Win converts using these ‘plane-hit-the-Pentagon’ talking points: just keep repeating, ‘It’s so divisive!’

If someone says they think this is an actual aerial photograph, don’t correct them. This way you retain plausible deniability.

If someone says they think this is an actual aerial photograph, don’t correct them. This way you retain plausible deniability.

Is this satire? If you aren’t sure, we have a lot of work to do

June 10, 2015

By Craig McKee

You feel your eyes getting heavy … your breathing is becoming slow and regular … you are becoming sleepy, so sleepy … you will accept what I am about to tell you without question … you will repeat this to others over and over and over until everyone assumes it must be true.
Now that you’re feeling relaxed, we are ready to begin looking at the best ways to steer the 9/11 Truth Movement away from the strongest evidence that the event was an inside job – what happened at the Pentagon. The first thing is to adopt this basic list of talking points. The fact that the points are untrue should not deter you.
Slip these into 9/11 conversations whenever possible:

  • “The Pentagon is so divisive.”
  • “Discussing it always causes infighting.”
  • “It is tearing the 9/11 Truth Movement apart!”
  • “Science tells us that a plane hit the Pentagon.”
  • “Yes, this part of the official story is true.”
  • “We’ll never know because the government has all the evidence.”

The key is to get the overwhelming evidence that no plane hit the Pentagon off the table while seeming like you really believe what you’re saying. If you do believe it, even better. This evidence can be marginalized by discouraging anyone from bringing up the Pentagon by repeating endlessly how “controversial” it is and how every time the subject is raised, it leads to a fight that can never be resolved. You will appeal to truthers’ desire to unite even if it means they must ditch their strongest evidence to do so. Surprisingly, many will fall for this.
You can tweak the wording of these talking points, but not too much. You don’t want to lose the benefit of endless repetition. The more people hear these phrases, the more they will believe them. If you say them often enough they become true. If you say them over and … well, you get the idea.
Of course, you will be part of a small minority of 9/11 truthers who believe (or claim they believe) that a plane hit the Pentagon. But it doesn’t matter, because by being much more vocal you will create the illusion that you have much greater numbers. It’s all about spin, all about perception.
Part of convincing people that we are all hopelessly split on the issue is convincing them that the government has all the evidence and the public has none. This is false, of course, but it sounds plausible enough to those who’ve never bothered to read about the evidence we do have. Those who have never seen CIT’s National Security Alert are particularly susceptible to this.
Here are some more specific comments that can be powerful if used selectively. Divide these up among your friends so it won’t seem like you’re reading from a script. These are statements you can use as part of actual arguments on blogs, Facebook forums, and in Q & A sessions. These can be very effective despite having no intellectual value:

  • “Where else could all the debris on the lawn have come from?” The more slow-witted people may be impressed with this one. Just hope no one asks whether there is 100 tons of debris on the lawn. Or 80 tons. Or 60 tons …
  • “But they found the DNA of the passengers inside the building!” This works with people who simultaneously believe that the government can be truthful about evidence they won’t let us see but lying about everything else.
  • “There are more witnesses who saw a plane hit than didn’t.” Don’t let people look too closely at these witnesses. Don’t mention that many of them worked for the Pentagon, mainstream media, or high-tech firms linked to the government. Don’t admit that some were not in a position to see what they claimed, or that their quotes cannot be verified or that they contradict each other. If you can, ridicule the idea that the government may have actually planted witnesses to support the official story. Stick to the numbers, not the substance.
  • “Oh, and I suppose the government faked everything!” This will work with some people who have forgotten that the entire 9/11 false flag was “faked” in one way or another. What’s cool about this one is that you get to use debunker (JREF) terminology without some people catching on!
  • “If we say a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon, the government will release evidence in the future to embarrass us.” Yes, the powers that be are just waiting for the right moment, years from now, to release those Pentagon videos. Some estimates suggest they will do this between 2022 and 2027 to get the maximum impact. We must not give them that chance.
  • “If we say a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon, people will think we are conspiracy theorists,” To avoid alienating the public, we should avoid telling them anything they might not already believe. We should figure out what they think now and then tell them that again. This way they will like us.

There are several basic types of plane-impact advocates. Each is valuable to the effort in his or her own way. You may recognize yourself below:

  • Friendly and ‘well-meaning’ (good cop): You may be one of the friendly and easy going advocates of the plane-impact position. This approach can be really effective because you can more easily make those who don’t agree with you seem unreasonable and difficult. You can say things like, “At least we agree that al-Qaeda wasn’t flying the plane that hit the Pentagon.”
  • Respectable science type (smarty pants): If you know a bit about things like mass, energy, velocity and um, walls and planes and stuff, then you can really impress people even if there isn’t anything scientific about what you are claiming. Graphs and charts are helpful. You know how to correctly use footnotes and may be heard saying things like, “The no-plane theory is irreconcilable with the scientific method.”
  • Psycho know-it-all (obnoxious, stupid and/or an agent): You specialize in vicious attacks on forums against anyone who has a clue what they are talking about. The first word you have to look up is “hyperbole.” You may say a variety of incoherent things, and one of those might be, “You’re one of those conspiracy sheep who get all their information from Internet blogs.” You have a very loose grasp of “irony.”
  • The self-important “leader” type (very thin skinned): You may have a web site or Facebook forum that you preside over and which you think gives you “truther cred.” You’ve stored many facts in your head, and you hope no one notices how little use you make of them. You get away with paper-thin arguments by adding “lol.” This convinces the more feeble-minded that you are so full of confidence that you are able to pre-emptively mock those who may be thinking of disagreeing with you. A slight variation on the Bush Doctrine.
  • Smarty pants support staff (people from other categories may double-up here): Using correct grammar, ideally, you are the type who is always on hand to back up your favorite “Pentagon-plane-impact” researcher. Throw around terms like “respected,” and “credible” and “peer reviewed.”
  • Psycho know-it-all support staff (skilled in misdirection): If you notice your psycho boss being challenged by one of those “no-plane-crash” types, you are the one who jumps in with one of the secondary talking points. If the opponent (probably a CIT lover) appears unwilling to give up, then you hit them with, “This is why we should never talk about the Pentagon!” If that doesn’t work, boot the stubborn one out. Along with his/her friends.
  • Sheep (follower, uncritical thinker): You repeat what those from other categories say without really understanding it. You are highly susceptible to suggestion and repetition. You may appear arrogant, evenly massively so, despite not having original thoughts of your own. You often say things like, “Well, we can’t prove a plane didn’t hit,” or “We should get the government to release those videos!”

Now it is essential that all those who want to convince us that a plane hit the Pentagon (despite the absence of an actual plane at the crash site) know what they can’t say:

  • “I’m suspicious of that video they released.” Never say this. Essential to your contention that a plane crash actually took place at the Pentagon is that the government’s video can be totally relied upon. Don’t forget to add that all radar data is authentic.
  • “I wonder if they could have laid those light poles on the grass ahead of time.” Oh my God, you must never say this, even as a joke. The key to defending your position is to convince people that it would have been beyond the government’s capabilities to lay five light poles on the grass without the New York Times finding out.
  • “There was something kinda fishy about that cab driver.” No, no, no! To distract from the absurdity of Lloyde England’s story about a light pole impaling his taxi, you must be indignant about how poorly that “old man” was treated by the big, bad CIT guys and their cronies. (“After he invited them into his home!”)
  • “The hole in the facade was big enough to accommodate most of the plane.” Some sharpies on the other side might note that it’s essential that virtually all of the plane had to penetrate – except for the “confetti” and a piece or two of the “fuselage” that were small enough that you could throw them in the back of your minivan.
  • “Maybe the plane hit the building from a north of Citgo path.” You’re asking for trouble with this one. Both CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth have shown how a north path impact is impossible. Stick to the official path even though it does not allow for the right bank seen by many witnesses.
  • “Funny about that book sitting on the stool that wasn’t disturbed despite being right in the path of the plane.” No, it’s not funny. If you blurt this out without thinking, bring up the example of a tablecloth being pulled out really fast without any of the dishes being knocked over. While the other person is trying to figure out what that has to do with anything, quickly bring up the weather.
  • “What a coincidence that all the north of Citgo witnesses drew an almost identical flight path, complete with right bank.” Seriously, don’t say this. I mean, of course it was a coincidence, but others may begin doubting this if you bring it up. People can be funny that way. If someone mentions it, just keep repeating, “The witnesses were mistaken, the witnesses were mistaken.”

The key to all of this is to undermine any Pentagon evidence that contradicts the official story in a meaningful way. You must distract the rest of the movement from the fact that a faked plane crash at the Pentagon could only have one culprit, and that’s what makes it so crucial. Do what you can to keep them from realizing how this is the most important proof that exists that 9/11 was an inside job.
So now you’re ready to go out there and obfuscate, distract, and inflame. With a reasonably small number of like-minded cohorts, you can convince people that a 100-ton airplane can disappear, that engines can pass through walls without even breaking the windows, that wings can hit a reinforced wall without penetrating it or breaking off, and that the fuselage can turn to confetti and penetrate three rings of the Pentagon.
Of course, some of you may actually conclude after reading this that the plane-crash scenario can’t be supported no matter how clever you might be in spinning it. If your heart is not really in it, it might be best for you to step out of the debate altogether and leave the sales job to the real keeners.
Good luck!


  1. “Some estimates suggest they will do this between 2022 and 2027 to get the maximum impact.”
    I think they’re actually waiting for the 50th anniversary to release the videos.
    “If you blurt this out without thinking, bring up the example of a tablecloth being pulled out really fast without any of the dishes being knocked over. While the other person is trying to figure out what that has to do with anything, quickly bring up the weather.”
    That line had me ROLLING!!!! 😀 😀 😀

    1. I have always wondered when they were going to spring the big trap and release the real videos of the plane slamming into the pentagon to discredit all us lunatics. Now I finally have my answer 2022 to 2027! Well at least I have a few years left to be “divisive”, which is good.

        1. Old Frankie looks just like the crazy old coot that he is!
          I had never seen what he looks like before.

  2. Excellent satire, Craig. Lots of great examples of the mechanisms of brainwashing. And yes funny too.

    1. No, neither do I. And it is to your credit that you don’t communicate with talking points. I have no problem with honest disagreements; it’s when people are disingenuous and manipulative that I get mad.

    2. Well, my mind was just blown. After reading this article and the comments, Dwain came into my head. Then I saw you commented. I saw 2 of your presentations in Ventura. You advocated Judy Wood. You also presented information to novices in the alternative 911 field with zero background. By that I mean you made references to building 7 without showing what it means. The people I took were totally confused what you were talking about. Never mind your bullshit 9 inning theory. You claimed it was scientific but it was so friggen subjective it was retarded. The 911 subject appeared like vanity project for you, to impress newbies with your credentials.

  3. Anyone here who hasn’t been banned yet at If so, PLEASE post Craig’s latest article over there. We will be eternally grateful.

    1. It wouldn’t get approved as a blog entry, and would most likely be deleted if left as a comment; then the offender would be put on moderation queue indefinitely. It will get seen though.

    2. Sorry Sheila I was banned years ago and there is no way I know how to mask my real IP address and sign onto 911Blogger using another name. That sort of technology is well beyond me and my limited computer skills. I could not use a VPN or IP masking program or anything like that because I do not know how all that fancy stuff works. So Blogger and Ken Doc’s FB forums are totally out of my reach unfortunately.

  4. very well put together Craig. Porter (mr.Turkish/lobby) GOSS ducking for cover as the fan-jet came low and away from PENTBOM, over the river, and Uncle Donald duck Rumsfeld’s limp running to catch the stretcher bearers photo op on the lawn are probably the only two moments of any lightness in this otherwise disgusting day of mass murder.
    I have to admit. On balance of the reading I have done ; I do not think 77 hit the pentagon.

  5. This is powerful satire, Craig, and greatly deserved by official Pentagon story advocates. This bullet point in the list of what official story supporters can never say,
    “Maybe the plane hit the building from a north of Citgo path”,
    though, leaves out a third and very different possibility, supported by the evidence
    in ‘Behind The Smoke Curtain” — on YouTube with c. 160,000 views — that the plane
    came in on the north-of-Citgo-and-Navy-Annex path but was destroyed at/near the
    Pentagon heliport BEFORE it would have otherwise struck the building further left/north
    along the wall than the official story alleged ‘impact’ point, i.e. the evidence supports CIT’s witnesses but not its fly over conclusion …
    Barbara Honegger

  6. Excellent satire that kinda covers that waterfront (or Pentagon facade).
    Laughter is petty good medicine. I like that it’s not mocking, but telling.

  7. Love it Craig! This is my favorite article of yours so far and that is saying something! I hope that comment is not too divisive? If it is I withdraw it immediately.

  8. Barbara Honegger said:
    “…..the plane
    came in on the north-of-Citgo-and-Navy-Annex path but was destroyed at/near the
    Pentagon heliport BEFORE it would have otherwise struck the building further left/north
    along the wall than the official story alleged ‘impact’ point, i.e. the evidence supports CIT’s witnesses but not its fly over conclusion …”
    Good satire Barbara…’re learning. 🙂

  9. Good work, Craig. Reminds me of endless discussions over at that other FB group from which you and Adam were banned for trying to argue this issue with the administrators and others who doggedly stick to their version of the “facts.”

    1. I disagree sockpuppet2012 I think my comment praising Craig’s article is far more divisive than the article itself. So in a very real way your comment above is extremely divisive.
      Are you trying to tear the truth movement apart when you say to Craig?:
      “I think you’re trying to tear the 911 Truth movement apart!”
      Well? Are you? Huh?

  10. Craig,
    Isn’t talking about divisiveness divisive? Or better yet Craig isn’t the question I just asked really the most divisive of all? Can’t we just all get along and agree to shit can the pentagon evidence?

  11. I think if we just play it safe and stick to “Saudi Arabia financed the attacks,” we’ll come across as SO credible that the American people will RISE UP AND DEMAND THE TRUTH!!!

    1. haha was just thinking..Imagine the added dissonance ‘the people’ would feel if MSM reported USAMO’s strategic partner, ‘Allied’ in the Global WAR of TERROR begun because of 911 – were actually reported in redacted congressional records responsible for financing it !?

    2. Adam,
      I took an infrequent glance at 911 blogger yesterday and saw the Saudi meme being promoted along with the release of the redacted report pages. Jon Gold as usual is leading the charge. My strongest suspicion is that he is on someone’s payroll. Clearly he is far from the only one. The cognitive infiltration happened so quickly that I imagine it was planned, at least in outline, before the event.
      There was at least one post pointing out that there was clear evidence of Israeli involvement on the site, which surprised me, since that discussion is generally verboten.

      1. Michael,
        Craig’s satire, and by extension my satirical comment above, is funny because it’s true. My comment above was in satirical tone, but Jon Gold really truly actually believes that if the American people find out that Saudi Arabia, an ALLY, financed the attacks, that this knowledge would be enough for the American people to wake up from their slumber and demand justice. He believes that talking about CD and other inside job evidence looks crazy to the public and turns them off, but that the Saudi thing is so credible that it will anger the American people into rising up.

  12. I just don’t understand why you are all still on here on a blog expecting to change something with all the tangible Pentagon evidence out there. I mean surely someone on here can take this evidence to an elected representative or video tape an interaction with the FBI or Homeland Security while showing them the NoC evidence and the witnesses. Aren’t all the witnesses still alive who witnessed the plane on the north side of the gas station? That is enough to prove an inside job.
    Furthermore, I have no idea why none of you have distanced yourselves from Barbara Honegger when it is obvious she is an infiltrator and someone who clearly tries desperately to muddy the NoC/Flyover waters.

    1. I would take Paul Revered first paragraph as satire itself:
      ..”elected representative”? …”the FBI or Homeland Security”?
      Hahahahahaha!!!! Yes, brilliant satire indeed!! An appeal to the tyrannical system that pulled off the 9/11 PSYOP! Exquisite balderdash! Congratulations Paul.
      However Paul’s second paragraph seems to be written in true ignorance of the facts to do with the position of T&S juxtaposed to that of Barbara Honegger. Her so-called theory itself defies crash physics and the forces of momentum. This was explained on these pages in some detail back a couple of years ago,

    2. Hi Aldo! 😉
      Are you aware that AE911Truth has mailed Experts Speak Out to every police department in the country?
      What difference has that made?
      Are you aware of the spectacular fail regarding AE getting the AIA to vote for the AIA, as an organization, to take on 9/11 truth in the form of WTC7?
      At that AIA convention, a speaker opposed to the resolution came up to the podium and said, “This has been all investigated, there’s no need to revisit it, it’s been 14 years, can’t we just move on from this?” and the entire convention center applauded. Now debunkers have a juicy piece of ammo against the “3,300+ As and Es” petition: they can point to the vote at the AIA and say that US architects and engineers overwhelmingly believe the official explanation put out by NIST.
      AE911Truth has also mailed DVDs of the evidence to military bases overseas. From one article I remember reading, a military personnel member who acknowledged receipt of the DVDs said that the DVDs make their way to the trash can or the firing range.
      Those who are not actively keeping the lid on this issue at the top, manage to help the tyrannical system by their own denial and willful ignorance.
      All I can do is hope to wake people up one person at a time, whatever that’s worth.
      At this point, I think that the only thing that will force this issue out in the open is the international community waking up about it at a far more accelerated level than here at home, and that the said community forces, i.e. screams at the top of its lungs in whatever form, for the American people to confront the reality. If, for example, the world was given a joint statement from the UK, Germany, Japan, China, France, Spain, etc. that the official account of 9/11 is false, then Rachel Maddow and the other media darlings would have to give it the weight and gravity it deserves, then the mass ripple effect of awareness would be unstoppable from there.
      Until then, a little bit of light comic relief is in order.

    3. Actually Paul in answer to your first point I don’t expect blogging to change anything about the system suddenly or dramatically. All I expect from blogging is that some people will read what is said here and some of them will learn and change their personal beliefs based on what they learn. That is all I expect from this and that is what I get out of participation here, knowledge.
      That may seem like it isn’t worthwhile at first glance but it is. Understanding is what changes people and people are what change the system. For example look to the issue of GMO foods. For a long time people didn’t know much about them or how damaging they are. Through a long process of activism and education people learned about GMO and today the results are that Monsanto is in a financial nose dive, 600+ McDonalds were closed this year, and people in mass are rejecting GMO. So the effect of all that blogging and educating is now being felt. Felt in a big way! Giant food companies are scrambling to keep their customers and believe me they are in a blind panic right now.
      The same is true with 9/11 truth. At first 9/11 truthers were a tiny minority of the people, we were ridiculed and attacked incessantly and very few people listened to us. Now truthers are becoming the majority, the MSM is looked upon as pure propaganda and government approval is at its lowest point in history. No one except the most gullible believes a word the media or government says. So our effect is there. It is slow but it is cumulative, like a massive train slowly picking up speed, good luck trying to stop it now. Every blog entry, every street action, every youtube hit on a 9/11 video is having an effect. Eventually this will all culminate in full blown revolution you know. In fact the revolution is already happening, it is just not happening suddenly or dramatically. There will be no blue lightning bolt from heaven for all to see, change will come like a thief in the night.
      Even within the 9/11 truth movement itself this process is happening. This blog is slowly growing, slowly exposing false theories and false truthers. It is wearing down the liars within the movement who are trying to suppress the pentagon evidence. Step by step, one by one, we are winning this battle for the heart and mind of the truth movement. Truthers are starting to get it that there are real disinformationists among us. Truthers are starting to reject the unsupported theories and intentional disinformation. Sure some truthers still don’t get it why the pentagon is so monumentally important but articles like this one and blogs like this are waking them up. The train is gaining speed.
      For example as to your second point concerning Barbara Honegger many of us here, me included, do not accept her theory and say so publicly. Craig McKee devoted an entire blog to Ms. Honegger and we discussed her theory at length and found it to be weak and unsupported by the evidence. I personally found Barbara to be evasive and unresponsive to our concerns and questions. Does that meet your criteria for “distancing myself” from her? I consider you to be correct when you say she “tries desperately to muddy the NoC/Flyover waters”. So I am “distanced” from her about as much as a person can be. In fact I posted this article all over Facebook yesterday and one commenter mentioned Barbara Honegger’s theory in reply to my post and I told him I thought her theory was unsupported by the evidence and that NSA was far and away the best evidence.
      Despite all that however I do NOT think Barbara should be silenced. Although I personally loathe A.Wright and consider him/her/it to be a despicable disinformation operative I do NOT think he/she/it should be censored or silenced. This is a HUGE issue for me, I think censors are cowards and so I agree 100% with Craig’s policy of NOT censoring people except in the most dire of cases. So anyway Paul I hope that clears things up a bit?
      As to taking the evidence to the “authorities” I consider that to be a fools errand. The “authorities” are the perpetrators of 9/11 and they will do anything and everything, fair and unfair, to prevent their complicity from being exposed. They will do anything, up to and including murder, to keep their own necks out of the noose. For 9/11 justice to actually happen there MUST be a full blown revolution Paul perhaps a violent one. I hope it will not be violent which is why I work so hard trying to change peoples minds with persuasion instead of force. Blogging instead of bullets.

  13. Well the FBI, Homeland Security, and elected representatives are public servants. They serve you. They serve us.
    If you haven’t noticed, pulling out video cameras on public officials seems to apply a large degree of pressure that forces them to act.
    It just hasn’t been done enough or really at all in regards to the NOC evidence and witnesses.
    But I’m sure we’ll continue this cycle for the next decade. We will all just keep blogging and posting about it. Instead of being about it.
    Later ‘taters

    1. Paul, how are you using the NOC evidence to apply pressure? Perhaps instead of scolding everyone here, you might set a positive example that others here could follow.
      Since last year, I worked on a volunteer team to facilitate Richard Gage’s appearance in Montreal in March 2013 (this involved finding every way possible to publicize the event, including me walking around for two days putting up posters all over downtown); I signed the AE911Truth call for Canadian candidates, and I have participated in a weekly conference call to discuss these plans as well as actions of different types. Our group is meeting with the leader of the Green Party next week. She submitted a 9/11 petition that we gave her to Parliament last fall – the first time any Member of Parliament had agreed to do this. We put together a press conference at the House of Commons with Graeme MacQueen and two members of AE who travelled to Ottawa for the occasion. We are working on a new petition linking 9/11 to the new anti-terror bill that just passed in Canada. We have a “truth truck” crossing the continent, painted with all kinds of AE information, in AE colors (I did nothing to facilitate this). I also filed two complaints against a Canadian TV network for its slanderous treatment of Richard Gage when he appeared here. And I write for AE.
      And I blog.

    2. Paul I have done more than my share of putting cameras in “officials” faces. I have to say how naive you are when you talk about how the FBI and Homeland Security and elected officials are “public servants”. They are NOT! They are servants of themselves and thug enforcers of themselves. THEY DO NOT SERVE US! In fact Paul this false belief you have about “public servants” is dangerous. It isn’t dangerous to them or to me it is dangerous to you.
      You proceed under a dangerous false belief that these people will actually try to bring about justice for 9/11 while in reality they want to silence or even kill you. The fascist rulers of the USA are the ones who planned and executed 9/11 in the first place. They are the ones who are actively suppressing the truth and preventing justice to this very day! You will get no help from them Paul, they want you dead. The sooner you realize your actual situation the better off you will be. Don’t be a fool and go begging to the criminals to investigate and arrest themselves, you are just giving them the opportunity to hurt you BADLY!
      They will use their media lapdogs to slander you and harass you.
      They will use their IRS lapdogs to audit you and attack you financially.
      They will use their police and corrupt legal system to take away your freedom.
      They will use the “mental health” system to have you declared insane.
      They will use all their power to destroy you in a myriad of ways and if none of that works and you become too big a threat they will beat you to death or put a bullet in your brain.
      That my friend is the truth about what you are really dealing with. Face it, the FBI is involved in the cover-up of 9/11, they will NEVER expose themselves. Homeland security is here to quell insurrection not to protect us from terrorists. The government is here to feed themselves and take as much as they can from us, period!
      Here is what they have planned for you:

    3. “Well the FBI, Homeland Security, and elected representatives are public servants. They serve you. They serve us.”~Paul Revered
      How is it possible that you buy such an obvious myth after all that has come down?
      You sir, are obviously in deep denial. I mean, seriously, WTF?

  14. Actually Paul if these “elected officials” actually served us there would have been trials and prison sentences passed out a long time ago for 9/11. The NoC evidence would have been used to court martial numerous people at the pentagon involved in the staging of the crime scene. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and dozens of others would be in prison or have been executed for treason by now if these officials were really our servants. The fact they are all roaming free is proof the system does not serve the people. Not only are they not hanging from gallows but they have actually been rewarded for their evil deeds. That is the cold hard truth you have to face sooner or later.

    1. Well put, all of your comments, Adam Ruff.
      The Department of Homeland Security was created specifically AFTER 9/11 as a “response” to it. Their jobs depend on the perpetuation of the 9/11 myth.
      You might as well be appealing to officials in the DEA to support cannabis legalization.
      The Powers That Be absolutely know about the NoC evidence; hence the intense disinformation campaign against it.
      Taking the NoC evidence to the DHS… you might as well be trying to sway Frank Legge or Jim Hoffman or Arabesque.

      1. Mr Syed, Paul obviously has never heard of the simple concept of the Fox guarding the Henhouse.
        There are so many weird daydreams going on out there in the splintered paradigm.

        1. Willy,
          I wasn’t kidding when I said “Hi Aldo” above. The rhetoric matches rhetoric which I know to definitely be from Aldo Marquis of CIT (both public forums and group emails).
          I have a good eye for recognizing writing styles, that’s how I know Richard wasn’t the true author of his retraction of support for CIT.
          If AE911Truth’s template of reaching out to “elected officials” and firehouses and police departments hasn’t worked, it’s because people are in denial or/and afraid of losing their jobs and reputations.
          Maybe Aldo should focus on trying to get NSA to go far more viral. The most popular YT upload isn’t even an official CIT upload; it’s by “BeautifuGirlByDana.” This has less than 600,000 views and it’s been up since 2009. It should have 6,000,000 if not 60,000,000 views by now. If it could go more viral among the masses, it might start gaining traction.
          Considering that many people even within the movement are not familiar with this evidence, and are still stuck in 2006 and Loose Change and the Cruise Missile, I hardly believe that “elected officials” are going to be swayed by being handed a DVD of National Security Alert.

          1. ” If it could go more viral among the masses, it might start gaining traction.”
            Just to elaborate: gaining traction as far as the collective consciousness. Knowledge is power, and the more people know, the more people are empowered to act, and this yields more activism, pressure, etc….

  15. Brilliant. Who said satire was dead? This lead me onto other posts on your site about planes flying into buildings (or not) and I got confused with the arguments going on about Newton’s third law. The only thing I know about Newton is he spent his time sitting under an apple tree. Not very productive, right?
    My question is simply: Is it possible for a plane to fly into a steel building like the Twin Towers or a concrete building like the Pentagon in the way we have been told and with the same results?
    Please don’t confuse me with the answer, I’m just an uneducated pensioner from the UK.

    1. @Dave Gahan I don’t think you have to be educated when looking at this. There are university professors with degrees in physics and theology who write about what happened on 911 and they show very little intelligence. I have always thought the most important degree to have in life is a degree of common sense.

    2. “My question is simply: Is it possible for a plane to fly into a steel building like the Twin Towers or a concrete building like the Pentagon in the way we have been told and with the same results?”~Dave Gahan
      The Towers and the Pentagon are two separate issues as far as the crash physics of these events.
      > Crash Physics for the WTC Towers:
      > Destruction of the WTC Towers:
      > For the core issue of the Pentagon, which is ‘Trajectory’ see my comment to A. Wright of
      June 12, 2015 at 6:46 pm (below)
      “The only thing I know about Newton is he spent his time sitting under an apple tree. Not very productive, right?”~Dave Gahan
      What a bloody stupid comment. Ignorance is one thing Gahan, pride in ignorance crosses the border into stupidity.

      1. My thanks to hybridrogue1for answering my simple but sincere question. I enjoyed reading the pages he kindly referred to and have learned a lot more than I knew before. I have no ulterior motive and apologies if I upset him with my British sense of humour.

      2. Man thanks to Dave Gahan for reminding me that this page has a subtle dedication to satire!
        And I thank Dave as well for reading the pages I referred to.

  16. “Maybe Aldo should focus on trying to get NSA to go far more viral. The most popular YT upload isn’t even an official CIT upload; it’s by “BeautifuGirlByDana.” This has less than 600,000 views and it’s been up since 2009. It should have 6,000,000 if not 60,000,000 views by now. If it could go more viral among the masses, it might start gaining traction.”
    Yes, that makes perfect sense. Get it to go viral so someone else will do something about it. More than likely, what they will do is share it with someone else hoping they will do something about it. And the on and on, the cycle of inaction continues.
    We know a crime was committed because we have undeniable proof in the form of living, unwitting, and now reluctant witnesses.
    I just don’t understand why no one has gone to the authorities with this.evidence and asked them to comment or do something about it while documenting every step of that journey.

    1. Paul,
      I and two others addressed you about “going to the authorities” already yet you bring this up again? Talk about going round and round.

    2. @Paul Revered Going to the authorities with conclusions based on part of the evidence about something, as contained in NSA, would then entail the authorities doing something about it like looking at the rest of the evidence. It would be clear to them, as is should be to anyone, that the people who produced it have been deluding themselves for years about it. The fact that their best explanation for why everyone doesn’t agree with their conclusions seems to be that everyone is conspiring against them, just illustrates how deep the delusion is.

    3. “I just don’t understand..”~Paul Revered
      Like, no snit Smearlock!! What an incredible understatement!!!

  17. *“There was something kinda fishy about that cab driver.” No, no, no! To distract from the absurdity of Lloyde England’s story about a light pole impaling his taxi, you must be indignant about how poorly that “old man” was treated by the big, bad CIT guys and their cronies. (“After he invited them into his home!”)

    1. Beautiful, Adam. Good job in finding these perfect examples. I especially love how Joe calls him “floyd.” You can’t make stuff like that up. But this is from the guy who thinks that the greatest crime of 9/11 was that Donald Rumsfled left his office to go out on the Pentagon lawn that morning. What can you say about a brain that would formulate that thought?

      1. Yeah. To be fair, I don’t think he’s necessarily said that the Rumsfeld-on-lawn scenario is the “greatest crime of 9/11,” but certainly he’s said he thinks it’s the absolute top on-camera smoking gun regarding dereliction of duty and treason re the Pentagon scene.

        1. I think he went further than that. You’re right that he didn’t say it was the greatest crime, but he for sure said that going after an indictment of Rumsfeld for leaving his post is the best way to advance the cause of 9/11 truth.

    1. We don’t give young people enough credit for having common sense these days. It’s good to see that even a mere young girl recognizes the obviously illogical conclusions of CIT.

      1. Agent Wright, true to form is back spewing his generalities and rhetorical jabberwacky once again.
        I will only advise that those inclined to find that ‘common sense’ and basic science are in full agreement, go to this link and learn some of the actual facts. Pay particular attention to the articles on P4Truth by OSS:

      2. “A mere young girl”
        I’m not sure if that was a swipe at her age or gender (are you implying that young females are the easiest demographic to fool?), but actually she’s in her mid 30s with 2 kids, Agent Wright.
        Rhetorical jabberwacky on the part of Agent Wright, indeed.
        What is clear is that she is in deep denial and indeed confusion about the issue; looking at her posts collectively, she thinks that CIT promotes a missile in addition to a plane flyover, a conflation that the disinfo artists have been quite successful in disseminating. And what is clear is that she’s never watched NSA or any of CIT’s other videos even once; and as such she has virtually zero understanding of the evidence and virtually no clue what the actual conclusions are at all.

        1. @Adam Syed I wonder how long it will take for you to realize that people who disagree with your conclusions genuinely disagree with your conclusions, and are not pretending to, or fooled by others, or in denial or any of the other crutches deployed by people in the truth movement to protect themselves from considering the one thing they must never consider, that these other people might be right.
          I don’t wonder when you are going to realize that your conclusions are wrong since common sense and logical deduction shows clearly that you are, and if you haven’t been able to apply those yet after years of thinking about it I’d say you never will. You would never be able to overcome the cognitive dissonance involved.
          As for Amanda Sedell or women in general or young women in particular, thankfully I think women are generally better at detecting illogical and false ideas and ,with a few exceptions, in the 911 truth movement are less involved and vocal than men. If she hasn’t seen NSA or is not familiar with CIT,she has managed to very neatly sum up the flawed argument they present, kudos to her for not being mislead by it.
          I doubt there are any woman who would consider it a side swipe to think they are younger than they actually are..

          1. Hey Amanda Sedell, if you’re reading this, please note that A. Wight is a JREFer, i.e. a full blown OCT defender. He opposes CD and AE911.

          2. @Adam Syed I hope Amanda Sedell is reading this and recognizes the principle she obviously holds to herself , i.e. thinking for herself and using common sense and not being mislead by people who cite the fact that others also regard it as illogical nonsense as evidence that it’s true.

          3. Really? You see common sense in her remarks? First of all, she brings in missiles, which people with your point of view keep doing to discredit the idea that no plane hit. People who believe a missile hit are speculating and have no evidence to back their speculation.
            The thing she doesn’t get – and that you don’t get – is that you start with the physical evidence. Does the physical evidence support the official story that an airliner hit the building. The answer is a resounding NO! She just goes by how many people say a plane hit as if that trumps the physical evidence. And as for evaluating which “witnesses” are credible, she clearly does not have a clue. The North of Citgo witnesses and their comments can be examined carefully to see if they are consistent and credible. They clearly are. The rest of the witnesses are problematic for a variety of reasons (great analyses of the subject have been done by onesliceshort, Aldo Marquis from CIT, and probably others).
            That a 9/11 truther can claim a plane crashed into the Pentagon where there was no plane to be found there after the “crash” is beyond me. No, the bits and pieces of metal, most of it found inside the building, do not account for a 100-ton airplane! If Amanda and you, and the others who push this pov, can’t explain how the plane got inside without any decent-sized pieces breaking off outside, then you cannot be taken seriously.

  18. @hybridrogue1
    “Conclusion – It is impossible for any fixed-wing aircraft to cause the directional physical damage to the light poles, generator trailer, and the Pentagon leading to the C-ring hole approaching from directly over the Navy Annex and north of the former Citgo gas station. The flight paths illustrated by the witnesses would require G forces beyond the physical limitations of any aircraft for it to transition to an approach that lines up with the physical damage. Additionally, a hypothetical least challenging scenario at low speed would require bank angles that are irreconcilable with the physical damage, as well as the witness statements, and require an instantaneously performed roll that is impossible for any fixed-wing aircraft.”~Rob Balsamo

    1. @ Agent Wright,
      Your quote by Balsamo sums it up nicely.
      Of course you have skipped all of the analysis of the various witnesses and their positions for determining what the actual path of that plane was. This is critical to understanding Balsamo’s summation.
      This is where the whole “witness list” spin comes into play by disinformants such as the mole Legge, Arabesque, and that whole crew.

  19. That there was ‘conspiracy’ at the Pentagon is undeniable. Certain.
    CIT came along and exposed it with a decent bit of detective work, which must have pissed a lot of people off.
    That NOC will not be properly addressed BY the authority system set up to protect the conspiracy of 77 is equally certain. The ‘authorities’ do not exist except to gate keep against discovery OF the conspiracy.
    The response “the 911 truth community is delusional” is pivot to any discussion, vilifying opposition in an ongoing information and psychological warfare operation.

    1. @fremo.remo
      quote: “That there was ‘conspiracy’ at the Pentagon is undeniable. Certain.
      CIT came along and exposed it with a decent bit of detective work, which must have pissed a lot of people off.”
      It must have especially annoyed the people who created the state-sponsored false-flag black operation involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception at the Pentagon – so much so that they let CIT expose it, interview all the witnesses, make videos about it ,publish it all on their own website , put them up on Youtube , knock on the door of the elderly key accomplice involved, interview him not once but twice, allow them to go and see the key faked centre piece of the whole operation, his cab -still extant and not crushed years ago to hide the evidence- and let them crawl all over it and take videos and photos of it. They were so determined to cover the whole thing up they let young teenagers interview key witnesses who gave away the whole deception and then made it available on the internet.
      I notice CIT’s website is pretty moribund , hopefully because it has slowly dawned on
      them that it was a silly mistaken idea, even though an idealistic one. Even idealists at some stage have to deal with reality.

      1. So Agent Wright seems to think his little rhetorical bullshit framing of “the CIT story” can in some way defeat the actual facts and evidence that CIT discovered and developed.
        Those who have read Cass Sunstein’s ‘cognitive dissonance’ strategy understand full well this technique used by Wright, that will never actually address the substance of the CIT findings.
        Nor will a disinformant such as Wright contend with the ongoing ripples caused by the splash of CIT’s work, now being expanded on by others, such as Pilots for 9/11 Truth, researchers here on T&S, and my own HR1blog.
        ‘Plausible Deniability’ comes in many colors and flavors and is spun many ways. But it has one steady core state; it never addresses the substantive issues. It can’t because the substance proves that the System perpetrated the 9/11 event.
        The Ring Wraith Wright calls CIT “moribund”, which is the same type of remark being said to characterize the Bill of Rights here in the US. “Quaint” and “out of date, and out of style” so it is said by those who have developed their schemes of ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’. Those who write and speak the same language as Agent Wright; NEWSPEAK.
        Collaborators such as Wright are easy enough to spot on the web these days, they are lit by flashing warning lights, and the stench of their vile reputation precedes them everywhere they go.

        1. @hr1
          quote “So Agent Wright seems to think his little rhetorical bullshit framing of “the CIT story” can in some way defeat the actual facts and evidence that CIT discovered and developed.”
          Do you disagree with what I said about CIT? Have they got a website where they presented interviews with witnesses and put them up on Youtube? Were they able to interview Lloyde England twice and did he let them into his home and record interviews with him? Was the cab, which is the centre piece of this big deception ,according to you, still there and did he take them to see it, allow them the take photos and videos and put them up on their site and in Youtube videos? Did CIT expose this big black operation in their videos and on their website? Were there interviews done by the Centre for Military History and the Library of Congress that also exposed this big deception.
          Not really great evidence ,I would have thought, that they had exposed anything, but evidence though of their ability to totally delude themselves that they had. The latest news on CIT’s site was posted in July 2013 and the latest comments about 9 months ago. That’s pretty moribund., hopefully as I said, because they have realised how deluded the whole thing is. People shouldn’t waste their time, as life is short enough as it is.

          1. @Craig McKee The years you’ve spent wasting your time over this are years you’ll never get back. I suppose I should apologize for trying to prevent people wasting their time

          2. You are right Craig, and another response to such a jackal as Wright would be doubly a waste of our precious time.

      2. In return to A.W.
        The different ‘realities’ ‘Idealists’ have to deal with are 1) a psychotic superstate producing idiot militarism and the hegemonic conspiracy narrative of flight 77
        As opposed to:
        2) A clear and compelling evidence chain presenting a flight-path entirely outside of it in contest.
        Two Pentagon Police Officers stated categorically and independent of each other, that the flight of the aircraft they witnessed passed over their position along a clearly defined flight path now referred to as NOC. Which contradicts the official account completely.
        This extraordinary eyewitness of an aircraft approaching the Pentagon was, tellingly, a) not included in any official report and, b) wasted on these two men since between the time of the atrocity and the time of CIT interview an official report had been released showing a flight path completely different from that which they – as Police – witnessed and recorded.
        But they had never read it.
        Nor had they spoken to each other about what they had individually seen.
        So they had no idea they had not seen what they saw……where they saw it [sic]
        Instead, oblivious, they carried on their lives without understanding the report’s essential contradiction to their testimony.
        This exhibits a lack-of-interest so profound, it becomes indicative of a systemic epistemology worth exploring with regard the possibilities of deception at this magnitude ‘”getting past the average Joe…”
        If Police eye-witnesses don’t bother to read the official report of something so extraordinary happening right infront of their faces, why would anyone else ?
        These ‘teenagers’ produced a better – more coherent – body of work. Thats all.

        1. @fremo.remo Did the psychotic superstate crash planes into the WTC on the same day? The reality is that a plane crashed into the Pentagon. What CIT produced was a demonstrably illogical conclusion based on evidence. They presented their ‘beyond-a-reasonable-doubt definitive conclusion that a plane did not hit the Pentagon ,and their logical reasoning for arriving at it, in National Security Alert. They arrived at the conclusion by leaving out practically all of the evidence that the plane hit the Pentagon. If that is not the case then you should be able to find that evidence, from all of the eyewitnesses who said the plane hit the Pentagon for starters, in NSA. It is divided into sections
          1: A prima facia case for deception
          2: The required south side approach, as per official data, reports and the physical damage.
          3:The north side approach evidence.
          4:The flyover/flyaway evidence
          5:Taxicab driver Lloyde England and lightpole #1
          If you think investigating something and coming to a conclusion about it can be done by leaving out almost all the evidence that contradicts your conclusion then I’d say you made the same blatant mistake in logic that they did.

          1. ” If you think investigating something and coming to a conclusion about it can be done by leaving out almost all the evidence that contradicts your conclusion …. ”
            Quite right Wright. None of the NOC evidence was addressed by OCT.
            Because its very existence exposes the deception of 77.

          2. @fremo.remp.” If you think investigating something and coming to a conclusion about it can be done by leaving out almost all the evidence that contradicts your conclusion …. ”
            Quite right Wright.
            I’m glad you agree.

  20. James Corbett joined me to discuss 9/11 and its lesser-known connections to tech and economic scams and scandals, as well as the suspicious aspects of big insurance companies, global banking, and the rise of the technological control grid. The conversation closes on issues of China and BRICS and his own book recommendations.

        1. “Jay W” not “Jaw W.” The person speaking with Corbett in the video you linked to. It doesn’t look like you are, though; it looks like you pasted the video description without quotation marks, so at first I thought you were saying it was you yourself who interviewed James Corbett.

          1. Sorry for the confusion Mr Syed, I did in fact fail to use the quotation marks. Thanks for clearing that up.

  21. I notice Agent Wright is popping in to visit this particular thread more than usual for him/her/it. The 9/11 cover-up team wants him/her/it to be more active in this particular thread for some reason. I think I know what that reason is. It is because this article exposes in a satirical way what they (the cover-up team) are actually doing, the methods they are using, and it exposes the big flaw in their plan. I think the team, of which Agent Wright is a member, can sense that the suppression efforts against the pentagon evidence are failing and starting to come apart at the seams. It is just my opinion of course but from my perspective Agent Wrights presence here is a good sign actually. Their mask of obfuscation is being pulled off and more and more truthers are jumping ship from the controlled opposition sites like 911blahhhger and Ken Docs FB page where they attempt to suppress the pentagon evidence.
    I posted this story all over FB and got all kinds of positive comments about it from hundreds of truthers who are starting to notice the suppression going on by some so-called truthers. Only one disinformation operative tried to challenge me directly and he did not fare very well at all. The truthers watching the conversation unfold were basically aware of what a shill and a liar the agent was and totally rejected his entire presentation as obvious BS. So elsewhere, like here on T+S, the Agents, like Agent Wright, are being laughed at and ignored. Some people actually use their appearances as sign posts of good information worthy of their attention. In other words if Agent Wright shows up somewhere and starts speaking against a particular item of evidence or person I use it as a sign post that I might want to read that article or pay attention to that person. Kind of a reverse stamp of approval. If Agent Wright attacks it, it is probably pretty good info.
    Of course I will use caution now that Agent Wright knows this so that he/she/it doesn’t think I can be steered towards bad info by using the reverse of his/her/its usual methods.

    1. Yes Adam R- I just checked the recent posts at T&S on my phone and was underwhelmingly UNsurprised to see A. Wright still haunting Craig’s T&S blog moaning and rattling the same tired, rusty chains like some pathetic Dickensian spectre this many months/years since I last posted here. In fact 60% of the most recent comments here (3 of 5) were posted by Wright on Mr. McKee’s most recent satirical article.
      Again- it seems tired AND pathetic to me to watch this futile obsession/assignment this many months later.
      Mr. McKee may remember me from the 911oz forum where OSS & I battled such trolls as Brian Good, Chris Sarns, Snowcrash, Jeff “shure” Hill, et. al. I also undertook a voluntary ‘banning’ from 911blogger about the same time as Mr. McKee’s Involuntary one. (The MASS Pentagon Purges at blahhger around 2009-ish.

      1. Mrboz, welcome back! I certainly do remember you, both from 911oz and from your comments on this blog (Last time we saw you here was 2012). I hope we’ll see more comments from you. It is true that A. Wright still has posting privileges, but I would not give him more weight than he deserves. I think the caliber of the discussion has been really strong for the most part.

      2. Basically, Agent Wright is our “token debunker.” He’s the only anti-truther on here and while I can’t speak for Craig, my guess is that Craig allows him to continue posting simply so readers can see an example of the bankruptcy of that camp’s arguments.

      3. Hi Mr Boz,
        Happy days indeed, I remember exposing Legge and his illogical ramblings but he never did come back to me. Good to see Wright is still wibbling on here though.

  22. Investigative Method.
    Don’t argue it was ‘impossible,’ because weird things are possible – argue that there is no evidence that it did happen.
    And therein lay your details to further argue the evidence is simply not there, regardless of scientific tests illustrating it “could” have happened.
    Specifics in context.

  23. What’s the use? The reality is dumber than any parody. There was this investigative reporter of some repute, I guess, because he was giving a TED Talk about how the FBI was creating and arresting more terrorists with sting set-ups than there really are terrorists out here. When he said “Since 9/11…” I felt that old feeling of knowing how this guy was full of shit. One one hand he his calling out the FBI which is good but then he absolutely ignores the fact that the FBI were in bed, watching, rooming with, allowing into the country, setting up the 9/11 terrorists. too. (Their actual existence is another story, I know. but if we stick to the OCT …) But no. All this bad government behavior went down after 9/11. Right? He even said that yes, there were actual terrorist acts like the Boston bombing. The Boston bombing has the FBI connected to the brothers written about in “legit” venue after venue. But no. What kind of game are they playing. Is it good cop bad cop? The reporter was acting like the good cop, leveling with us reporting that the FBI were fuck ups and then ignoring a ton of clues that there is more to 9/11 than meets the average NPR listeners ears. What kind of reporter is that? Sheesh.

          1. I’m using a phone & video is slow-to-non-existent but I remember the Pugh video being a KEY piece of evidence that vanished QUICKLY! I still have it somewhere on a DVD or crashed HDD. Maybe A. Wright was there in the bushes though… (he/she/it apparently likes to feel included here at T&S).

      1. “The warnings being given about the plane approaching were about UA 93 which is was what Norman Mineta was talking about.”~A. Wright
        More disinformation from Agent Wright, the Pentagon event had not yet happened in the time-frame Mineta was speaking to.
        Mineta arrived at 9:25 a.m, and the event at the Pentagon happened at 9:37 a.m.

        1. “During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?
          Mineta confirmed his statements with reporters, saying “When I overheard something about ‘the orders still stand’ and so, what I thought of was that they had already made the decision to shoot something down.”
          Norman Mineta made it clear to reporters– who verified his quotes in written text alongside him– that Mineta was indeed talking about a stand down order not to shoot down hijacked aircraft headed for the Pentagon.
          After no shoot down took place, it became clear that Cheney intended to keep NORAD fighter jets from responding– evidence that Cheney is guilty of treason, not negligence for allowing the Pentagon to be hit.
          Mineta was still in the PEOG bunker when the plane was reported down in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
          “I remember later on when I heard about the Shanksville plane going down, the Vice President was right across from me, and I said, ‘Do you think that we shot it down ourselves?’ He said, ‘I don’t know.’ He said, ‘Let’s find out.’ So he had someone check with the Pentagon. That was about maybe, let’s say 10:30 or so, and we never heard back from the DoD until probably about 12:30. And they said, ‘No, we didn’t do it.'”


        2. @hr1 Why didn’t Mineta say something about this second plane that people were being warned about? The FAA controllers were following it’s track, warning about it approaching Washington, the police were urgently clearing everyone away from the Pentagon, saying there was a second plane that was 20 miles out etc. At that time Mineta was on the phone to the FAA getting continuous updates about the situation , but he didn’t say anything about this. The only thing he said about UA 93 was that they heard it had crashed.

  24. Here we go again. Look a plane hit the Pentagon and upon impact shattered into millions of tiny pieces. If you don’t believe this then you are a conspiracy nut.

Leave a Reply

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