we all must. There is nothing about that fact which is “a sugarplum-fairy Utopian fantasy.”
There are plenty of examples of individuals who, with great confidence and insight have accomplished great things, seemingly in the face of all odds, and by the force of their intellect and personality. I hope that in this group there are individuals who rise to the occasion and “move the ball forward” toward truth in the benefit of humanity. We are just inching along together but we have come quite some distance in 12 years.
Thanks Hy, I didn’t mean to burden your crisp, concise and meaningful writing.
*****************************************************************************************
“The assertion that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” has struck me as a dubious from the first time I heard it put forward. The idea that competing mafia dons might one be better than the other to pay for “protection” is clearly a stupid proposition. In fact this is very much the type of thinking that drives the Hegelian Dialectic, and why the fraudulent “two party system” of the Democrats verses the Republicans is a fools game that has brought us to the brink of destruction.
It is this idea, that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” that is at the bottom of the general, unthinking appeal for the “Truth Movement” to “stick together despite all differences”. It is this version of ‘the lesser evil’ argument that we get from the naïve participants in these discussions. And upon close inspection of their arguments we find in them the ‘go along to get along’ appeal, that is so clearly one of the greatest epistemic errors of human societies throughout known history.
As a realist I reject all of these sugarplum-fairy Utopian fantasies. As I have tried to make clear so often we are going to have to face reality as it is, not as we wish it could be.”
Hi George,
You can call me whatever you like, everybody else does.
There is a consequence involved here that I will note now:
> Going along to get along is fine – Until you get where they are taking you.
. . . . . .
But I also want to thank you for what I am sure you meant as a complement.
\\][//
For the record Kevin Ryan was on a big radio show September 1st 2013 and promoted the official story at the Pentagon repeatedly. I left a detailed comment on the Kevin Ryan thread at the end of the thread which includes links to the show and audio: http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/the-kevin-ryan-paradox-the-way-to-show-the-911-official-story-is-false-is-by-accepting-as-much-of-it-as-possible/
Check it out and comment over there so we don’t derail this thread.
To OSS and Dsn6:
OSS,
You may not like what I have to say but more serious than the avatar (yes, it was annoying) is that you do not use your real name. Thus, you could be “Ranke” or anyone else and your assertions to the contrary would not help much. Not having your real name is atypical in serious work; you could disappear for any number of reasons and we could not know why. And you yourself are not accountable.
Dsn6,
You have two posts of today’s date which appear way up on the blog dialogue.
1. You ask in general: “Have you read the book, Planes Without Passengers by Dean Hartwell? And if so, what did you think of it?”
I had some dialogue with Hartwell about his book and then one of my students took it up as his term research paper. Perhaps we will be able to release them in a good form, but neither he nor I have the time just now. It is not a simple task.
2. You mention a person who posts, in your judgment, much too frequently on this blog. Maybe a year ago, I suggested on this blog to Craig a daily limit for each person. For example, suppose it were twice. Then, anyone who had more to say could ‘collect’ her or his thoughts and put them in one post and have a second to spare. Craig didn’t respond as far as I remember. In any case, we see that there is no limit
I think both of these comments by Paul are very good. – Knowing each other is important to getting along. That is why I proposed a meeting of this group. I am willing to travel for that opportunity. Perhaps this group could work up a Pentagon Conference for sometime 6 months from now, or in a year. I would certainly like to see the intelligence of this group focused on developing the program.
Although I think being swamped with trivial items is tedious and that a daily limit might have the positive result of fine tuning our contributions, I think maybe if we just do a bit more self critical editing we can manage the flow and length of letters, not waste time with trivia, and still maintain the ability to have lively “discussions”.
Paul
Don’t know where that wee rant came from.
Suggesting that I could be a sock for Craig Ranke? Seriously? Is that the level of “debate” going on in the past few days in the background over my review of Honegger’s “work”?
Who I am is irrelevant although many of those within CIT and Pilotsfor911Truth (and certainly government shills) know who I am. A regular guy. Irish. Living in Spain. Mortgage. Living in sin. Over 40. Health problems. Nothing strange or startling.
There are people who are not “anonymous” in name discussing 9/11 and I haven’t a clue who they are or what makes them tick. I can only judge by what they say.
My research speaks for itself.
Some people like to talk around a subject. I prefer to deal in facts George. Or what you lazily or disingenuously (or both) refer to as “trivial items”.
Ironic that you agree with Paul’s second point about NPT when Barbara Honegger’s “assertions” have been demonstrated for all to see to be even less credulous and based totally on her imagination.
This thread has taken a strange turn indeed.
Sorry, OSS, that you took offense. That is the problem sometimes when we aren’t actually sitting in the same room and talking things through. I apologize.
But, yes, I am seeing hints — or more so — of aspersions to your contribution regarding Honegger’s work because there is no real name. After forwarding your work on and having it read by an unsympathetic person, I have been directly asked: ‘So, who did write the “vetting” ?’. I anticipate that the next stop, perhaps by someone else and not necessarily getting back to any of us, could be to name Ranke as behind “OSS”. All kinds of claims are made about him, even though openness is characteristic. This is the reality we deal with, as far as I understand, and see no need to retract that warning.
In any case, I did not make my point well as you didn’t understand. I don’t know what to do now.
Paul
The information posted by me is sourced and verified. That’s why my breakdowns are so detailed.
1. So others can use the information.
2. For easy reference because the Pentagon issue can be purposely derailed and bogged down.
3. For cross referencing.
Craig Ranke had no part whatsoever in this. I haven’t actually talked to Craig, in private or in public for months (if not a year).
Does it really matter who is the author of any sourced information and evidence? They don’t have to trust me as a person. If they find fault let them answer it with information that counters what I’ve posted. If not, they’re just blowing smoke.
No offense taken. Just surprised that it’s me under the spotlight and not Honegger. I understand what you’re saying but for me, my identity should be the least of Honegger’s alleged concerns.
Dear Dr. Zarembka,
I disagree with your real-name argument for Mr. OSS (and for myself). In today’s world, it is only applicable (a) if you’re tenured or retired, and/or (b) if you want to establish or maintain a name-brand under your real name.
Certainly, we are not anomymous to those with a badge and a warrant or to those with overwhelming cyber-dominance. But for most of us working stiffs, the real danger comes from unethical opponents who, for short-term glory (and maybe under orders), exploit a real name in a dubious smear that has long-lasting effects in terms of what Google-style background checks reveal. [I’ve had the immoral and unethical card played against me — by an IT professional who in real-life is practically just about sworn to the security and secrecy of real names of users.]
The next jobs we don’t get (but need) might not be for reasons of talent or fit, but for the after-taste of Googling upon such a smear or smearish confrontation. [Family names run through the mud can also impact immediate and extended family members.]
Mr. OSS has stated a desire for others to re-distribute his work and run with it. I’m sure he’d agree to take only that which they know to be nuggets of truth — he’s got no problems with others vetting his work –, so it isn’t as if Mr. OSS has to be accountable for everything he posted forever.
Furthermore, Mr. OSS’s handle is consistently used, for quite some time at that, and in consistent places where his role is more than that of participant [i.e., admin, owner]. Thus, he does stand accountable for his postings. (He isn’t alias-hopping.) He can make special requests for his obituary to alias-associate all of the “Batman” handles that he deployed in his cyberlife-time.
With regards to posting limits per day, maybe the limit should be: “One response per day per discussion partner plus one.” In this manner, an individual could start a conversation topic (e.g., “plus one”) on a given day and then maintain separate subconversations to those responding at the clip of “one response per day per discussion partner.”
//
I know that Mr Zarembka is not intimately acquainted with the dynamics and personalities on Truth and Shadows, so it is clearly inadvertently that he opened up a can of worms here with his recent commentary on the thread this morning.
But the results are quite apparent that the thread has now been hijacked by squallers in their bassinets, and we are now left wandering around in the weeds of personal agendas rather than focused on the conversation that had developed so nicely.
Again we are faced with unintended consequences resulting in useless scrabble.
\\][//
Paul,
I do hope that you can glean from my construction of my 5:48 PM comment that I do NOT consider you to be one of the bassinet squallers. What I mean by my remarks is that you opened their pens and let them out into the pasture to trample the flowers.
I also admit my own hand in this by responding to the initial remarks that you had brought to my attention. There are hair-triggers lurking here all the time, just waiting for the slightest opportunity to blast their anal hurlant. It’s rather like walking on egg shells.
So I apologize if my remarks weren’t clear on this matter.
\\][//
Thanks to the latest comment from Paul Zarembka, I just became aware of this:
Dsn6 on SEPTEMBER 3, 2013 – 12:52 AM; leaves perhaps the longest and most thought out commentaries he has ever put to Truth and Shadows. And I find it is actually not about any of the subjects this thread addresses, but it his critical profile of myself which seems to mirror SEO’s charge that I am an agent attempting to split the truth movement.
First up as evidence of this is my admission/boast{?} that I only have a high school education. Yes a dire and damning charge to be sure {satire}. But the anonymous Dsn6 having a masters degree is troubled by the fact that I speak over his head. Therefore ‘surely I must be lying about my educational level’ alludes he.
Well it would seem pretty obvious to me that I must have taken it upon myself to educate myself further after graduating HS, and not one to trust what I see as the bullshit of academia, going to college was out of the question for me. And I would estimate {boasting?} that I have likely put in enough study for several doctorates degrees. Self education is something that curious men and women have done for centuries. I have encountered few who consider such activities as suspicious or subversive, besides conformists and cheerleaders for authority.
Now, as far as the rest of the twaddle about the generic “signs” of the “provocateur” or “agenteur”; I find these so jejune as to be unworthy of addressing.
As for the number of postings I make, my intent is simple – I am interested and highly motivated by my sense of conscience. I am retired and have plenty of time on my hands. And on top of this I don’t owe ANYBODY any explanations, or apologies for speaking what I see as the truth from my perspective – and this especially applies to anonymous characters hiding in the shadows such as my two most vocal critics on this thread.
If Dsn6 cannot keep up with my output, nor my intellectual prowess {that clearly intimidates him}, then perhaps he-or-she should TRY HARDER.
Now my turn for counter charges: I will note more strongly now, that both Dsn6 and his comrade in angst, have said very little as to do with the conversation the rest of us are involved in here – rather they have attempted to waylay the thread and direct it into the weeds of personal attacks, while blaming me for the charge of using “bully tactics and false ad homenim”. Regardless of anything in their remarks this is the surest sign of an attempt at hijacking a thread.
I would also note that there is no way to know whether Dsn6 is not in fact a collaborator and confidant of our other disgruntled badger here. It is suspicious timing that I have just now made it very clear by other means that the conversation is OVER between myself and the entity Dsn6 now comes to the aid of as reinforcement.
So let me delight Dsn6 with the same gift. This ends our conversation as well. I have no more time for these childish games.
\\][//
Mr. Rogue wrote:
I, for one, hope that Mr. Rogue can keep with this promise, because he has failed in so many other instances of similar promises.
And if Mr. Rogue is sincere, his gift should apply to what he writes on Prologue and his blog, even given that they are barely read. Regardless of the limited number of human eyes that see it, Google will, and Mr. Rogue shouldn’t be tempted into laying down immoral and unethical smear today to be vacuumed up for delayed-damage later.
//
Willy,
I too have only a lowly high school education and I too am a self educated person. I have found that many highly educated people are among the most misinformed. Something built into the formal education system seems to cause this phenomenon. As a result some highly educated individuals are terribly misinformed and in addition are stubborn about sticking to the misinformation they believe. This makes them almost impossible to dialogue with because they often see themselves as superior in intelligence to lowly high school grads such as me.
In fact I had a “conversation” if you can call it that with RT aka Gretavo about 9/11 where my argument was clearly winning the day and instead of acknowledging that he was wrong about the issue he seized upon a misspelled word I wrote and used that as his excuse to avoid the crux of the argument. Highly disingenuous thing to do but he went to “college” you see and I did not so naturally I must be wrong and just look at the proof of that, a misspelled word!
Elizabeth Woodworth and DRG’s consensus panel is in my opinion a clear demonstration of this idea that college educated truthers are somehow better truthers. Woodworth pushes the laughable meme that the CIT information is not credible BECAUSE it hasn’t been peer reviewed! So essentially her excuse for disregarding, what is in my opinion, the most damning evidence of an inside job that exists today is that it hasn’t been stamped “approved” by academics (the academics she and David choose). Academics that don’t even know the difference between the NOC and SOC flight path or why the issue is so critically important by the way.
I don’t care one bit about a person’s academic background all that matters to me is what they say and what they do. Willy has proven himself in my book as a highly intelligent and extremely knowledgeable truther who can and does make some of the best arguments there are to be made. I hold a PhD. in 9/11 studies from self education university and I can say with confidence that some people’s degrees are not worth the paper they are printed on. Some of these “academics” are indoctrinated to such a degree that they are actually stunted intellectually. For instance many universities have been pushing the global warming (rebranded climate change) meme strongly to all their students. These students emerge from these universities convinced that global warming is real and is manmade. This is where self education is actually superior to the indoctrination that goes on at universities surrounding political issues such as “climate change”. I can see that the sun has by far the most impact on temperature while these indoctrinated academics cannot. To them the trace gas CO2 is the culprit and the cycles of the sun have nothing to do with the issue. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees!
I for one appreciate Willy’s contributions to this blog and see no reason whatsoever to stifle them.
I appreciate your kind words Adam, and you know the respect is mutual between us.
The history of what has happened to schooling in Amerika is clear, it is public knowledge; Iserbyt, Gatto, Sutton and others since have detailed how the Prussian model of ‘Kindergarten’ was forcefully transplanted into the US by the ‘Anglophile Network’ that Carroll Quigley reveals in TRAGEDY AND HOPE.
And by the ‘Kindergarten Model’, I do not merely mean the pre-school grade that is generally though of, I mean the template of mandatory regimentation and warehousing, the officially forced military discipline and conditioning and behavior modification – in essence, robot factories producing widgets as part of the larger machine.
This model covers the ‘schooling life’ from the time the ‘student’ is weened from mother’s milk throughout all of the grades up and through ‘university’. This is the template for this psychotic society. I call the highest “educated” academiacs.
The miracle seems to be that there is ANYONE who escapes brain damage in such a system. But there obviously are some portion of strong willed souls who instinctively rebel against such utter madness, or who discover how insane it all is somewhere along the way.
\\][//
{Disclaimer: Most links on obsolete words go here. Enjoy the re-deploy of today!}
Will wonders never cease?! Every wonder-wench and snoutfair who particpates here graduated from high school or the equivalent! From there, it is anyone’s guess the rough and rugged road they took to further their education, be it academic pursuits at an institution or the school of hard knocks.
I don’t want to jirble over the complaints of organized education by the spermologers here, because the dreadful curglaff of education is that we always have to be learning and can’t be beef-witted about it. A shock-and-awe for me in these days and times is the resistentialism of higher education exhibited by unreasonable debt, which quickly applies slave shackles to all who attempt it (in the USA) despite employment prospects not far above a soda-squirt.
High school math is important in this regard. Today’s minimum wage is $7.25/hour ($15k/year), but an inflation adjusted 1968 mininum wage of $1.60 would be $10.96/hour (or $22k/year) [and some argue that it would be $21.16/hr ($44k/year) if it had kept pace with overall income growth in the American economy, and if the US income distribution and US standards of decency remained.] What should really put the snoutfair of wage earners into a pussyvan is recognizing annual incomes LESS THAN $44k/year is less than 1968’s equivalent decency standard of minimum wage. The outrage should bubble up the income ladder and piss more people off.
Joe-Six-Pack high school graduates act like California widows and display their own brand of snobbery against formal education that rings a bit like groaking. The issue with academics in our for-profit educational system is that they know which slide of the bread gets buttered and by whom in terms of research funding. It becomes very easy to leverage silence across the board, and to manipulate, smear, control, etc. those with the vaginas to speak up. 9/11 is no exception.
And many highly uneducated individuals are terribly misinformed and in addition are stubborn about sticking to the misinformation they believe (Amen, Brother!), just because someone with a PhD in a focused area “blinded them with science” [or a purposeful misconstrue] they didn’t have the background to workthrough or peer-review on their own. They punt to the academic honors and lunt away blunts to the tyromancy studio, like queerplungers hoping academic smarts will be bestowed on them for their curglaff into deep areas.
Zafty Mr. Ruff (2013-09-03), when talking his misinformation about CO2, should first educate himself about greenhouse gases. Contrary to what news pundits and politicians tells him, the experts and academics are much more unified in their climate change views. Because he obviously hasn’t studied it and has no research track record, he shouldn’t expect to be picked for “peer review”. Whether the sun is changing and whether human actions exasperate it, climate change is real.
Mr. Ruff (2013-09-03):
Take it upon yourself to self-appoint yourself as a peer reviewer, which is within your right as a 9/11 Truther. Maybe you’ll be able to englishable works that were purposely meant to obfuscate by bookwrights, if you don’t ignorantly “reject everything contained therein”.
However, if my reading of Mr. Kevin Ryan reveals to be with squirrel, many other factors relating to genetics and which (private) school you attended go into making opportunities for the self-appointed.
Mr. Ruff can “stick with Joe six pack truther and his common sense approach to research and … will stick with [his] gut feeling about who is legit and who isn.”
Me? I’ll stick with just the truth even in small nuggets, because Joe-six-pack truthers also have a price and become wonder-wench California widows with just a few mortgage payments.
Another zafty queerplunger and wannabe bookwright groaked (2013-09-04) about leach fields leaking back tritium to the WTC (a total fabrication) and then attempts to jirble authority into the spermological tritium report that didn’t have the twat to scientifically, systematically, and completely measure in a timely fashion all of the tritium. So whatever “infinitesimally tiny amounts of tritium” that the tritium report offers as englishable is incomplete and (using Mr. Ruff’s criteria) ought to be rejected for its purposeful instances of deceit. Can’t be trusted, so why does this snoutfair?
I don’t know why the soda-squirt of a bookwright (2013-09-03) took offense for being compared to Luntz. Reliance on a faulty tritium report and relentless skewing it (as opposed to rejecting it) is a pretty good Luntz-ish example.
Another beef-witted Luntz-ish example (2013-09-03) from this spermologer is his obvious tyromancy into divining balderdash. The curglaff is two-fold: (1) when my response didn’t appear, Mr. McKee was told off-list of my preference [and a different decision might have saved that lunter exposing his pussyvan]; (2) I stand behind and can substantiate my negative assessments that deploy the L-word, the C-word, and the W-word. Here’s a good substantiating exhibit of such: 2013-09-04.
Words from a wonder-wench:
Tyromancy told me that the “ruff” and “rogue” beef-witted snoutfairs have been tag-teaming for quite some time, ineffectually and not helped by their pussyvan.
//
There are at least two aspects to this opinion on anonymous entities.
It is one thing for a poster to remain anonymous as a cover for some professional reasons, worry over being known as a “conspiracy theorist” so openly, and the other quite valid reasons that can be made.
It becomes problematic however when an anonymous entity takes it upon itself to make a campaign of slurring defamation directed at someone who is NOT anonymous, but is openly engaging the blogs as themselves. The unfair and unjust advantages of the anonymous entity should be obvious to anyone reading this.
I think that those who see anonymity as ENTIRELY harmless, should also consider this other aspect. I respect many commentators who are only known to me by their gravitar. As OSS says, it is the content of their language and attitudes that tell what they are about. And I think that OSS has proven his sincerity and dedication well enough.
But those who use such anonymity as a cloak for scurrilous ruthless attacks on openly known persons, it becomes doubly vile.
\\][//
“There are at least two aspects to this opinion on anonymous entities.” Another great post.
Thank you George. Your compliments are well received.
And I would urge those here with the expertise to assist Mr Ripley in his quest for specific items to ask for in discovery.
Despite my position of being dubious that the authorities will be any more forthcoming than they have so far, at least the effort to ferret things out can’t hurt anything, And who knows, there may be insiders just waiting for a chance to spill some beans.
As an added thought here, I have been fantasizing that out of the wild blue yonder Deets suddenly presents a coup at this upcoming conference by showing a “newly discovered video” showing a 757 AA jet very clearly slamming into the Pentagon as per official story.
Being pretty well versed in CGI I would love to be in on proving such a thing a fake. It is after-all Hoffman’s wet dream warning, and they have had more than a decade to manufacture such a fraud.
As remote as this possibility might seem, I urge all to remain calm should such a thing come to pass – remember it is IMPOSSIBLE, and would simply have to be fake.
\\][//
AdamR
Yeah, I’ve never quite been able to pin it down until you posted. There is most definitely a form of snobbery or elitism among certain truth “leaders”. And there is most definitely a certain “world view” that seems to have been formed either through education and/or life experiences. I suppose the latter applies to us all.
That academics have come out to publically question the physics of the collapses of the 3 towers (and believe me, I truly admire them for this), this doesn’t necessarily mean that they grasp just how warped, in complete control of, utterly ruthless and arrogant the powers that be really are. This applies to all of us to some degree I suppose.
i’ve been brought up in a semi political/protest politics family, community and self education system from that same community. I’ve been aware of how the media lies from a very early age. How the “security services” murder and set people up. i knew from an early age how false flags are used (Dublin and Monaghan bombings is an example).
All of us are looking at events through different goggles.
As for the “peer review” nonsense regarding the Pentagon. “Peer review” is defined as this
The Pentagon evidence set that we really have comsists of eyewitness testimony, images/video, aerodynamics involved and reviews of the official reports on the damage.
Are there specialists within the truth movement in any of these areas? “Impartial” too?
1. The eyewitness testimonies which include first hand interviews asking relevant questions are available.
First hand interviews which avoid the relevant questions are available but from which some necessary details have slipped in are available.
Media quotes, the most unreliable, and which require further investigation are available.
2. Timestamped images complete in some cases with author are available from within minutes of the event (some potentially very important images have been withheld)
After the event images are available.
Images of the damage are available (though censored and incomplete)
After the event video footage is available.
3. We actually do have experts on the alleged aerodynamics involved but they were snubbed.
4. The ASCE Report (damage) has been reviewed and has been found wanting to say the least by myself. I’m no expert but I can point out obvious flaws where only a beady pair of eyes are necessary.
So who qualifies to “peer review” numbers 1 and 2?
Number 3 has experts available and they refute the manouevres and aerodynamics involved. But they were ignored. Who’s going actually capable of a peer review of the experts’ findings?
Number 4 would maybe require an architect’s peer review but the findings are mainly (obvious) erroneous claims made by the ASCE Report regarding column damage, unfounded assumptions and admissions that they can’t explain the lack of damage in certain areas,
“Peer review” is simply a way of saying that unless the evidence points to where “we”, the self appointed judges want it to point, no dice.
OSS I want to repeat this particular part of what you said because it points out something more I did not say in my original post. You said:
““Peer review” is simply a way of saying that unless the evidence points to where “we”, the self appointed judges want it to point, no dice.”
I want to emphasize the “self appointed judges” remark because it hits the nail on the head as to what one of the biggest issue is with the consensus panel.
They are self appointed and therefore any pre existing bias that exists in the people selecting the panelists will manifest itself in their choices of who they select. Thus Woodworth who is biased toward academics and who is hostile to the NOC evidence selects others who are academics hostile to the NOC evidence such as Chandler and Cole etc. They in turn influence the panel away from the NOC evidence and toward bringing in more panelists that are in line with their views. It is a self sustaining cycle all predicated on their “academic credentials”. Because only the uneducated Joe six pack truthers could possibly take issue with their superior brains you see. That is why people with FAR more knowledge about 9/11 and false flag terror are never even considered as panelists while relative newcommers are invited because they have a degree of some kind. That is reflective of Woodworths bias toward academics over others with more knowledge and experience.
You are correct when you point out how naive many people, especially academics, are about just how bad our system really is and how evil it is. You see because these academics are doing well in the current system having good jobs etc. from their perspective the system is working relatively well. So to them the idea that the entire system is corrupt and evil to the extreme is a bogus concept. Thus you will find the people who are doing well in the system as it is are the most resistant to the reality of what the system has become.
At any rate OSS I give your work a great deal more attention than I do anything from the consensus panel because quite frankly your research is more important than what a bunch of poorly informed academics can agree upon which is usually just a watered down shadow of the truth anyway. In the final analysis does it matter if these people agree on anything? Does it change the truth at all? NO! It is nothing more than an appeal to authority logical fallacy.
I will stick with Joe six pack truther and his common sense approach to research and I will stick with my gut feeling about who is legit and who isn’t. In my book you OSS are the real deal.
I would sincerely hope that the so-called “Truth Leaders” would read the last couple of commentaries by OSS and Mr Ruff, paying very close attention to their reasoning and complaints.
As is the nature of “organization”; practical politics and appeals to authority, along with grandstanding arrogance has taken it’s great toll once again.
I for one am truly sick and tired of the phrase “The Honorable” proceeding names in any venue or circumstance…and this elite attitude is not that far behind the politicians, judges and bankers in what we had once considered our ‘very own’ 9/11 Truth Movement.
Truth will not be dictated from a pulpit nor a lectern…
… And “the Revolution will not be Televised” …
\\][//
“2. Timestamped images complete in some cases with author are available from within minutes of the event (some potentially very important images have been withheld)
After the event images are available.
Images of the damage are available (though censored and incomplete) ”
***************************************
This is brilliant OSS. Thank you. We need to put in our demand for those withheld and censored images. As well as a statement as to why they were withheld. I’m on facebook, we can communicate other details of this specific evidence which we will demand be released.
I am collecting that information now. Any further items of specific evidence which we should demand should be publicly gathered and formally presented. I am also seeking specific agencies and Agents to whom our request/demand for this information should go. Any help on this would be appreciated.
OSS,
I’m duplicating a post here that I just posted at your Pilots thread. I’m interested in peoples’ opinions on this. Might be easier to read this comment at the link, where images are embedded.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392&view=findpost&p=10809554
So far, I’ve had OSS (Pilots forum) and another person (email) suggest that the “guardrail” photo is an optical illusion. I responded that they may likely be right about this; 3D reality captured on a 2D template.
But still, I’d be interested as to other peoples’ interpretations.
@Adam Syed
I think if you examine it the lightpole is resting in the same place on the ground in both photos. I can’t see how the idea of putting the lightpole in a conspicuous place – resting on a guardrail – and then moving it (without anyone noticing it being moved) into an inconspicuous place (according to CIT) makes very much sense. This would be compounded by the fact that the lightpoles were hardly mentioned afterwards, in reports etc.
A Wright,
I have already conceded that this is not the smoking gun I thought it was when I first saw it.
But if my interpretation had been correct, here is why I think they might have done it like that: the guardrail and pole are of roughly the same silvery color. If the poles were cut the night before, the perps might have decided to not have the poles on the grass, in daylight, on the extreme off chance that someone might see them. So the silver-silver would serve to camouflage the pole until the area was cordoned off and the photo ops could be staged.
But there’s lots of evidence that the light poles were planted:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-staged_light_poles.html
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-were_light_poles_downed_in_real_time.html
Compare the light pole base of a non-9/11 pole that was blown over by strong wind, versus a 9/11 base which is both sooty and evenly damaged at the bottom (suggesting it was cut with a torch).
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/light%20poles/newpolecompared.jpg
The scene was cordoned off, so staging would have been very easy to do:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/pics/DSC_0417.JPG
http://i511.photobucket.com/albums/s360/Ligon911/JerriPath.jpg
There are still plenty of smoking guns that the damage was staged.
@Adam Syed
These look like lightpoles that have been hit by an plane, which is what you are acknowledging by saying they are ‘staged’. Why shouldn’t I take this as evidence that these are lightpoles that were hit by a plane? Practically every eyewitness who was there said the plane crashed into the building – a plane crash with more witnesses than the vast majority of other plane crash. There has been no evidence , after 12 years ,of the plane doing anything other than crashing into the building. Most fatal plane crashes are witnessed by no one. The example of the lightpole that was supposedly blown down by the wind has a different type of base – it is not the same type of lightpole. The first lightpole is the same type ostensibly – that one has a different damage pattern. You are saying they faked the damage to them in totally different ways?
“Why shouldn’t I take this as evidence that these are lightpoles that were hit by a plane?”~A.Wright — SEPTEMBER 5, 2013 – 3:57 PM
Look Wright,
You have been on this forum for well over a year…what a year and a half maybe?
You should be intimately familiar with our entire argument against a plane crash into the Pentagon. But here you waltz in here like you just discovered this place and ask this totally clueless question!! What have you got amnesia? Does your head reboot blank every morning?
WTF?
\\][//
Welcome back Mr Wright!
Usual form, make a definitive statement, get your ass owned, run away, come back when your statement is buried under a couple of hundred posts, repeat..
Setting aside the fact that you never answered your disinfo charge against Pilotsfor911Truth and CIT.
Nice play on words.
Pure disinfo. Pot calling kettle?
Overall numbers
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863&view=findpost&p=22008854
Contradictions
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863&view=findpost&p=22008856
A closer look at the alleged “impact witnesses”
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863&view=findpost&p=22008855
Media disinfo/misinfo, embellishment and bias
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863&view=findpost&p=22008857
Physical reaction to the blast and aircraft itself
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863&view=findpost&p=22008858
Connections and Control
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863&view=findpost&p=22008859
Nobody saw the lightpoles being “struck”
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=51
The only person allegedly physically affected by one of the lightpoles, Lloyd England lies through his teeth
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=429
So A Wright
1. Still waiting for the evidence of “disinfo” from Pilotsfor911Truth and CIT.
2. Withdraw that last comment on alleged impact witnesses
@Craig
Please hold this guy’s feet to the fire. He simply slaps his keyboard with the first thing that comes in to his head and seeing as how we can no longer link to previous responses, I have to repeatedly list the links that debunk his lies.
Peace
OSS
A Wright,
The street lights are indeed an important aspect to the official story of a south path approach. They are in fact mentioned in the after action reports soundly.
It is my opinion that the street lights and poles were simply removed the early dark morning hours before, they simply were not in place during the event, but were then planted during the confusion, being the whole time inside of large vans waiting for the focus to be riveted on the Pentagon itself. This would have given the operatives plenty of time to deform the poles by whatever mechanical means necessary.
Anyone passing by during their removal would have simply seen ‘normal roadside maintenance’ and dismissed it as nothing unusual. It would take a particularly sleuthy mind to put two and two together after the event, especially in a traumatized audience manufactured by such a PSYOP.
Yes this is a hypothetical, but I think one that makes sense. The fact is that a north side approach is proven beyond reasonable doubt; therefore, the downed poles have to have been planted. Conjecture as to how is fully warranted.
\\][//
EXACTLY…
Adam Syed,
This conjecture is even more fully explored back during the thread where Fetzer showed up and when Brian Good was canned from T&S.
I postulated then that a good scenario to consider would be this covert ops crew stashing the light poles in the underground waterworks system. Simply lowering the removed lamp posts down a manhole while a city maintenance van sits there for cover, complete with the cones and taped off area would have been so simple.
I have been in the underground waterworks systems in LA…some of these pipes are huge, as large in circumference as 20 feet and more. Even putting a pole down at an angle of a 12 foot pipe would be a simple matter.
Of course Good was arguing, “show me a manhole cover”…well, simply for speculation sake I need not. To assume there are no manholes or underground system in the area surrounding the Pentagon is absurd. It would however, be very beneficial to have a map from the water district to find exactly where the runoff pipes and manholes are located. It would also be reasonable to assume that certain areas of this system accessible to the Pentagon would be restricted areas and likely classified.
Those unfamiliar with such systems may envision river sized flows of water running through all of these pipes, but that is not normally the case. I have encountered small ankle deep streams at times. Of course I was never down there during heavy rainfall.
As I recall there hadn’t been heavy rainfall in the Pentagon area prior to 9/11. There are also locks and gates that make it possible to contain and direct water flows in these systems.
This would be what I would speculate as a fuller account of the planted light pole situation.
\\][//
Interesting. Yes, it would be quite curious if it were discovered that manholes were near the five specific poles.
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-staged_light_poles.html
Aah, you have seen a precedent for this? Must have missed that.
This alleged damage would have had to have been caused by the wingtips on four of the lightpoles (1-4)
How could lightpole 1 do an about face from the direction the right wing would have pushed it over, hang in midair until the fuselage had passed and spear Lloyd England’s cab?
Lloyd England claimed that he was travelling “40-50mph” and had to 1) react 2) brake 3) come to a stop. How did he stop within feet of the lightpole on the bridge?
How did the hood of his car avoid any damage whatsoever?
Why does nobody report witnessing the lightpole protruding from his windshield when it was allegedly sticking out of it from the time of the explosion until the second fireball, as told by him, captured on film at 09:43/4am, a full 6 or 7 minutes after the event?
Why did Lloyde England tell this incredible story then deny being on the bridge?
Rob Balsamo just sent me the “guardrail” image magnified 2.5x. I think it’s actually safe to say that the appearance of being on the guardrail is an optical illusion. Oh well, back to the drawing board, or, in this case, back to combing through your research OSS.
I would highly recommend that those following this thread listen to Kevin Barrett’s radio show today from 4-6 EST. The first hour will be about the Syria situation and the second will feature an interview with 9/11: Advancing the Truth organizer Matt Sullivan. I’m sure that the whole Pentagon issue will feature prominently in the discussion. If you can’t listen live, all shows are archived.
http://americanfreedomradio.com/
Kevin’s blog with a link to the show:
http://truthjihadradio.blogspot.ca/2013/09/eric-walberg-on-syria-egypt-matt.html
Listening now.
My thoughts on the “DC Conference” after listening to Kevin Barrett’s show with guest Matt Sullivan.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/pilotsfortruth/permalink/10151608655448093/
and for those unable to view the above link… click the below link containing more clarity on the situation.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22400
As you were…
“As you were” … A military term said by the commanding officer to relieve the ranks below him of a state of ‘attention’.
Do you Mr Balsamo, really find this an appropriate ‘sign-off’ when addressing this particular audience?
\\][//
My apologies if it struck a nerve with you WW. But that was not my intention.
I am just a mere civilian… and my intent with “As you were”…. was more of “Sorry for my interruption” as I rarely post on this blog.
But feel free to comment on the content of the post at the provided links. I recall I registered an account for you at our forum because you were having a hard time figuring out the process?
As you were….
🙂
I understand Rob,
I get your meaning now…it wasn’t what I had conjured up in my own mind at all…
You know…I forgot my password on P42 is the real thing of it…and I had my email account snatched by some people in Nigeria or somewhere….so I don’t have the same email for you to resend my password to. So I just shined it for now.
There were some points that I thought were quite spot on in your comments there.
I have some misgivings about the “authority in a field thing”…which I think you can glean from other commentary by me here.
I have always been suspicious of Deets, for a lot of reasons that I won’t get into again here. So it would be easy just to agree with your criticisms of him and leave it at that. But I in fact think that someone who puts their mind to study on things outside of their known field of expertise, can make a fair judgement of other matters.
I certainly learned more about physics in the last twelve years than I had ever known before. And I think I have made some very effective arguments on such as to do with the WTC demolitions…and really all I am is a self educated artist.
Anyway, I also have no patience for military ways and means, and that is why I was over sensitive to the phrase “as you were”.
But now that I catch your drift, as your were! (grin)
\\][//
I have just completed the minutes for the marathon three-hour 9/11 Truth Teleconference call that took place August 28. I swear I’ve written entire articles in the time it took to decipher what happened.
I can sympathize with with you Craig…after but listening to the teleconference, I was left baffled.
The bottom line seemed to me that the ‘organizers’ of the DC Conference simply refused to accept any input from the others whatsoever. That left it as a matter of simple power politics. All in all not a good sign for what will happen at the conference itself.
\\][//
“The bottom line seemed to me that the ‘organizers’ of the DC Conference simply refused to accept any input from the others whatsoever.”
When you guys are ready to plan and produce a conference on the Pentagon I am sure it will be a hit. No doubt there will be a lot of technical information but try and make it accessible to the layman and the “newbie”, this isn’t rocket science after all. I hope also you figure out a way to give the newbies an overview of the controversy so they can consider it in their own right. We certainly haven’t done everything right but we have done the best we knew how. Maybe that doesn’t speak well for me or for select others involved but hey, maybe we got you all riled up enough that you’ll go on and actually do this subject justice. The ball is in your court there. Who will take it on?
George
How’s about this for the laymen.
Tell them that nobody saw the aircraft on the necessary directional damage path.
Tell them that 757s can’t fly at low altitude at cruise speed. Nor can pilots control them at low altitude at cruise speed. Especially somebody who couldn’t fly a Cessna.
That simple enough?
George you have no comment about OSS’s careful research into Honegger’s theory? Ah heck with it huh? Just put out her info regardless if it is any good or not eh George?
Ruffadam, I appreciate the reminder, but why the snarky comments? What good do they do? Do they satisfy some need in you to be antagonistic? Do they give you an adrenaline rush and make you feel like you are battling evil personified by me? It really is absurd you know, to treat anyone like that. It doesn’t help. But thanks for the reminder. I tried to get to it late last night and some snafu got in the way. It is not as if I am doing nothing. You have no idea how busy my house is getting ready for a major 9/11 event here in DC and for the conference. Now look, I have no presumptions about being an expert in any of this. Furthermore not every outspoken aggressive male is an expert either. We’ve done the best we could and you are challenged to do it better. Please make us all a promise to help do that. Meanwhile I have asked everyone on this list to provide material that needs to be requested/demanded of the powers that be. If you have some specific ideas I will be glad to receive them.
When I get time I will look at OSS’s research. Of course I will. I’m helping with the conference so I can learn.
Please stop it with the attitude, that goes for all of us. Patience, friendliness and manners will go a long way.
George,
I think this is a situation that you need to have some understanding as well. Sort of that, “walk a mile in my shoes” grasp of how others may feel jilted by the way this has all come down.
It is pretty easy to feel a smug contentment when all has worked out your way. And I don’t mean any disrespect in using the word “smug”, I am just pointing out how the dynamics of human interactions play out in a ‘win/lose’ situation.
We all wait and hope for the perfect conference, where all of these issues can be hashed out – and it has been 12 years now! 12 YEARS!! And we are still dealing with these cliquish situations.
How much patience does it take to go through 12 years of what keeps turning out to be some half-assed bullshit in the final moments?
Well, it takes the patience of a saint is what it takes. Do not ask for saintly reactions George, it is not a reasonable expectation.
For myself, I am going to wait to see how this conference pans out. And if it pans out the way I sort of expect it to, you can count on some scathing, unfriendly, and scalding remarks from yours truly.
This comment is not that.
I hold my judgment for this short time.
Until then, peace between us.
\\][//
OK George put on Deets and Honegger and spread as much BS around as possible. I am sick of arguing.
” I am sick of arguing.” Good. I hope you will find others to help you organize the next conference. We’ve got to keep the heat on.
Same old, same old George (well said Willy btw)
@AdamS
I wanted to share something that I’d never noticed before re Pole 5.
The 09:43/5 image Rob enlarged revealed that the upper part of this pole was underneath the lower part:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=280
As seen in this later image that you posted
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/light%20poles/pole5.jpg
Can anybody explain the physics of that?
According to this OCT physical evidence
1. The left wing supposedly sliced through pole 5 at the alleged 540+mph.
2. It was apparently broken off completely at the base so there’s no outside chance that the lower half could have physically fallen slower than the top half.
How did the lighter top half somehow hit the ground first, and the lower heavier half fall neatly on top?
Add on:
Both pieces are lying in the opposite direction to the OCT damage path.
Indeed, OSS. I was wondering the same thing about that smaller section underneath.
When you put the magnifying glass on all these details, it’s obvious as ever that the poles are staged.
This may help Mr Ripley – it is just one single aspect, but it is one that if he fully comprehends it, should take him a long way towards understanding the context of the NOC material.
Sean Boger is counted as a north of Citgo witness. It is not claimed that Boger is a “flyover witness”.
The only reliable testimony given by Boger is what he witnessed while in a state of pre-panic calm of noting the plane coming over the Navy Annex and over and to his right of the Citgo station. When he is finally struck by the fact that the plane is in fact seemingly coming directly at him, stunning fear strikes him like a bolt of electricity and his automatic nervous responses kick in. This is also where his testimony becomes unbelievable; he claims he saw the plane impact. Anyone who grasps th