Tuesday, March 26, 2019

The CIT Rebuttal Letters: Debunking the National Security Alert Video Misinfo/Disinfo (Random Correspondence on the Issue, Specific Analysis, Thoughts)

By Steve W.

Short summary/Intro:

The Citizens Investigation Team (CIT) has a video where they claim the Pentagon was not struck by an aircraft.

They re-interviewed various witnesses to the attack and concluded that the aircraft heading to the Pentagon was flying further north (over the Navy Annex) than officially admitted, that it continued on a route well north of the CITGO gas station, and then flew over the Pentagon, and did not hit any light poles, and that bombs were used to cause the subsequently observed damage. Evidence seen, that mapped out the flight path, the fallen light poles, the aircraft debris, was planted evidence according to the CIT investigators.

The problem with the CIT account is that their own key evidence, the witness interviews, do not conclusively support their flyover hypothesis. The only valid point of contention they raise is that the aircraft probably flew further north than officially described and slower that officially described. That is all.

However, large aircraft can fly slow and turn so that the Pentagon attack aircraft could easily fly to the north of CITGO and strike the Pentagon - as all the evidence suggests.

[video slow and low turning] 747 uncomfortably low and slow


This scenario accounts for the general witness observations, of the turning aircraft, appearing in the CIT 'investigation' AND accounts for the physical damage (to light poles, the wall of the Pentagon where there is a large hole, and where we see tons of aircraft debris). [visit 911research]

We do not dispute that the aircraft flew further north than stated in the official account of the attack, that Flight Data Recorder information is fraudulent (or altered/misrepresented to hide likely remote control inputs), or that bombs had been set within the Pentagon walls (hence the non-release of surveillance videos).

The problem with CIT is that they claim a flyover occurred and railroad the witness testimony to fit such a hypothesis. The physical evidence refutes such an assertion, as does the complete lack of evidence showing an aircraft flew over, rather than into, the Pentagon.

The key CIT 'flyover witness', Roosevelt Roberts, does not specifically describe a flyover but an aircraft flying some distance away in the direction of the carpark area. His terms of reference (or figures of speech) are skewed to 'fit' the CIT hypothesis - there is no specific determination, in the form of a straightforward follow up question, to estimate the true range of the object seen. He could easily be talking about an aircraft flying relatively nearby at the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. The close range that CIT advocates is an outright assumption on their part, placing the plane, seen directly 'over the car park', literally over the car park - whereas the actual witness description is more consistent with an aircraft flying in the distance. Roberts references the aircraft's relative position with nearby objects in his line of sight, such as lamp poles. No other witnesses clearly describes the flyover event CIT advocates.

The CIT people confabulated a flyover from one witness, Roberts, who did not actually describe that action.

Another example of railroading witness testimony is seen where and they speculated wildly on the cab driver witness, Lloyde England’s, evasive/confused story (the guy admitted he did not want to publicly help them vs the feds), and claimed he was part of the cover-up/hoax. CIT failed to ask clarifying questions of that witness and claimed he lied about the damage to his cab. CIT disputed the notion that a large light pole could have stuck through the front windscreen without causing more damage. A reasonable follow up question to clarify the nature of the damage done to his cab would have been to ask what section of the light pole went through his windscreen. The upper part was lighter and had detached and could have done the damage seen.

CIT poorly handled the other witness interviews and failed to clarify what they described. They asked leading questions rather than sensible follow up questions.

The most damning aspect of the CIT 'investigation' is how they poorly handled, or ignored the physical evidence, simply dismissing everything that didn't agree with their view as being part of a hoax.

To understand these criticisms of the CIT investigation it is probably worth watching their video at some point which can be found here:

National Security Alert Pentagon video
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/evidence [website evidence page, with additional interview material]

Flagship video/disinformation (featured at their webpage)

This is the CIT witness account summary of a more northernly route, shown on a map, where you can see the descrepancies in the reported flight path, something that CIT never tries to reconcile. Some witnesses place the aircraft much further north than others. The differences in the accounts can be easily reconciled due to expected errors made due to their perspective and inability to appreciate the true size of the aircraft - estimating the plane to be much closer to their positions that it actually was.

[Include CIT witness map or Pentagon scene map.]

We also recommend watching these straightforward rebuttal videos (to the 'no plane at the Pentagon hypothesis') that explain the physical damage to the exterior of the buildling, the aircraft debris, the light poles, and the nature of the Pentagon rings (where the ground floor on the outer three was open plan and not separated by walls).

[Pentagon Rings summary and damage (Ryan Dawson)]

There is also the blink comparator evidence that proves the image of the airliner was captured on security video:

My post on it:  http://spookyweather.blogspot.com/2018/09/blink-comparator-views-of-plane-at.html

The original article with blinked frames showing the presence of a large aircraft in the camera's field of view: http://911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/BlinkedPentagonPlane.html

There has also been an essay in which contradictory witness testimony is offered that refutes the CIT hypothesis, but I have not fully analysed this material by Dr Frank Legge. I am not sure how well the analysis by Legge and others addresses the CIT witness testimony (which I have show has been distorted by the CIT 'researchers'). However, one of the main takeaways here is that Legge highlights the witnesses to an IMPACT with the Pentagon, that include CIT witnesses. Nevertheless, as things stand it is still possible this testimony may include errors due to perspective, so that we could include a more northerly flight path in out explanation of what happened. Note: I do not assume the aircraft was travelling at high speed (due to official data fabrication). There is reference to radar data by Legge which could put the issue to rest (although, once again, fabrication of the data, or some of it, is possible too):

Witnesses Refute CIT
Independent Video Interviews Attesting to Plane Impact at the Pentagon on 9/11

What I have attempted to achieve here is to reconcile varying accounts on the assumption that the witnesses were telling the truth of what they saw to the best of their ability. I do not assume any official data, such as the officially recognised flight path, or radar, is correct.

This concludes the introductory part of this essay.

The following are three letters where a more specific deconstruction of the CIT witness testimony is undertaken.

3 LETTERS on the subject. Names Redacted and edited for clarity:

Letter 1:


I don't know why you blocked me. I was trying to point out to Adam some of the problems with the National Security Alert Pentagon video.

From the witness accounts, which I do not actually discount, I personally think the plane flew high and very slowly, either just North or just South of the Citgo station. If the aircraft flies slow enough it has time to turn even if just North - Sgt. Lagasse reported in a 2003 letter to researcher Dick Eastman that he saw the plane yawing and hitting the Pentagon on its starboard side (or believed that was the scenario) so that, with large left rudder inputs, it could come about and hit the light poles on the way in.

I don't know what you've assumed about me or what sort of accusations Adam may have made about me. I was trying to be logical - interrogating the witness evidence - whilst robustly responding to some of Adam's retorts.

I'm only going to make 2 points here, in good faith, in the hope you can see where I am coming from.

1. In situations involving witness testimony we should not make too many assumptions regarding the details because of the role perspective can play, especially estimating aerial objects, and more generally because of known psychological factors that Talboo and others at Debunking the Debunkers have pointed out previously (you can search their site for details).

Regardless of any accusations that may have been levelled against me I was NOT (excuse the caps) wholesale dismissing the witness observations when I addressed CIT's strongly implied 'infallible witness' testimony. From the material cited at Debunking the Debunkers we should expect some of the testimony to be somewhat inaccurate.

You might note in the FB argument that the video I included, the WTC no planes debunked clip, hints at how perspective plays a role with witnessed events. There is also a phone app that identifies aircraft and reveals their flight path. If you've used such an app you can see that an aircraft estimated to be very close can actually be much further away. You'll have to do this experiment yourself to know what I mean. The only sure way this perspective problem can be overcome is if the plane flies right over the top of your position. Witnesses do tend to easily misjudge distance.

2. In examining the National Security Alert video we should consider what CIT has said about, or how they framed, the witness testimony against (excuse the caps) WHAT THE WITNESSES ACTUALLY CONVEYED. I noticed there was a difference almost immediately.

Flypast descriptions, with no range qualifiers, were portrayed as close flyby/flyover testimony, with the maintenance worker witnesses placing map positions at odds (due to their perspective) with witness Brooks - who said the aircraft went straight in after crossing the tree line. In this example I had to ask myself how well do their views really corroborate the far North hypothesis? Certainly witness Middleton's map position, that has the aircraft very far to the North, cannot be a correct position (a contradiction of sorts), and shows the problem of perspective (- a perspective that CIT does not account for very well - they gloss over it and simply say that their general witness positioning proves their hypothesis, whereas a specific examination of what is presented, along with the seeming contradictions, shows room for a flight path very near to Citgo (Nth or Sth?) that allows for lamp pole hits and a yawing strike into the Pentagon).

CIT emphasised and encouraged witnesses whenever they described a flight path that could be construed as being far to the North - asking witnesses to plot a course on a map without them understanding the aircraft's relative size and potential real distance. Estimates like these are bound to be closer than actual.

The best thing you can do, in terms of researching this problem of CIT putting words in people's mouths, is to examine the National Security Alert flyover testimony of 'star' witness Roosevelt Roberts. If you do nothing else please do me a huge favour and listen carefully to what CIT presents as evidence here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO_BTH7zcNg

You will notice that witness Roberts never actually said he saw the plane "flying away" or even that it was in close proximity to his position - those are CIT's characterisations.

Roberts said the plane was "flying around" the south car parking area and over light poles - which in all likelihood was its relative position in the distance. I personally have spotted The Moon over a nearby golf course, and aircraft flying in the direction out over a nearby shopping centre, but that is the relative position, not the actual range, and not the true bearing to a ground position. People use these turns of phrase where they typically include what they see on their horizon.

In fact Roberts reacts in a confused way when CIT talk about the aircraft "flying away" from the Pentagon, and goes on to talk about an east-west flightpath. When he talks about how the aircraft "missed the target" he is also talking about landing. Once again it's a turn of phrase, and does not definitively describe what he saw. Another comment of Roberts is the ambiguous '50 to 100 feet' which again could be a relative height distance. This comment appears in a confusing way - like the tape has been edited. He's reacting to a question, but there is no way of determining the context here. It's plainly not clear what he is talking about.

Also, Ronald Reagan airport is out in the direction Roberts indicated - certainly aircraft circling the runway would be.

With the attacks on his mind, Roberts' turns of phrase are understandable. What is not understandable is why Roberts didn't offer up details of a low flying aircraft to his superiors immediately after the attack, or how no other witnesses reported the exact same thing - an aircraft flying extremely low - just as the Pentagon approach witnesses did. This testimony and behaviour does make perfect sense if the aircraft is turning in the near distance, out towards, or away from the airport. Even the CIT video shows such aircraft in close proximity.

You then have to ask yourself whether the CIT interpretations of the other witness evidence is entirely reasonable. The cab driver, Lloyde England, whose wife works for the Government, told the interviewers that he was cautioned about getting involved in what he characterised (speculation) as a planned attack, and then issued all sorts of denials about where he was on the day. There seem to be two other possibilities beyond CIT's 'he's part of it' assessment:

1. Lloyde is lying to avoid becoming a witness against the Government,
2. he is genuinely mistaken, perhaps only clearly remembering a few details.

And CIT never asked Lloyde what part of the street lamp was stuck out of his car. There are two pieces on the ground in the picture, and most probably the larger bottom part could not have been wedged in the windscreen without damaging the hood. The smaller part may have been.

Having typed all that, it is still possible, and extremely likely IMO, for a slow high flying plane to pass just North of Citgo, and (just barely) hit all the light poles and, with large left rudder inputs, run into the Pentagon far off the perpendicular - with the starboard wing slightly raised. This scenario takes into account all the physical damage (including aircraft wreckage) whilst conforming to the witness accounts (accepting they are problematic - addressed in point 1. of this letter). And a slow flying aircraft hitting the re-enforced Pentagon walls, slightly nose down, and yawing, would also be turning slightly on impact so that the vertical stabiliser did not hit square on. This would account for the missing, or non-defined, upper storey damage marks.

I happen to agree that bombs were planted in that section of the Pentagon in order to destroy the financial audit files. There were reports of a truck bomb, which I consider was the back up plan and cover story in the event the planes failed. Truck bombs appear to be the back-up plan for the WTC attacks. We would expect these contingencies from the perps (including filling the WTC basement areas with a great deal of thermite) because, no matter what, they could not afford to fail.

Michael, if you think I am some sort of anti-truth trouble maker then I ask you to check my Spookyweather blog - especially around 2009 when I was debating an alleged adviser to NIST - ex-fire chief Arthur Scheuerman, and make up your own mind.

If you don't like my analysis on the Pentagon, where I didn't immediately take either hypothesis (CIT/Official) at face value, then we will have to be at odds on this point.

My fear is that the Pentagon Flyover will be included in legal submissions whereby the Government will privately show 'classified' video of the strike in order to have the judge(s) dismiss the entire WTC case.



ps. I have been independently examining primary source witness testimony since 1993 when I read most of the Warren Commission report and noticed the variations in the accounts with some witnesses describing 3 shots, some describing 4 shots and others describing a 'flurry' of shots. FYI, I first woke up to 911 thanks to the physical evidence - when in early 2004 I saw the collapse of WTC7 for the first time. I also believed and promoted, for a while, the Pentagon Strike flash video via email. I might have also questioned the official Pentagon story on my blog from 2007, but I do not recall. I have spent most of my time trying to articulate the obvious evidence of Controlled Demolition at the WTC. I've lost count of the number of emails sent to various TV stations and newspapers referring to that part of the attack. - SW

WRH link showing a fast and slow pass manoeuvre of large passenger jet. The SLOW PASS shows that it can make tight turns so that a slightly northern route very near CITGO could be made, which accommodates almost all of the witness accounts leaving the discrepancy (Lagasse) likely a misremembering of what occurred, which does happen where you have multiple witness accounts:


Letter 2:

Mr Doc, I saw your message about the Pentagon attack, and because I don't really have time to get into a debate on the topic at the moment, and because I trust you as a researcher, I would just like to privately let you know some thoughts I had on the issue that might actually clear up a few things.

1. I don't know what exact aircraft hit the Pentagon, because details of the debris are withheld, but the evidence suggests IMO, the wreckage and witnesses, indicate it was a 757 or similar (explanation to follow).

2. According to most of the CIT witnesses the aircraft was flying relatively slowly which means:

A. the official FDR information is incorrect and cannot be trusted, and

B. the aircraft, even if flying over the navy annex and slightly north of the gas station, could have turned, using rudder and aileron control to line up and hit the light poles and hit in the correct angle to cause the observed damage. see this KEY video:


3. The CIT National Security Alert witness Roosevelt Roberts never actually describes a flyover. The poorly conducted interview, that is edited, provides what is likely directional information. 'Flying over the parking lot', or 'over light poles' could easily be the ground reference for the witness - as one would use objects on the immediate horizon to describe the position of the moon - ie the moon was rising over the trees. The range is not actually given here and the rest of his testimony has the same bent. His figures of speech are wrongly portrayed as an overflight characterisation.

4. The CIT witnesses are not interviewed well enough to establish the range of the aircraft. The ones situated to the North have a problem dealing with perspective, not knowing the relative size of the aircraft and its corresponding range. A common mistake is to underestimate the range for large aircraft especially when references to the ground are blocked (by trees) - hence the likely closer than reality map positions guessed by the witnesses.

The police witnesses Brooks and Lagasse at the gas station have testimony that give different positions for the aircraft.

Brooks, who is confused in the interview, and asked to pick between North or to the left, when facing the Pentagon (which is the same thing!), is given a map without a reference to the tree line he indicated the aircraft crossing. Lagasse, who years earlier, in correspondence with researchers, indicated the aircraft he saw impacted the Pentagon, says the flight was well north of his position, and misplaces other details of the day's events. Does Lagasse misremember what occurred? Has Brooks misrepresented what he saw when marking the map he was given? Both are possible. The interviewers did not rule out this error scenario because of their lack of follow-up questions. They did not clarify what was observed.

It's very likely, from the witness testimony, that there was a slightly north of CITGO approach, but that the aircraft turned, and then lined up on its pole hitting course into the Pentagon. Perspective is important. Witness Middleton's account is a good example of the perspective issue, because he places the aircraft way too far North - flying in the face of the other 'north of CITGO' witnesses who reported a different flight path.

5. The taxi driver's evasive response is likely because his wife (he tells the investigators this) told him that challenging the official story could get him in trouble and/or he is confused about what occurred due to trauma suffered on the day. He is not likely a plant to cover for pre-damaged light poles. The damage to his cab may have very well been due to the top part of the light pole, the arm, not the pole itself - but this was never determined by the interviewers. The interviewers claim that the taxi driver is not being truthful because they assume the main part of the light pole is what went through the taxi windscreen.

6. The lower floor of the Pentagon's outer three rings is open plan. Anything making it past the blast proof reinforced front wall, will slide along until it hits the far wall of those three inside rings. (visit 911 research for details). There are no multiple walls to breach here.

6.5 The lack of damage to the Pentagon wall from the wings and vertical stabiliser (something we saw at the WTC) are likely due to the relatively slow speed of the impact and the fact that the Pentagon wall being struck was designed to withstand bomb-blasts. There is a huge hole in the ground floor where the body of the aircraft and engines breached the walls.

7. There are pics of wreckage inside and out, but mostly inside, or against the front wall, showing an aircraft hit the building. I see gear, engines, and wiring, along with some skin from the limited pictures available. Most of the debris should be INSIDE, like the towers, where you won't see much of it.

8. There was likely an internal explosion that helped scatter debris and fudge the impact zone damage. People smelt cordite or similar.

9. I don't know about the bodies being IDed from the crash. DNA results can be fabricated and so can the FDR data - especially if Flight 77 was swapped out, or remote piloted, and the FDR data HAD to be manufactured.

10. There are no credible witnesses to the overflight - people who would have been witness to a VERY low flying 757 didn't report it!

11. In reaction to operational planning ... yes, they would have put explosives in the Pentagon, but not so their hijacked aircraft would do a planned flyover. The explosives, like the thermite and explosives in the basements of the WTC buildings, was there for their truck bomb contingency plan in the event all their aircraft were shot down. This is why we have reports of truck bombs at all locations on 911. The plan was to hit with aircraft - why go to the trouble of an overflight (and then use a bomb, with collected aircraft parts brought in separately) if you can just run into the target?

Anyway, that's my take. I'm picking the Flight 77 hit from your list - but I don't know exactly what flight 77 was, apart from a twin engine commercial 757(?) aircraft.

Please note I was unfriended by another fairly well known truther recently for engaging in an argument on the issue. I'm not prepared to argue any of this at the moment because I am too busy.

The most important thing is to watch the video of the low flying aircraft at the airshow and understand that it can turn fairly well to satisfy both a slightly north of CITGO approach and the light pole damage and front wall damage done to the Pentagon.

The aircraft was not travelling anywhere near as fast as the planes that hit the towers. When the vertical stabiliser hit it was likely turning and breaking up with the rest of the plane that, according to witness Lagasse, in a letter, was yawing into the wall, striking the starboard side.

Our big problem is the fact that the footage of the impact is being withheld. I personally stick to the WTC7 and Tower evidence, and the fact that NORAD Generals lied about their actions and capabilities. These guys and the NIST frauds could be brought up on misprision of treason and obstruction of justice charges immediately IMHO.


Letter 3:


At the moment I am too tired to look at the FB debate I am having with Adam Syed on Michael Cook’s wall but I am up late doing research. I thought you might like to know what I’ve found.

I have been researching their data – reviewing the video National Security Alert (and extended interviews of their witnesses) – going over their heavily edited ‘raw’ interviews.

 It’s illuminating. It looks like they have cooked and manipulated their interviews to get the extreme North Side route. Witnesses did make mistakes, and the guys Middleton, Stafford, Prather, Carter got the range wrong with their perspective. They must have because if their accounts are true then it contradicts a very good account of the aircraft position from Morin at the Navy annex, who could ONLY see it from a very narrow angle, plus this guy Edward Paik,  both of which have the plane less north than those other witnesses. (Paik is also interviewed independently of CIT who point out he was actually indoors when the plane flew over, and did not see it when he went out. He only saw a wing through the window.)

Furthermore the aircraft banking that Stafford, Prather, Carter saw would take the plane, that only looked to approach them, further south putting is closer to the official route. On such a heading, Morin, still at the Navy Annex, would certainly be able to see the tail as he describes.

CIT attempted to frame the Stafford, Prather, Carter  witness testimonies to emphasise the aircraft being closer to their position, further north, as the witnesses themselves thought.  Middleton, Stafford, Prather, Carter drew their paths on the map in very likely the wrong place.  With their views partly obscured by trees, and the fact that they were running, one of them within a vehicle, and not expert witnesses, while looking at a large plane, their close proximity estimates of the aircraft's range could easily be wrong.

Remember the debunking of the 'no planes at the WTC video' recently, the one where I included the pic of the battleship plane hole? Well, the solution to that WTC disappearing wing through the building was because the plane was actually further away than thought. In the case of the witnesses Middleton, Stafford, Prather, Carter mentioned, they were running also, and had no way to judge the relative size of the aircraft and determine the range. Very likely.       

The Citgo officers Brooks and Lagasse could easily be wrong. Witnesses can falsely remember what side things are on in reverse. I know (privately) of someone caught up in a 'terrorist incident', during the 90s, who just after the attack, remembered the whole scenario almost perfectly to the interviewing officers, with one difference. The person orientated the whole thing in the wrong direction by 90 degrees. I noted the Brooks original interview does not provide ranges and, 7 years later he tries to remember.

CIT makes an absurd statement too. Paraphrasing – ... because the witnesses were reinterviewed in the same locations as the Army Historical recordings “this eliminates the notion that their [present] accounts are inaccurate from faded memory due to the amount of time between the event and their recorded independent interviews a few(!) years later.”(which is really about 5 to 7 years later.)  JM, Your CIT debunking vids (which I never watched!) on memory come to mind here.

I am now listening to the Roosevelt Roberts clip, that CIT uses as unimpeachable testimony for the flyover. Guess what ? I have yet to see where Roosevelt says what the actual range of the aircraft was. In his original clip he says he came out of the South East loading dock. [This overlooks Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.] He looked up, but there is no description on the elevation, and saw a plane “around” the car park (“around” not “flying away” as CIT says- they putting words in his mouth as they assume it has to be a flyover aircraft), and then went back inside to get people out. Why didn’t Roberts use the term flying away? There is no mention of range!

I personally saw the moon above the golf course near here the other night, it was just over some trees. It all depends on how one is trying to articulate oneself. If the main feature of your horizon is a car park, then you will use that.

Plus the R.R. Airport is pretty close too. Aircraft in the sky in that direction would be over the southern part of the car park area.  

The new CIT interview with Roberts is edited in such a way that obfuscates range and other details. The telephone line is ridiculously bad with poor audio too – words are missing. In the new interview Roberts says he saw it above the parking lot – but there is no range again. And above the light poles – and no range again.  [Note, by not having a visual record of the interview, we do not know if the tape is edited or the questions posed with a leading question. Analysis of the audio might show the editing.] re: leading questions, The interviewer may have stated that “You sighted an aircraft in the direction over the parking lot? You saw it over the lot right?” Roberts does not specifically say that it is flying away from him and does not stop to observe the dramatic sight of something so low. He does not mention the sound either, which should have been loud since witnesses, including CIT, before the Pentagon was struck mention that the engines were revved up at the end.

At the airport, on the landing/approach area, low flying planes, especially 100- 50 feet away are not quiet, and are louder if they have their throttles forward for take off.

Roberts talks about the plane going around in a turn, like it missed its target, as in landing – he actually mentions landing zone. There is a '50 foot to a 100 foot' comment right after that point from Roberts that is ambiguous too ... and could mean 50 to 100 feet above the far off runway, or above the car park level. It’s blurted out oddly too. There is no distance range. I do not find any specific question that sorts out what he is talking about. It may be an edited comment. What is Roberts answering to? What sort of questions did he get?

Roberts, “like it missed the wrong target, back to the airport or something like that”

With such an important witness, and no on-camera interview, and answers that can clearly be misunderstood, or edited to be misunderstood, the testimony here must be severely doubted. Only one person sees this low flying plane at less than 100 feet?  What exactly is Roberts describing? The questions being put in the interview are very poorly put, and do not narrow down the observation.  

With knowledge of the Twin Towers attacks, and the pentagon explosion, it is no wonder that Roberts might have had thoughts of another aircraft looking for a target. Any plane flying low would inspire such ideas.  And Roberts didn’t immediately report this important VERY low flying commercial aircraft to anyone, which must have been seen and heard by many in the parking area. He give no warning about that plane and only mentions it when the Army Historical group interviewed him.

Doesn’t make any sense ... but an aircraft banking in the near distance does.   

Just about every CIT point of evidence, and their logic is faulty and/or is reconcilable.

Whether they are CIA dupes/ops (because Pacific Radio was promoting Baer’s Saudi 911 connection book) or attention seeking loons is up for grabs.

 I think the former is actually true.  If one is Zionist connected or one a pedo or something, or they have no morals, then they can do this. A young leading member of the black panthers died recently and he basically confessed, and was confirmed, that he was COINTELPRO from the very beginning. I think CIT is the same.

 You can forward these thoughts to Adam and Scootle if you’d like and anyone else.

 I’m gonna have to get back to that debate ... but not tonight ...  have too much to do. You now have my overview analysis. Your earlier ‘witnesses can be very mistaken’ approach to CIT features in the argument here. Esp. Re: Officers Brooks and Lagasse. There’s also the physical evidence argument against CIT that can be found in the recent Ryan Dawson vids I put up at Debunkers. Plus there are alternative witnesses too. CIT reaction to this are from bare faced assertions and the dogmatic view that 1. All their witnesses corroborate their version of events (and only their version of events?) and 2. that their testimony, as understood by CIT is infallible', ergo, everything else must be explained away (or is a fraud/fake).

My thing here, in this email, was to explain in what ways the CIT witnesses could be mistaken in their views, with some reference to CIT manipulations and editing issues (there is no CIT raw film!).

Be back tomorrow ....  

Ps. One could include examples of leading questions too - to show how these witnesses could be (further)  led astray:  “So the plane looked at 1st to be coming right at you ?” What were you thinking – that the aircraft was going to come right over the top of where you were?” “What were you thinking at that point, with it coming at you?” “Was it a large aircraft?” [spreading arms gestures] “How large were the wings in relation to the cars over there?” etc. [notice that I am asking the witness to speculate rather than report their observations.]  ..... anyway, I’m not saying they asked exactly those questions but something like that. If the witnesses embellish things themselves, exaggerating their ordeal, making convenient errors then that would be good for the CIT propaganda. 

Have a nice day ....



Letter to Bland:

Dan, I don't believe the official account of the Pentagon strike, but I think an aircraft did hit the building. I'll explain why I think this is true (after doing a lot of research - including a close examination of the CIT evidence), and if you disagree then I can't do much else. I am a real person too. I am not COINTELPRO, and would like to see an immediate Grand Jury investigation of those people we can immediately prosecute for crimes like lying before the 911 Commission, scientific fraud/treason by NIST, for authorising the illegal war on Iraq, for authorising torture, etc. A Grand Jury could immediately jail these people and get some to talk ... anyway, I will give you my 4 main reasons behind my view, and then let it be. I am trying to be respectful ...

The first thing to consider is that I don't believe the official account. I think that the aircraft did not fly straight and fast as the official story told us. CIT witnesses reported that the aircraft was slow and turned enough that they described the aircraft banking. This video of an airbus at an airshow shows how far an aeroplane can turn when low and slow. This is important to note when we look at the CIT witness statements: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26H-WzIe858.TAP Airbus A310 Low Pass Turn - Portugal Airshow 2007, Evora (Uncut HD Version)www.youtube.com..

Now the CIT doco tells us that the aircraft could not have flown north of the gas station and then turned so that it could hit light poles and slam into the Pentagon. From the above video, and the witness statements to a low flying aircraft, we can see that it can turn enough to do so. If you Google Maps of the Pentagon strike, seen from the air, and the likely routes mapped from the witnesses, the street damage is possible, provided the aircraft does not travel north of the Navy Annex. Witnesses put the aircraft flying near the middle or either end of the building (their own words, not the indicated yellow lines). http://rockcreekfreepress.com/Images/CIT%20pic%202B%20color450.jpg.rockcreekfreepress.comrockcreekfreepress.com..

If the aircraft travelled over the middle of the Annex, and turned, it could hit the light poles. The problem is that CIT and the witnesses mapped the flight as being close to their more northern location. One witness just outside the Navy annex, indicated the flight was further south, with the plane flying almost right over his head. This position on the yellow lined map shows a distinct kink so that it ends up going further north - not something that this witness described. This leaves us with the problem of the more northerly route. Some witnesses, the guy (name, Washington?) in the cleaning vehicle, thought the aircraft flew North of the Annex, which does not gel with the other accounts. So what is going on with the witnesses? The problem is perspective and the relative size of the aircraft. A friend has a phone app that tells you what commercial aircraft you are looking at and its route. When you guess the range, say 2-3 mile max, and then look to the phone, invariably you find out the real distance is double the estimated. It's understanding the relative size of the aircraft. It seems that the witnesses may have made this mistake. CIT does not do a good job, in any of the interviews, of nailing down the details from the witnesses.

If you listen to the one witness they say saw the plane fly over [The Pentagon], his description does not explicitly say so. It sounds like he is describing something in the distance. When he says flying over the light poles, he is using that as a reference, in all likelihood, for something further away. The airport is out in that direction. His term, "like it missed its target" is likewise a figure of speech. IMHO. The man is being interviewed on his phone while in his car and sounds a bit confused.

Also, CIT claims the Cab driver is part of the plot at some point. However, the guy already said that his wife, who works for the gov, warned him about going up against the official account. It looks like he is fudging after the fact to 'get out of trouble' with the feds and/or he is confused about his location. When CIT challenge his account of having the light pole run through his cab window, they do not determine what part of the pole went through and assume it was the post, as opposed to the extension. If it was the latter, his story makes sense.

In terms of physical damage to the Pentagon itself, 911 research covered that fairly well. The thing that is overlooked is the low speed of the aircraft. With less speed it will not punch a neat outline like what we saw in the Towers. There would be enough time, especially if it was yawing (as described by one of the two police officers) to have parts hit at non perpendicular angles. There is definitely aircraft debris there. Also, the bottom floor of the first 3 [Pentagon] rings is open plan. If something breached the first wall, nothing but pillars would be in the way, so it would go through and hit the other side - the C ring.

I also think a huge bomb was put in the Pentagon accounting offices. It could account for the odd direction of some of the pillars, and the reason why the CCTV footage held by the gov has been doctored or completely withheld.

That is my view. I can paste the three or more letters I have saved that more fully explains what I think - with specific reference to the witnesses appearing in the CIT video. The problem with the CIT investigation was the poor handling of the witnesses and their perspectives/recollection of what they saw. They did establish something valuable, that the aircraft flew slow, went over the navy annex, and turned before (I think) it hit, pancaking into the carpark and lower floor of the Pentagon.

I am not a troll and I want a Grand Jury. My Litmus test is the melted steel and freefall of WTC7 (plus nano thermite). I want arrests immediately, and the footage of the Pentagon strike released. I want to know what was recorded on all those CCTV cameras. If it shows a flyover, then I will look again at the witness and physical evidence. Peace.

Add Related Info:

(Ryan Dawson's A Plane Hit the Pentagon post (spookyweather/debunkers)
http://spookyweather.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/a-plane-hit-pentagon-on-911-countering.html) - material already included at the top of the post.
My thoughts about flight 77 are that the aircraft was flying at a speed less than 500mph based on the witness testimony aired in the CIT investigation. I will explain underneath. I suspect that the FDR data has been manufactured to hide details about the actual flight - which seems likely because too many witnesses contradict this plot, and I do not think they are all either lying, or radically mistaken.

If we discount the FDR, and work on the physical evidence and witness testimony, we can discover how these points of evidence support each other. Note: the NTSB lied through its teeth in the late 90s about the flightpath of TWA Flight 800, describing a physically impossible zoom climb for a 747 aircraft that allegedly lost its front section. It would have been unable to do anything other than stall and fall. So why should we trust the NTSB and the FDR now?
Anyway many of the CIT witnesses describe an aircraft flying directly over the Navy Annex and then banking before hitting the Pentagon. The second CIT witness, who was standing in the annex grounds, had to move from the side of the building to watch the aeroplane. He described the flight as fairly slow. Certainly his actual description of what he saw indicates this to be the case.
If the aircraft is substantially slower than 500mph, it can change direction quite radically within a short distance. If you have seen videos of large airliners performing at airshows you can clearly see my point.
For the group of witnesses to the north of the gas station, at the cemetery, they indicated that the aircraft seemed to be headed straight at them, such that it caused a panic. The also say that the aircraft banked and then went past them. The primary question is - what was the range at the time of the flyby?
One separate witness, driving a maintenance vehicle, thought the flight actually flew North of the Navy Annex (not over it) .. contradicting the others at the cemetery. So what is the explanation for this difference ? Experience shows that most people have trouble judging the distance of an aircraft relative to the ground because they cannot easily judge the aircraft's relative size. This is especially true if foreground objects block reference points in the distance. Most of the time people will associate the range with closer ground objects, or simply guess that it is closer than actual. There is a phone app that maps flight paths, and when my friends guess the distance they usually judge it to be much closer than actual.
So, with this in mind, when the witnesses are given a map, they will mark the range as closer than actual. CIT never adequately determined the range of the aircraft in their interview process, and did not account for the witness discrepancies.
Furthermore, there are no witnesses to a flyover. Roosevelt Roberts, the alleged flyover witness. (I hope I am remembering the name correctly), in a phone interview conducted while he was in his car(!), talked about the aircraft flying over the lamp poles in the parking lot. Once again there is no range qualification. I see aircaft flying over the trees near where I live, but they are in the distance. It's a figure of speech. The moon rises over these same trees, but it is not over the trees ...
Likewise, the witness talks about the aircraft turning, like it missed its target ... another figure of speech. CIT should have simply asked if the aircraft was far away or close. Then, you can narrow down how close, or how far away - where you talk about the relative size of the aircraft. And where were all the other witnesses to the flyover?
Other aspects of the CIT investigation are troublesome, especially in regard to their claim the lamp poles (physical evidence) were precut to fabricate a flight path debris route. They say that the cab driver, whose car had part of an overturned lamp pole sticking through the windshield, was lying. CIT claimed that a huge lamp pole would have caused more damage to the car than was seen. Accepted. However, they never determined what part of the pole was sicking into the car. The poles have an arm - which is much lighter. It is possible this part was sticking into the car. We don't know because this was never clearly determined. And consider that the cab driver's wife had discouraged him from going against the gov. The man would therefore be evasive about everything on camera, he might also misremember things (like his actual location). Even though witnesses can provide good details about dramatic events, but they can also make spacial errors quite easily.
What we have left is the physical evidence of aircraft debris and damage - which is noted in photographs- in addition to the light poles already mentioned.
My understanding, from all these points of evidence, is that the aircraft flew over the Navy Annex heading towards the witnesses at the cemetery, at much less than 500mph, perhaps nearer 300mph or slower, and that it banked, and sideslipped before leveling into the path of the street lamps, before either ploughing into the side of the Pentagon or 'pancaking' slightly into the carpark as it nosed into the Pentagon wall. One of the police officers at the gas station thought the the aircraft was yawing, hitting on the starboard side, when it hit. (This is the same officer that placed the path of the aircraft north of the Navy Annex, and seems to be the one witness whose recollections do not gel very well with the others. Problematic testimony.)
Even if the aircraft hit at 300mph or less the airframe, except the undercarriage and engines, when it hit the reenforced wall, would be smashed. In this slower speed scenario, it might be possible for the tail section not to hit perpendicular to the wall, so there would be no neat outline, such as we saw for the WTC. Testing would help resolve such a question.
And what about the damage caused by the reported explosives that went off after/with the impact? If the testimony of some witnesses at the Pentagon is taken into account, then perhaps a secondary explosion helped shred larger parts of the aircraft (if there were any larger parts of aluminium remaining), and did these explosions push building columns at odd angles.
Also, the ground floor of the A-C rings is open plan. There are no series of walls to obstruct heavy parts of the aircraft, only pillars. You would expect undercarriage and engines to fly forward until either hitting a pillar, or hitting the C ring back wall.
Yes, I do think a large bomb was placed in the accounting offices to finish the job - same SOP as the WTC - which is perhaps why CCTV camera footage has been withheld. All we have are the current set of frames that we know have been doctored(!!).
I certainly do not trust the claims made by the Government as to what particular aircraft was used, apart from a 757 (from looking at the debris images). I still want to see the CCTV film.
I also want a grand jury investigation immediately such that people like Cheney and Bush and General Myers and John Gross and others are arrested for lying under oath, obstructing justice, launching illegal wars, authorising torture etc. We already have enough evidence to make arrests, and bring people in for questioning, rather than bicker about the Pentagon. For me the solid evidence is always to be found with at the WTC crime scene.
If people want to fight one another over the Pentagon, then they are wasting time. We can leave this part of the case open. (Like a coroner's open finding.) We already have concrete evidence for prosecution. Thanks for getting this far if you are still reading. Anyone can work out the stuff I just roughly outlined if they take their time to carefully consider the data being presented.
Pentagon Must be solved? NO, solving the whole case is unnecessary and illogical. We can already convict with hard evidence. Anyone saying we must solve the Pentagon is acting irrational.

Reply to last comment: (aircraft can fly fast at low speed (Adam Taylor)

but I was not assuming that the official story of a fast approach is necessarily correct (although it is still a possibility). I considered that the CIT witnesses did make a number of valid slower approach observations that supported one another (despite these witnesses being poorly handled by the interviewers), and that the FDR is likely fabricated. Either all the witnesses are radically in error, or the FDR is in error. I tend to distrust what was officially released. In my last comment I was extensively referencing the main CIT video they released, their extended interview vids, and official interviews with the same witnesses.

In looking into the CIT interviews, I was interested in what the witnesses actually said, or did not say, and the problematic nature of this testimony, including their perspectives. CIT only fixated on one hypothesis, and directed their questions, and framing of the interviews, towards that angle, rather than being mindful of the problems of the witness perspective and the physical evidence that included aircraft wreckage inside the Pentagon, and in the surrounds.

If the aircraft flies slower than officially stated, it can fly over the Navy annex, turn, hit light poles and hit the wall of the Pentagon. The problem with CIT is that they seemed fixated on a flight path very far north of the gas station, whereas the raw information given by the witnesses doesn't necessarily confirm such a dramatically northern route.

I recommend people look to You Tube videos of large aircraft turning relatively sharply at low level. Once people understand what is possible, then the 'puzzle' makes sense. Here is an example. The first pass is a fast one, the second is a slow turning flyby not more than tens of feet off the ground:


1. Don't assume FDR info is accurate. It clearly does not match eyewitness accounts.

I am still thinking about a Pentagon post that explains that there was no flyover, but a slowly moving aircraft (observed by the witnesses), that turned, likely tracking more north than officially admitted, and then hit the wall. I think Wolsey opted for that option when he got involved in that debate a long time ago. I have an airshow video of an airliner travelling slow and low (and turning) and also fast and low. That explanation fits the best - slow and turning. The CIT people confabulated a flyover from one witness, Roberts, who did not actually describe that action, and they speculated wildly on the cab driver’s evasive/confused story (the guy admitted he did not want to publicly help them vs the feds), and then CIT failed to ask clarifying questions of that witness (like what section of the pole went through his window, the upper part was lighter and had detached) . They poorly handled, or ignored the physical evidence. They poorly handled the witnesses and failed to clarify what they had described. They asked leading questions rather than sensible follow up questions.

There was no flyover, but a slowly moving aircraft (observed by the witnesses), that turned, likely tracking more north than officially admitted, and then hit the wall. I have an airshow video of an airliner travelling slow and low and turning within a short distance. That explanation fits the best - slow and turning.


TTR Episode 24: JM Talboo Interviews Physics Teacher David Chandler on the Upcoming 'Conference on the 9/11 Pentagon Evidence'