Richard Gage’s Asterisk

Richard Gage’s Asterisk
by Michael Wolsey
www.visibility911.com

March 29, 2011

Anyone who knows Richard Gage, AIA very well or has worked with him, knows that Richard insists that when you cite his name anywhere, whether in voice or print, that you include his title AIA, which stands for American Institute of Architects. I assume it’s much like a Dr. following his name with the letters PhD and is obviously important to Richard for whatever reasons. Those of us who know, always include the AIA tag when formally referring to Richard. We know that if we do not, Richard will be quick to correct us!

Unfortunately, Richard now has another inclusion in his title; an Asterisk.

In early 2009, I learned that Richard Gage, AIA and founder of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth had given a written endorsement of a new documentary about the September 11^th Pentagon attack titled National Security Alert. This film was being aggressively promoted by two people, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis who call themselves the Citizen Investigation Team or CIT. Craig and Aldo were apparently seeking written or verbal endorsements of their film from high profile members of the 9-11 Truth Movement.[1] At some point, they had approached Richard and he agreed to give them a statement. Richard’s written endorsement reads as follows:

"The exhaustive effort by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of Citizen Investigation Team to contact, record, document, and analyze numerous first-hand eyewitness accounts of the actual flight path of the airliner at the Pentagon on 9/11 has been long overdue, but worth waiting for. The evidence they have uncovered and compiled in their DVD "National Security Alert" deserves serious attention - particularly in light of what we now know about the explosive destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises that day."

Prior to Richard’s endorsement of CIT, I knew about Craig and Aldo and their kooky theory that speculates that Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon. I confess that I didn’t really pay that much attention to them. I consider CIT’s work to be counter to the truth and believe that unsubstantiated claims of truth based on dishonest research and methods and speculation actually hurts our efforts at achieving a new 9-11 investigation. It was also a highly held belief that in most cases, it’s best as a movement to ignore disruptions such as these, which is what I did with CIT.

With much fanfare, CIT boasted their high profile endorsers to as much of the movement as would listen and used these peoples’ names as an appeal to authority [2] to further promote their film. I saw this behavior as extremely dishonest and was very disappointed in Richard and the others. [3] I considered this a tipping point and a place where 9-11 activists could no longer ignore CIT. Since then, we have published several podcasts as well as articles on the topic at visibility911.com. [4]

In response, I personally contacted Richard and some of the other endorsers with polite, yet firm emails asking them if they knew the whole story behind CIT. I urged them to look further into Aldo and Craig if they had not done so in the beginning, and reconsider their endorsements of what I considered to be the worst disinformation in the 9-11 movement history. I also had a chance to sit down with Richard face to face when he was in Denver in August of 2009.

My biggest concern was that Richard’s endorsement of CIT was helping CIT’s credibility and hurting his own. It is my opinion that there is very strong evidence to support the Controlled Demolition hypotheses at the World Trade Center on 9-11. Richard and his organization AE911T had gained much credibility over the years in this area. I did not want to see this hard work discredited by association with CIT and I saw this as a real possibility. I informed Richard of my concerns, as well as why I believe what I do. I was certainly not alone in my critique of CIT and I know Richard was hearing from many others on this topic. After spending over an hour and a half talking on this, Richard admitted to me privately that he had probably made a mistake with regards to CIT but still failed to fully retract his endorsement.

In December 2009, Richard issued a “clarification” of his CIT statement, and in February of 2011, after educating himself about who Craig and Aldo really are, issued his “complete withdrawal of support” for CIT and their film.

Personally I welcomed this withdrawal of support by Richard, although I wished he hadn’t given them the statement in the first place. I argued for a long time that the damage had been done, and that even if Richard took back his support from CIT, that they would never remove his name or words from their website. This was even a prediction I made privately after Richard issued the withdrawal; repeat, that CIT will NEVER remove his name or endorsement from their website.

Since then, I have from time to time checked back to the “Praise for Citizen Investigation Team” webpage to verify my prediction. It is no great surprise to me, nor should it be to anyone familiar with CIT’s methods, that Richard’s endorsement continues to be posted at the CIT website along with the others. The only difference now is that Richard’s words are now followed by a big red Asterisk which is actually a link to another page at the website which contains a long and wordy response by CIT to Richard’s withdrawal of support. The link is neither prominent or easy to see. It is linked only to the Asterisk itself and unless you are looking for it, you won’t see it.

The reasons that CIT will never remove Richard’s statements are not hard to understand. It’s not because of pride or ego or anything like that. The main reason, and one of the main goals of disinformation is to discredit good information with bad . Since Richard and AE911 promote solid information, one way to undermine them is to discredit them. When Richard, and all the other endorsers gave their names to CIT, they all in one way or another discredited themselves by associating good information with bad; some have called it the “turd in the punchbowl”. The endorsements provide a strong tie between the good and the bad and these ties will never be broken; they are actually the goal.

Dishonest? Heck yea, but what else is new with CIT.

Endnotes:

[1] It should be noted here that in my experience in the movement which goes back to 2003, I have never known any film about 9-11 to seek or even need endorsements. The movement has at times been hungry for tools to use on their friends and new video’s about the 9-11 attacks are no exception. The success or failure of a film was based on the films’ own merits.

[2] Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

[3] This list includes David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Aidan Monaghan, Barrie Zwicker, Sander Hicks, Kevin Barrett, Peter Dale Scott, and Ed Asner.

[4] It is not my intention in this essay to discuss the relative dangers in disinformation/ misinformation as it relates to CIT. This topic has been extensively covered on our podcast and at my blog.

The CIT Virus

By: ScootleRoyale and John-Michael P. Talboo

"The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth - persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
~ John F. Kennedy

Browsing the Screw Loose Change blog earlier we were somewhat alarmed to learn that David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage are endorsing the work of the Citizen Investigation Team. A post on 911Blogger includes their endorsements:

“This new film by CIT is far more professionally produced than their previous efforts. It is also more convincing, given the addition of more witnesses, so that they now have a total of 13 witnesses reporting that the actual flight path of the plane that approached the Pentagon was drastically different from the official flight path (which would have been needed if the plane was to knock over the felled light poles and to strike the Pentagon at the designated spot and angle). This part of the film's thesis is now established beyond a reasonable doubt. The film does not establish its related claim---that the airliner pulled up and flew over the Pentagon---as clearly, but it does make a good case for it. One of the film's most valuable parts is a scene in which cab driver Lloyde England, who otherwise gamely tried to maintain the truth of his testimony supporting the official story, admitted that the Pentagon operation had been planned by powerful people with lots of money. I am pleased to be able to recommend this important film with enthusiasm."

~ David Ray Griffin, Author of The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé

"The exhaustive effort by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of Citizen Investigation Team to contact, record, document, and analyze numerous first-hand eyewitness accounts of the actual flight path of the airliner at the Pentagon on 9/11 has been long overdue, but worth waiting for. The evidence they have uncovered and compiled in their DVD "National Security Alert" deserves serious attention - particularly in light of what we now know about the explosive destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises that day."
~ Richard Gage, AIA, Architect, Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Now we weren't so much surprised by David Ray Griffin, he has after all been making a case for Pentagon no-plane theories for years, but Richard Gage, like many other researchers, has always remained neutral when it comes to the Pentagon so it was very surprising to learn he was endorsing them.

In all fairness however, we admit that years ago, we too were convinced by the Pentagon no-jetliner claims, and even 9/11 researcher and Pentagon no-jetliner claim debunker Jim Hoffman admits the same, while also pointing out these ideas have "tremendous intuitive appeal." The apparent lack of large plane debris would seem to support such theories, and again Hoffman points out that this is "reasonable given the fact that other jetliner crashes have left large pieces." Not to mention the fact that ideas such as these have been popularized in many films, such as the earlier versions of Loose Change. However, when one learns that the plane that hit the Pentagon was traveling at 500 mph, and in the words of Loose Change film maker Dylan Avery, crashed into the "only section that was renovated to withstand that very same kind of attack," a different picture emerges. The renovations included exterior walls reinforced with steel, exterior walls backed with Kevlar, and nearly two inch thick blast-resistant windows.

In the video below the narrator informs us that "the US government wanted to test what would happen if a plane crashed into the concrete walls of a nuclear power station." As we see the jet take off towards the wall in the video we are informed that it is traveling at 500 mph, watch and see the results...

As the narrator stated, "the plane disappeared into dust!" In light of these facts the physical evidence becomes far less puzzling and in fact becomes clear as being consistent with a jetliner crash.

In a previous post it was argued that CIT & Pilots for 9/11 Truth are promoting disinformation and after a long debate on the Prison Planet forum it is clear that some uninformed judgments were made, and arguments put forward that they had already countered. However, we are now even more convinced that they are disinformation artists.

In an article by H. Michael Sweeny entitled "Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation", the author outlines 25 techniques used by promoters of disinfo. The article is essential reading for anyone genuinely interested in the truth. Some of the most notable are:

"4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively."

The author also outlines 8 common traits of disinformationists. The two most interesting are:

"3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength."

To anyone who has ever debated a "debunker" or no-planer, these traits and techniques will seem very familiar. We have noticed that supporters of CIT's work seem to exhibit the two traits highlighted and use some of the above techniques. During the Prison Planet forum debate, four new users coincidentally signed up to post exclusively to that thread. They worked as a team and complimented each other. They ignored testimony of first responders, photographs and video of the heavily damaged Pentagon interior and people who actually SAW the plane hit the building. They instead focused on weaker arguments, attacked peoples characters, and questioned motives. Some even went as far as to accuse Scootle of being an undercover debunker!

Even Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog, who is famous for his ad-hominem laden commentary, recently pointed out that CIT supporters claim to be just arguing the "evidence," but "throw around ad hominems like frisbees."

What was especially worrying though is that until the moderators showed up Scootle was pretty much on his own. Virtually all of the participants in the thread sided with the CIT trolls...

"Hey, Scootle, just F**K OFF ALREADY - I've been very patient with you, but that's it. F**K YOU AND YOUR IDIOCY. You're EXACTLY like those billions of sheeple who refuse to WAKE UP. You deserve your New World Order. I'm sorry it's come to this but you're a twat."
~ Mike Philbin

This is the frustrating beauty of the Pentagon no-plane theories - unlike the World Trade Center no-plane theories they are worryingly convincing. In rule 20 above we highlighted the sentence "This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications." This is because we believe the Pentagon attack was specifically designed with this very purpose in mind - to muddy the waters and promote pointless debates amongst researchers.

The Pentagon attack is shrouded in mystery: there is no clear video of the attack, witness accounts are so varied and conflicting and photographs are inconclusive - and that's the way it was designed! The whole thing is a psy-op to trap researchers.

CIT have 13 witnesses who all recollect a different flight path from the official story. To counter claims of fuzzy memory, CIT will argue that because they correlate with each other it proves they are all correct because they couldn't all be mistaken the same way. If they were the only 13 witnesses then we would agree. But they weren't the only 13 - they were 13 out of more than 100. When you have that many witnesses you are bound to have some correlation of incorrect recollections. That being said, the preponderance of reports supports a plane hitting the pentagon. This fact is not lost on debunkers, the government, or the media; always eager for easy ammunition against the 9/11 truth movement. Ludicrous objections of witness fraud and witness contamination are commonly used to explain away this overwhelming body of eyewitness testimony.

Ockham's razor dictates that indeed a Boeing 757 did hit the Pentagon, but who needs simple logic when by cherry picking witness statements and photographs we could probably build a strong case for a theory that a flying saucer hit the Pentagon if we wanted to.

We might start with the photograph showing a "small, round hole" and the video footage of UFOs over Washington in 1952, then pick out witness quotes that mention hearing strange sounds (or no sounds) while ignoring all the people who saw a commercial airliner, then interpret the "It is not a part from any Rolls-Royce engine that I'm familiar with" quote to mean it is a part only people at Area 51 would be familiar with and claim this photo is of officials removing the advanced alien technology from the scene and finally analyse the photos of burnt human remains, picking out every small anomoly and insensitively claim that they are actually alien remains.

There are witnesses who saw the plane come in from the south side, such as the four "operatives" CIT interviewed, there are witnesses who actually saw the plane hit the building such as Penny Elgas, who is also an operative according to CIT...

"Penny Elgas has a significant position in government and a very high profile highly publicized account so should be instantly considered suspect."
~ Craig Ranke CIT

...And Steve Anderson, who was in the perfect position in relation to the Pentagon to actually see a flyover, but didn't!



If CIT would actually interview someone from the Arlington Fire Department who was in there fighting the fires then maybe we'll start taking notice of them. But there's no need, it's already been done. For the book "Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11," the authors interviewed more than 100 Pentagon first responders...

"They walked closer. At the mouth of the third hole they saw a piece of a wheel and countless shards of wreckage. Some of them looked like pieces of seats." ~ Firefight, Page 149.

"For the first time, Regan's team saw something they had expected to see all along but had been scarce until then: recognizable airplane parts. They all thought they would find big pieces of the airliner laying everywhere, the way car parts end up strewn across a highway after a crash. But the physics of an airplane crash were obviously different: Mostly there was just tons of shredded metal and melted plastic.

Finally, they found several airplane seats, piled among the usual mounds of upturned office furniture and random wreckage. A couple of the seats still had bodies belted into them, which had already been found and marked for the FBI. Most of the workers inside were conscientious about not gawking, yet the seats attracted a lot of attention. They were the first objects the nonaviation experts had seen that unmistakably belonged to an airplane." ~ Firefight, Page 373.

"The airplane had nearly disintegrated, but Dan Fitch's group found several huge cogs, bent and blackened, that weighed a couple hundred pounds each; it took a couple of workers to handle each one. Other objects nearby looked like large gears, and strips of metal that appeared to be fan blades. Workers realized that they were pulling apart the remnants of one of the aircraft's two engines. The aluminum cowling that had encased it all had been torn away, but the guts of the engine were there.

FEMA crews used a blowtorch to free the core of the motor from the column in which it was embedded. Then Fitch and several others used pieces of six-by-six to pry the motor loose from the column and push it off the pile. With the help of some Old Guard troops, they rolled the heavy piece of machinery onto a dolly and finally managed to push it outside. The whole effort took the better part of an entire shift." ~ Firefight, Page 425.

"As crews dug deeper, unmistakable remnants of a passenger plane were everywhere. Wallets, shoes, jewelry, and the everyday items that had been stuffed into dozens of suitcases were littered throughout the debris." ~ Firefight, Page 426.

Tell those people a commercial airliner didn't hit the Pentagon!

Now that we have addressed the eyewitnesses, the physical evidence, and the different scenarios in which the propaganda machine may be at work, what are we left with? We are left with CIT's sister organization Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and their study of the Flight 77 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report. First off, let's look at Pilots for 9/11 Truth; from the Debunking the Debunkers blog "CIT Stuff Is Disinfo - Wake Up!":

"A number of Pilots for 9/11 Truth's members promote World Trade Center no-plane theories - arguing that the speeds at which the planes were travelling were aerodynamically impossible at the altitudes they were flying at. Rob Balsamo, the head of the group, has defended these people's opinions, saying they are qualified to have them. This was all debunked recently using a simulator. This fact alone is enough to raise serious questions about the credibility of Pilots for 9/11 Truth."

Now, what do they gather from their study of the NTSB report? Here it is in a nutshell from their founder Rob Balsamo:

"The flght data recorder raw file that we have just decoded ... it's still showing too high for the Pentagon. ... It shows the radar altimeter at 273 feet. That means 273 feet above the ground. OK? The Pentagon only gets up to 77 feet."

In essence, they believe it supports the flyover theory, which we have demonstrated is not supported by the preponderance of eyewitness testimony, or the physical evidence. Might the propaganda machine be at work here also? Well, the NTSB report does come from the government after all. Even their own press release on the matter was headlined "OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11 FLIGHT CONTRADICTED BY GOVERNMENT’S OWN DATA."

As one commenter pointed asked:

"Designed to confuse us?

I think we should be careful with any evidence that the government supplies. The 'five frames' and the black box data come from the government. Both were in the hands of the government for weeks and months before release to the public.

Do people here agree that this alone renders those two sources of evidence suspect? That's how I view it. Why base theories on such suspect evidence? To me it looks as though these two pieces of evidence, which contradict each other, are meant to confuse."

The largest problem in this whole ordeal is not the fact that Pilots for 9/11 Truth raise these issues, without any such commentary of their own, but that they almost exclusively focus on such issues, while much more concrete facts pointing towards complicity, of which pilots would have keen insight, are almost totally glossed over.

Another glossed over issue is an inherent contradiction in the Pilots for 9/11 Truth premise recently brought to our attention by Michael Wolsey of the website Visibility911.com, who states:

"You can't contend that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon and then use the flight data recorder that was found in the pentagon to bolster your argument that it didn't hit!"

All that being said, it's important to note that there is other research indicating that the flight data recorder of Flight 77 actually supports the official flight path, and that instead, the animation is wrong!

The Pentagon no-plane theories have taken on near religious preportions. It's as if believing a plane didn't hit the Pentagon somehow comforts people. On 9/11, planes crashed! That's what 9/11 was all about, planes crashing! We're interested in finding out who crashed the planes - not whether or not they did. The CIT/Pilots for 9/11 Truth theory is the only 9/11 theory that we actually laugh at...

"Yeh thats right ... We crashed two planes into two skyscrapers... And completely demolished those towers killing thousands ... And we ALMOST crashed a third plane into the Pentagon ... Except we didn't! ... What we actually did was fly the plane low enough above the Pentagon to make it look like it hit and high enough above the building to not be caught on the Doubletree Hotel security camera... then we landed the plane, killed all the passengers and crew and disposed of the plane... We hired operatives to plant some light poles and stage the scene with the taxi to make it seem like the plane came in from a different direction ... just for fun! ... Some operatives also posed as fake witnesses... they all used their real names and were friendly to independent investigators to make it seem like they had nothing to hide... the best part was ... we didn't have to pay them! ... they just wanted to be involved in a mass murder plot ... Finally, we bribed the forensic officials and first responders to say they found and identified the burnt bodies of all of the passengers at the scene..."



"... And we would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling CIT kids!"

Related Info:

A Clarification on Disinfo

CIT and Eyewitness Testimony

The CIT Faithful

Your eyes do not deceive you! :)

Pat Curley
ScrewLooseChange.blogspot.com
Tuesday, July 21, 2009

The CIT faithful continue to do battle with the Truth Action folks. What I am constantly amazed at is the ability for Stefan, the CIT groupie, to rationalize the flyover theory. Consider this:

"The first thing I’d like to address is this notion that witnesses are more likely to get the flight path of the plane wrong than whether the plane hit the building.

It does not sound very likely to me, and I’m sure to a lot of people. The part of the experience from seeing the plane until the impact was in some cases 10-15 seconds. The point of “impact” was an instance. When virtually their entire eye witness experience involved watching a plane fly through the air, and just a split second of it involved a frightening and traumatic instant, I personally have no qualms whatsoever with saying the complete opposite is the case."

No, of course he has no qualms about that; without that leap of faith the CIT scenario crashes and burns.

"Arcterus said the North side approach is wrong, meaning he agrees that all the witnesses were wrong about a simple left right judgement, and that they were all wrong in such a way as to corroborate each other, and that they were all so stupid they rejected the correct flight path even when prompted with it."

Again, the supposed "fact" that all the witnesses agreed about the North Side approach and "corroborate" each other is actually a strong indication that CIT is not showing all their witnesses. Just on the basis of the odds, one or two of the witnesses should have gotten it "wrong"; the fact that they did not is a strong indication that CIT is playing games with their witnesses.

"1) Logically, there is no damage to the Pentagon that could be ascribed to a Boeing hitting from the NoC flight path. I know you have said there is, but come on mate, please. I realise that the notion that a plane from the SoC path could just could in a million to one shot cause that damage, is acceptable. It is not what you would expect and we all know that."

Is he seriously claiming that there's only a one-in-a-million chance that a SoC approach would cause that damage? Or is he suggesting that there's only a 1,000,000-1 chance that it was an SoC approach?

"2) There is no conceivable logical reason for faking one set of flight path damage, planting light poles and so on and then driving the plane into the Pentagon anyway."

He's right, you know. If we assume that the light pole evidence was faked, then it makes no sense to fly the plane into the Pentagon. And how does he know that the light pole evidence was faked? Because the plane didn't fly into the Pentagon. It's circular logic.

I also love that he claims to be just arguing this "evidence", but throws around ad hominems like frisbees:

"Arabesque is rapidly becoming a comedy show."

"Mistakenly thinking Arabesque was more honest than in fact he was...."

Related Info:

The CIT Virus

CIT Stuff Is Disinfo - Wake Up!

I recently watched CIT's new movie on YouTube. It's basically just a two hour long compilation of the full length interviews on their website, which I had seen before, with some Pilots for 9/11 Truth stuff thrown in. People on the PrisonPlanet forum have been saying its one of the best 9/11 movies ever, as it conclusively proves the official story of what happened at the Pentagon is a fraud.

Now I'm not denying the interview with Lloyd at the end is weird. I saw the full length version of their interview with him on Google a few months ago and something certainly is up there but this whole north side approach stuff has been debunked over and over by Jim Hoffman, Arabesque911Truth and even Dylan Avery. And 9/11 Blogger doesn't want anything to do with CIT's stuff.

First off, let's look at Pilots for 9/11 Truth. A number of its members promote World Trade Center no-plane theories - arguing that the speeds at which the planes were travelling were aerodynamically impossible at the altitudes they were flying at. Rob Balsamo, the head of the group, has defended these people's opinions, saying they are qualified to have them. This was all debunked recently using a simulator. This fact alone is enough to raise serious questions about the credibility of Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

People have questioned what happened at the Pentagon since day one, primarily due to the lack of video evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon. A number of theories have been put forward ranging from missile theories, to 737 theories, to Tomahawk theories. All of these theories ignore the testimony of numerous eye witnesses who specifically say they saw an American Airlines Boeing 757.

So then a new theory was put forward by researcher Richard Eastman to account for this. This theory, known as the "flyover theory" or the "two-plane theory", argues that a Boeing 757, probably Flight 77, flew towards the Pentagon, but then pulled up and flew over at the exact same time as something else crashed into it.

The Citizen Investigation Team have given this theory new life by "proving" that the plane approached from the NORTH side of the CITGO gas station, as opposed to the official SOUTH side approach using the testimony of 13 eyewitnesses from strategic vantage points. Since whatever hit the Pentagon had to have come in from the south side in order to make the C-Ring hole. Then the plane had to have flown over, if it came in from the north. They assert that the witnesses stories have not changed since they were interviewed by officials a few months after the event and therefore their recollections cannot be due to faded memory. Of these 13 witnesses, all give a different flight path, some estimate drastically lower speeds and none actually saw the plane hit the building.

The problem with basing an investigation solely on eyewitness testimony is that the stories given by eyewitnesses on the day were so different. Some people saw a helicopter! That doesn't mean a helicopter hit! The team makes the opinions of these 13 people out to be the majority and claim that there is no evidence of eyewitness testimony confirming a flight path south of the CITGO gas station. This simply isn't true. They obviously ignore the work of Eric Bart who has compiled an extensive collection of eyewitness accounts - which can be viewed here and here. Here's some quotes CIT don't want you to see:

Eyewitnesses who confirm the official south side approach


"As we were driving into town on 395, there was an exit. We were trying to get off of the exit for the Memorial Bridge. On the left-hand side, there was a commercial plane coming in, and was coming in too fast and the[n?] too low, and the next thing we saw was [it?] go-down below the side of the road… coming down towards the side of the—of 395. And when it came down, it just missed 395 and went down below us”
- "Barbara"

"I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395… we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon."
- Gary Bauer

“The jet came in from the south.”
- Mickey Bell

“I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike."
- Tim Timmerman

“The plane took a flight path straight up 395.”
- Michael Tinyk

“I saw a jumbo tail go by me along Route 395. It was like the rear end of the fuselage was riding on 395. I just saw the tail go whoosh right past me.”
- Dave Winslow

“I watched it come in very low over the trees and it just dipped down and came down right over 395 right into the Pentagon.”
- Don Wright

Eyewitnesses who SAW the plane hit the Pentagon

It "flew above a nearby hotel and drop its landing gear. The plane's right wheel struck a light pole, causing it to fly at a 45-degree angle"
"The right engine hit high, the left engine hit low. For a brief moment, you could see the body of the plane sticking out from the side of the building. Then a ball of fire came from behind it."
- Noel Sepulveda

"At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building."
- Penny Elgas

"Jet Fuel"

"The first thing you smell is the burning. And then you can smell the aviation fuel. And then you can smell this sickly, rotten-meat smell"
- Mark Kirk

"Once they stabilized Brian, they transferred him to George Washington Hospital where...the best, cutting edge burn doctor in the U.S. The doctor told him that had he not gone to Georgetown first, he probably would not have survived because of the jet fuel in his lungs(!)"

Even the CITGO video debunks the northern approach theories. The plane's shadow was caught briefly on a camera looking out the south side of the building. But that video was probably edited wasn't it?! They had already crashed two Boeing aircraft but they wouldn't crash a third into a section of the Pentagon reinforced to survive a jet impact now would they?! No, instead they flew the plane over the Pentagon, and at the same time launched a perfectly timed missile strike at it and used explosives to blow light poles out of the ground while agents planted pieces of plane debris on the lawn! Then they went through all the extra trouble of disposing of the passengers, repainting/disposing of the plane, faking photos of plane debris inside the impact hole and photographs of burnt passengers from Flight 77 and bribing all the witnesses who saw the plane hit the building, the forensic officials who positively identified all the passengers and all the firefighters who go into graphic detail in a book about how they picked up bits of burnt children! Honestly, and people wonder why we're called crazy!

I'll end on a quote from Prison Planet forum moderator jimd3100 posted on May 07, 2009, 11:47:04 PM

"In case you haven't figured this out. Recently Alex Jones was accused of being a racist due to comments made on the unmoderated infowars boards. Recently Alex Jones was associated with a nut that killed cops because he made comments on a AJ message board. (nevermind the fact that the comments were against AJ) Recently youtube eliminated an infowars account because they showed AJ defending himself(he showed the newspaper trying to smear him) meanwhile youtube has no problem hosting a video by "truthers" claiming the old cab driver nearly killed on 9/11 by a lightpole KNOCKED OVER BY A PASSENGER JET as it slammed into the pentagon, is actually an undercover mass murdering operative. Can you see what's coming down the pipe? I'll spell it out for you.....

Before the USS Cole was hit they tried hitting another ship....before the WTC were blown to kingdom come they bombed it. Guess what's coming down the pipe?

I'm one of the least "conspiracy" minded people on here IMO, and even I can see this one. Q: DO you believe that if the "powers that be" have a golden opportunity to not only give a devastating blow to Alex Jones, but the entire truth movement and Daniel Sanjata and Dylan Avery all at the same time that they wouldn't do it? Ans: It doesn't matter. We'd be idiots to sit here and let ourselves be put in that situation.
Here's a headline from the future that you are not going to see as long as I am moderating here......

Dateline Sept 22 2009
Arlington Loyd England the cab driver nearly killed on 9/11 was murdered today by a "9/11 conspiracy theorist". Mr Noplane Idiot was arrested at the scene reading a copy of Catcher in the Rye. Police Spokesman Capt NWO PIG said Mr Idiot made statements suggesting the act was carried out as a form of vigilante justice. "He believes based on movies and messages he saw on "conspiracy" message boards that Mr England helped carry out the attacks."
Internet searches showed that Mr Noplane Idiot was a frequent visitor to prisonplanet forum. The forum is hosted by the notorious Alex Jones who has made several films claiming the attacks were orchestrated by the U.S. Government. He was also producer of Loose Change Final cut. Search results also revealed Mr Idiot was also frequent visitor to the loose change forums, hosted by Dylan Avery maker of the "conspiracy series". His newest film Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup narrated by Rescue Me star Daniel Sanjata was released today. Mr Jones claims he has no control over who comes to the boards and what is posted. However investigations reveal the boards are moderated.

Think that's pretty unlikely? Yea, it is.

It's just as unlikely as Barry Jennings being dead 2 days before the WTC 7 report comes out.

Think that's just dumb? What's even dumber is sitting here allowing ourselves to be put in that position.

"I trust them, I don't think the folks that would blow Kennedy's brains out and murder 3000 Americans would take advantage of us like that." <----that's dumb.
Know what's even dumber? These DisInfo preposterous 9/11 truth killing movies, these idiots want you to promote.

I've never accused anyone of being an "operative", other than Gen Stubblebine. But if I was to make the accusation, it would be against these CIT retards. Why? For several reasons. They constantly use the exact same phrase James Woosley the former CIA head and NWO Bitch used to describe why no WMD were found in Iraq. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Meaning just because we didn't find WMD in Iraq doesn't mean there wasn't a sh*tload of it. And just because no one saw a passenger jet fly over the pentagon doesn't mean it didn't happen. How much BS are you willing to take?

Also, Russel Pickering, John Farmer, Mike Walter, Keith Wheelhouse, Father McGraw, Joel Sucherman, and Lloyd England are all according to the makers of these idiot films, undercover operatives. And those are just then ones I've seen myself them make publicly. Well I'll throw that accusation right back at them. They are either insane, or they themselves are the operatives. Wether they are or not is irrelevant. The results are the same. And they can be used in the same way. They are not helping the truth movement. They are destroying it. Driving people in the movement out with their insanity. I've seen it. You think they are helping? Yea, it's real helpful for independent honest researchers to get people to talk to us after these retards visit them and then accuse them of being mass murdering operatives if they don't tell them what they want to hear. That's real f**king helpful. Honest? They are self promoting BS artists. "It was planned"....OMG! DID you hear that? There it is smoking gun proof! And you fall for this BS? Everyone in the world knows 9/11 was planned but when the old cab driver says it, it means he helped plan it? They are either dishonest insane a**holes or operatives. It doesn't matter. It's the same results. I've seen their movies. All of them. They are a disgusting joke. What's pitiful is seeing you fall for this crap. And people fall for it because they are allergic to a passenger jet hitting the pentagon. How incredibly stupid. This disinfo BS has gotten so bad that we now have a remote controlled passenger jet at the pentagon, but it doesn't fly into it....no, you wouldn't want that...so it flys over it. That's f**kin stupid. They have no choice. Everyone that was there saw a large passenger jet fly into the pentagon. I've been telling you that from day one. They went there and filmed them. They have no choice but then make up this stupid idea of a flyover. Everyone was fooled. No one saw it fly away. But everyone drew the wrong flightpath! No they didn't. That's why England, Walter, Sucherman, Wheelhouse, McGraw and about 100 other people are all "operatives". Because they don't place the plane slightly off the path. And those that drew the wrong flight path? They all swear they watched the passenger jet slam into the pentagon. Your own 10 year old knows that every witness swearing in court that they watched with their own eyes a passenger jet hit the pentagon, is NOT proof a passenger jet didn't hit the pentagon. How much BS are you willing to take?

You should be helping us stamp out this disinfo not spread it. I thought you people wanted to expose the truth of 9/11? This Disinfo crap is getting out of hand. We're nipping this in the bud. We have no choice. It's gotten to the ridiculous point where we are willing to admit a jet was at the pentagon but it didn't go in, and the witnesses who were there are lying operatives. It keeps getting worse......and I'm not going to sit here and let it come on down the pipe. There are reasons for this disinfo.

There are reasons for the various disinfo BS that some of you seem to love to hear, and fall for.

Operatives or not the results are the same. How about giving a sane 9/11 truther a 7 page front page article? Here are your heros promoting 9/11 truth...

http://www.ocweekly.com/2008-08-14/features/pentaconned/"

For a critical review of all the Pentagon theories see http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon folks, they're just withholding the proof to distract the conspiracy theorists from the hard scientific evidence at the World Trade Center and focus on speculative no-plane theories. It's a psy-op. Probably the only good Pentagon theory I've seen is the plane-bomb theory.

Related Info:

A Clarification on Disinfo

The CIT Virus