Explanation of the Evidence at the Pentagon on 9/11

Why We Expend Energy on Proving Large Plane Impact at the Pentagon

Explanation of the Evidence at the Pentagon on 9/11

Created by Wayne Coste, narrated by David Chandler
Original article here:  http://911speakout.org/wayne-coste/

Introduction and Summary

In December 2017 the 9/11 Consensus Panel issued a statement addressing the controversy within the 9/11 Truth Community about what happened at the Pentagon. The concern was that the disagreements in this area threaten to undermine good will and mutual trust. The statement offers the prescription, “Contributions seeking to solve contentious issues can only be made by assembling reliable evidence and by applying critical thinking and peer review according to the standard scientific process. This is the strength of science and the way it has progressed over centuries.” and concludes, “In conclusion, we offer the “agree to differ” approach: to end an argument amicably while maintaining differences of opinion until there is an explanation that does justice to all the various types of evidence.”

Over about a three year period Wayne Coste has been engaging in dialogue with some of the leading contenders for theories alternative to large plane impact and has been assembling a comprehensive compilation of the evidence that any successful theory must answer. When he read the Consensus Panel’s statement he saw it as a challenge that he had largely already met. He pulled together his research and assembled it as a single presentation entitled, “Explanation of the Evidence at the Pentagon on 9/11.” He re-framed this as “Answering the 9/11 Consensus Panel Challenge.” He turned the Powerpoint into a video, with the downside that the running time was a virtually unwatchable 5h 40m. He just wanted to “get it out there.” I saw the tremendous value of this body of work, so I stepped in and offered to narrate the video as a more manageable series of chapter-by-chapter videos.

The work is extensive, so the video series is lengthy.  To help navigate the scope of the issue we have compiled a short video summary of the primary findings.  The summary is keyed to the “chapters” of the video series, so you will be able to easily navigate to the sections of most interest if you don’t want to invest the time to work through the whole series all at once.

Video Summary


Bitchute / YouTube


Full Video Series

Chapter 0: Preface

Bitchute / YouTube

The focus of these videos is on the question, “What mechanism caused the damage at the Pentagon on 9/11.” As Wayne says, “If you care enough to have an opinion about what happened at the Pentagon, you should care enough to know what the evidence is and what it shows.” Many discussions have focused on specific details in isolation, have ignored or misrepresented vast amounts of evidence, or dismissed evidence on flimsy grounds. This kind of comprehensive treatment is important because an incomplete understanding of the event leads to erroneous conclusions. It is important that we present reasonable accounts of the evidence if we want to be taken seriously by the public.

Chapter 1: Overview

Bitchute / YouTube

What we can all agree on; what will not be considered; Consensus Panel treatment of the Pentagon issue; overview of the geography of the Pentagon and its surroundings; the structure of the Pentagon.

Chapter 2: Endless Pentagon Debates; How Did We Get Here?

Bitchute / YouTube

The history of the ideas (not the personalities), asking how we got stuck in the heated debate we have today. Thierry Meyssan’s “The Frightening Fraud”; the “16 foot hole” meme; “Missing Wings”; “Loose Change”; “In Plane Sight”; the “reinforced concrete” meme; Dodgy Dodds; “The New Pearl Harbor” (movie); persistent claim that “evidence is Photoshopped.”

Chapter 3: Size of the Opening in the Pentagon

Bitchute / YouTube

The persistent “hole too small” error; structure of the outer wall of the Pentagon; nature of the “blast resistance” upgrades to Wedge 1; blast resistant windows, not blast resistant walls; the 96 foot opening in the first floor; evidence from composite photographs; detailed examination of missing or damaged columns; specific contentious damaged columns; the 18 foot opening in the second floor.

Chapter 4: Design, Construction and Destruction of E-Ring Wall

Bitchute / YouTube

Design, construction, and destruction of the E-Ring exterior wall; misleading and downright false information that has persisted in discussions over the years; response to the 1996 Khobar Tower bombing and the issue of flying glass; total lack of reinforced concrete; collapsed wall photos as evidence that the actual construction matches the documentary descriptions.

Chapter 5: The Tree at Column 16

Bitchute / YouTube

Did you realize there was a tree at the point of impact? It has almost never been mentioned in the Pentagon discussion. What happened to the tree and where it is found in the rubble tells us something about the nature of the event.

Chapter 6: Review of the C-Ring Exit Hole at the Pentagon

Bitchute / YouTube

Nature of the hole; how heavy debris could travel from the impact point to the exit hole; structure of the C-Ring wall; distribution of debris.

Chapter 7: Plane Approach Path

Bitchute / YouTube

Evidence for the path of the plane: radar, FDR, eyewitnesses, physical damage; impossibility of the CIT north path; notch in the tree by the overpass; light pole damage; g-forces for the plane to pull out of its dive; the consistency of all the various lines of evidence.

Chapter 8: Plane Impact Analysis

Bitchute / YouTube

Generator trailer damage (right engine); retaining wall gouge (left engine); yaw rotation due to engine impacts; interaction with the cable spools; detailed progress of impact of the left and right wings and the affected columns; where the tail went; locations of the spools before and after impact.

Chapter 9: A Comprehensive Review of the Lloyd England Accident Scene

Bitchute / YouTube

Lloyd England’s taxicab is evidence that the downing of the light poles was a real-time event that could not have been staged ahead of time. This single piece of evidence therefore discredits any theory that eliminates a large plane flying along the path of the downed light poles. CIT responded by interviewing Lloyd England and accusing him of being an accomplice to the staging of the scene based on supposed contradictions in his story. This section examines all the fragments of the first two light poles and determines which piece actually hit the taxi, providing in a factual basis for evaluating Lloyd England’s story.

Chapter 10: Analysis of the CITGO Security Cameras

Bitchute / YouTube

One of the security camera videos that was released is the camera at the CITGO gas station, between the Pentagon and the Navy Annex. The images are low resolution and taken at one frame per second, but there is a single frame that captures the shadow of the incoming plane as it passes just to the south of the station.

Chapter 11: Pentagon Security Camera Analysis

Bitchute / YouTube

Two closely spaced security cameras, recording at one frame per second, captured the plane as it crossed the lawn. These images have been attacked by some as having been Photoshopped to show the plane. This section evaluates the differences in the two videos and assesses their authenticity. The two videos were combined onto a single recording device, so the frames are necessarily staggered. Internal evidence is used to measure the time lag between the two sets of frames, and the resulting calibration is used to derive a measurement of the speed of the plane, independent of assumptions from any other sources. The resulting speed measurement is in good agreement with the radar and FDR data.

Chapter 12: Debris

Bitchute / YouTube

Debris expectations; the Sandia F-4 crash test; the outside debris field; distribution of debris; mechanism for spreading light vs heavy debris; evidence for a trailing air mass behind the plane; specific debris pieces of note; identifiable airplane debris in the AE drive outside the C-Ring exit hole; identification of engine parts; verification of the engine type; sifting for human remains.

Chapter 13: Evidence of Explosions

Bitchute / YouTube

Lack of definitive evidence of explosions; the fireball captured in a Daryl Donley photograph and confirming live news footage; uplifted second floor slab; remnants of columns 15-17 pushed inward, not outward; bowed and broken internal columns; debris distribution on lawn and outside C-Ring hole not consistent with explosions; lack of evidence for explosions initiating roof collapse.

Chapter 14: The April Gallop Lawsuit

Bitchute / YouTube

A case study in what happens when insubstantial 9/11 evidence is relied upon in court. Doctrinaire attitudes toward the events of 9/11 do not play well in court. We need to get it right!

Chapter 15: Ground Effect and Yaw Rotation

Bitchute / YouTube

The physics of flight and creation of wingtip vortices; the nature of ground effect; the Boeing 720 crash test; implications for the plane at the Pentagon flying far over the recommended speed very near the ground.

Chapter 16: Porter Goss and the Sonic Boom

Bitchute / YouTube

The loud sound, documented by multiple recordings and mistaken by some for an explosion is shown to actually have been a sonic boom.

Chapter 17: Citizen Investigation Team Interviews

Bitchute / YouTube

The CIT hypotheses: no impact, northern flight path, plane flew over the Pentagon; questions about CIT methodology; comparison of CIT interviews with earlier interviews of the same subjects; George Am; Lloyd England; Chadwick Brooks; William Lagasse; Lagasse’s correspondence with Dick Eastman; Robert Turcios.

Conclusion: Submission to the 9/11 Consensus Panel Challenge

Bitchute / YouTube

Conclusions as they relate to the “Consensus Panel Challenge.”

Addendum: Peer Review Comments

Bitchute / YouTube

Background information on the physics of ground effect by Tim Michel.

Bitchute Playlist / YouTube Playlist

Why the CIT Analysis of the Pentagon Event on 9/11 Should Be Rejected Outright

by David Chandler, 911speakout.org

There are fundamental grounds to reject the analysis put forward by CIT (Citizen Investigation Team), which proposes that a large plane approached the Pentagon from a northerly angle (north of the CITGO gas station) incompatible with the external and internal damage path.* The plane, they say, flew over the Pentagon, masked by a synchronized internal explosion and smoke cloud (which CIT compares to a “magic show”), and all the damage was staged.

The issue goes beyond the selection of witnesses or the implausibility of their fly-over hypothesis and elaborate staging of all the physical evidence. It comes down to the validity of their interview methodology and the illogic of the inferences drawn from their data. Their flawed methodology invalidates the entire process.

I will focus on Craig Ranke’s telephone interview of Albert Hemphill because we have a complete, unedited, start-to-finish record of the interview as well as two follow-up phone interviews by Jeff Hill, an independent researcher living in Canada, that allow Mr. Hemphill to express himself fully about the Ranke interview and clarify his testimony. Here are the three interviews:

The other interviews used in the CIT videos, on the other hand, have been subject to selection and editing, so we don’t know the full context that surrounds them. They are therefore less helpful in understanding CIT’s methodology.

Albert Hemphill was a civilian employee of the Navy with an office on the top floor of the 8th wing of the Navy Annex overlooking the Pentagon. The line of sight from his office window to the impact point on the Pentagon passed directly over the CITGO gas station. His line of sight was eastward, so north was to his left and south was to his right. CIT claims Albert Hemphill as a north path witness. Rather than simply accepting this characterization, listen to Hemphill’s actual testimony.

Here are transcripts of excerpts from Albert Hemphill’s characterization of the flight path.

5:52 [Hemphill] he would have been to my, over my right shoulder

6:02 [Hemphill] he clipped a street light

6:51 [Ranke] when you saw it pass the gas station did it look like he was flying straight or banking or turning?
[Hemphill] Diving
[Ranke] Diving
[Hemphill] You could hear the spooling of the engines, the distinctive whine of those things being wound up. And he kicked in, in my opinion, like he kicked in a little bit of right rudder and threw in some aileron [def: flaps on the wings that control the roll of the plane] because he hit the Pentagon at about the second window level. He did not hit the ground. He did not touch the ground. It smacked right into the building.

7:47 [Hemphill] right over the bridge

10:04 [Ranke] Did you see it actually hit light poles or did you just hear about that afterwards?
[Hemphill] I saw him clip it.
[Ranke] Saw it clip a light pole.
[Hemphill] Yeah.10:15 [Ranke] Did you notice the cab or anything like that?
[Hemphill] Nah, I don’t remember seeing a cab. I’ve heard that one. I don’t remember a cab. It may have been there, but there’s so much going on, you know you only have a sight picture there, you know we’re talking seconds. So, you know, when people say stuff like that you have to be careful that you don’t absorb in stuff that they have said that you didn’t really see, that correlates with your story, and what you witnessed.

10:49 [Ranke] But you say you’re absolutely certain that you did see it clip a light pole?
[Hemphill] Yeah, because it was like a flash with it, you know
[Ranke] A flash? Did you see a light pole go flying or anything like that?
[Hemphill] No. No, no, no. You just, you see the kinda a glance or something, a flash of a wing catching it or something.
[Ranke] Interesting. Did you see it hit more than one pole, or just one
[Hemphill] Just one is all I picked up. It may have been more. I don’t know.

16:48 [Ranke] How sure are you that it was directly over the Navy Annex as opposed to being on the complete south end of Columbia Pike, in fact I mean on the south side of the VDOT building. You know where that communications antenna tower that there is on the other side of Columbia Pike there?
[Hemphill] Yeah. I know where it is.
[Ranke] What are the chances that it was on the south side of that, between that and the highway?
[Hemphill] I think that’s over a little bit far.

27:06 [Ranke] Do you recall the location the light pole is that you saw get hit?
[Hemphill] I think that was one of the ones up there on 27, I believe it was right, let me think now, the um, you’ve got the bridge, it was on the side of the bridge heading toward Rosslyn.
[Ranke] So the north side.
[Hemphill] It would be the north side, yeah.

38:02 [Hemphill] Now the plane I saw, I saw one plane and I saw it hit.

[…then again, after Ranke concluded that Hemphill must have been deceived by the explosion…]

39:36 [Hemphill] but all I can tell you is that I saw the one plane and what I saw was I saw it hit.

[For more detail and context, listen to the full interview (transcript)]

Let’s summarize Hemphill’s key testimony.

  • The plane came in over his right shoulder, i.e. to his south, therefore, by implication, south of the CITGO station.
  • The VDOT tower is south of the Navy Annex. He estimates that the plane was not that far south. i.e. south but probably not that far south. This statement would not make sense if the plane were to his north, so this answer confirms that the plane was on a south path.
  • The plane flew right over the bridge, the site of the first two light poles.
  • He saw it hit one light pole. He knew from news reports that more light poles were hit, but he personally witnessed only one and carefully limits his testimony to what he actually saw. As a matter of fact, the first light pole would have been clipped by the right wing which would have been hidden on the far side of the plane from his vantage point. The second light pole, on the north side of the bridge (which is where he located it), was clipped by the left wing and would be visible from his vantage point. The remaining light poles were lower down, not up on the bridge. Hemphill’s testimony here is restrained and precise. The one light pole he could most plausibly have seen was the exact pole he testifies that he saw.
  • The plane was diving and he saw it approach the Pentagon at the second floor level while it was not obscured by smoke, so there is no possibility that the plane could pull up in time to clear the Pentagon roof.
  • To the very end, even as Ranke tried to persuade him otherwise, Hemphill repeatedly emphasizes his own direct observation that there was only one plane and that it hit the Pentagon.
  • Hemphill was an exceptional eyewitness who was very conscious of the dangers of mixing his actual observations with other material he had learned along the way. As he put it, “you have to be careful that you don’t absorb in stuff that they have said that you didn’t really see, that correlates with your story, and what you witnessed.”

After hearing Hemphill’s direct eyewitness testimony, Ranke pushed him to concede that the plane flew north of the CITGO gas station, which he then used to dismiss the rest of his testimony as being inconsistent with this one point. Listen to how this was brought about:

7:34 [Ranke] Now when you saw it, let’s back up a little bit. When you saw it pass the gas station, what side of the gas station was it on? Was it on the again, on the Arlington Cemetery or north side, or else perhaps the south side, the other side?

7:47 [Hemphill] You know it’s hard to say, it looked like it went right over the top to me, you know, because of the way its flight path was, but you know you would have come pretty much right smack over the top of it, right over the bridge there, it takes you over to I think on the right if I did all those years ago, I said 110, I meant 27.

8:08 [Ranke] Right

8:08 [Hemphill] But he went right over there towards where the old heliport was, so if you go from where the old heliport was and you draw a line straight back over the Navy Annex, it’s going to take you pretty much over the gas station.

8:22 [Ranke] OK, but would you say if you had to say if it was leaning towards one side or the other of the gas station, perhaps a portion of the plane, or did it look directly over the top? Or what do you think?

8:32 [Hemphill] Yeah, I would say more towards the cemetery side

8:36 [Ranke] a little more towards the cemetery side, OK. And uh well it was interesting cause you also mention that the blast from the explosion knocked you back onto your desk.

8:47 [Hemphill] Yeah, it was like a shock wave of a like a 2000 pounder going off. No, just a, you could hear the deep, deep rumble and then boom, it just caused everything on the Annex to just shake and stuff rattled and it just forced me back on the desk.

Here Ranke induces Hemphill to contradict himself. Hemphill has already shown himself to be a south path witness in multiple ways. An honest interviewer would point out the contradiction and ask for clarification. This is, after all, the focal point of the interview, from Ranke’s perspective, so one would think it would be extremely important to get it right. But Ranke does not do this. He restates the questionable claim without comment then changes the subject to something entirely different. Has he elicited Hemphill’s considered opinion or has he led him into a rhetorical trap?

Realize that this phone interview was conducted in May, 2010, nearly nine years after the event. Hemphill no longer worked for the Navy. Wing 8 of the Navy Annex had been torn down. He was not looking at any kind or map or diagram during the phone call. He was going from memory as to the alignment of various features. When pushed the first time on whether the plane flew to one side or the other of the CITGO station, he declined both alternatives and said it went right over the top of the CITGO station, which, according to his memory, was equivalent to going right over the bridge. (In reality the two features don’t line up.) To go over the bridge the plane would have to go south of the CITGO station.

Having answered that to the best of his recollection the plane flew over the top of the CITGO station, Ranke continues pushing, “OK, but would you say if you had to say if it was leaning towards one side or the other of the gas station, perhaps a portion of the plane, or did it look directly over the top? Or what do you think?” He is clearly telling Hemphill he is unsatisfied with his previous answer. Finally Hemphill answers, “Yeah, I would say more towards the cemetery side.”

It is troubling that Ranke ignores Hemphill’s first answer and persists in digging for a different answer. “…if you had to say,” “…if it was leaning towards one side or the other,” “…perhaps a portion of the plane.” This is leading the witness, if not badgering the witness. Such questioning is bad practice because it distorts the testimony. It has no place in scientific data gathering interviews since the goal is to get at true memories uninfluenced by the questioner.

Later in the conversation Ranke returns to the north path issue in order to solidify Hemphill’s support for his Pentagon fly-over hypothesis. However, he does so in the context of telling Hemphill what many other witnesses had said who were supposedly in a better position to see what happened.

Hemphill concedes, “anybody who was out and about right then in that area would have had a great vantage point if they were at that gas station.” Ranke is not asking Hemphill for his own memories as an independent witness, but rather urging him to go along with what others had supposedly said. The Asch Conformity Experiment comes to mind. It has been shown experimentally that when subjects feel alone in their perceptions they show a tendency to ignore their own perceptions and go along with the crowd. Ranke is explicitly asking Hemphill to step back from his eyewitness role and accept a belief based on hearsay. This by itself should be enough to disqualify the interview as having any scientific merit. He commends Hemphill and tells him that “what you saw does corroborate these other witnesses.” He uses the word “corroborate” 18 times in the conversation, as though this witness needs praise or reassurance for going along with what other witnesses have said, and ignoring the fact that nothing in Hemphill’s testimony “corroborates” the north path story except for that single concession urged by the interviewer. Hemphill is not being treated as though his own first-hand memories were the legitimate focus of the interview.

In Jeff Hill’s second phone interview with Hemphill, he reminds Hemphill of his earlier statement to Craig Ranke that the plane was on the Arlington Cemetery side (north side) of CITGO. Hemphill strenuously objects,

18:6 [Hemphill] “No, absolutely wrong. It flew over the gas station more to the Columbia Pike side.

22:16 [Hill] So like I guess when you told Craig that it was slightly more toward the Arlington Cemetery side you were just like mistaken in the moment?
[Hemphill] No I didn’t say that. I said my office is more toward the Arlington Cemetery side. The aircraft was not more toward the cemetery. It’s more toward Columbia Pike.

The words he used earlier seemed to be telling Craig the opposite, but this comment clarifies what was in his mind. One thing that did a lot to clear up his testimony was that Hill had emailed Hemphill a photograph of the area from Google Earth with a line of sight drawn on it from Hemphill’s office to the impact point (similar to the illustration included here but without the extra annotations). That line passes directly over the center of the CITGO gas station. With the geometry of the situation clearly in mind, Hemphill had no trouble reconstructing the plane’s path and he was able to state definitively that the plane was on the south side.

Once Ranke had maneuvered Hemphill into stating the plane was on the cemetery side (north side) of the CITGO station, he inferred that since that observation was incompatible with hitting the Pentagon or the light poles, those direct memories and the physical evidence had to be false and only the north path observation was true. (How is this even logical? Why not infer from the direct observations and the physical evidence of the light poles and the memory that the plane came over his right shoulder that the north path statement was false?) Hemphill didn’t buy Ranke’s reasoning. He insisted repeatedly, “Now the plane I saw, I saw one plane and I saw it hit.” At the very end of the conversation Hemphill reaffirms that he stands by his original statements.

Elevating the significance of a memory of a seemingly minor detail, many years after the fact, is a common thread in nearly all of the Ranke interviews. The single detail CIT cites as key to understanding the Pentagon event is the path of the approaching plane. Ranke’s sales pitch to the world is that surely the eyewitnesses near the CITGO station would remember which side of the station the plane passed by as it approached the Pentagon. That is not obvious, however. It depends entirely on when a witness became aware of and focused intently on the plane. The event went suddenly from nothing particularly unusual to an earth shaking event: a plane hitting the Pentagon, seconds later. All of the CIT witnesses, who were in a position to see it, testified that they saw the plane actually hit the Pentagon. For some, the earlier path of the plane might have been a vivid direct memory. The level of detail offered by Hemphill, the nearness and position of the plane over his right shoulder, the sound of the engines spooling up, his detailed observation of the plane’s maneuvers, the flash as it hit a specific light pole, the dive, and the place where it hit the Pentagon wall, and the consistency of these observations with the physical evidence all indicate this is true in his case. Others may have been only vaguely aware of the plane initially with growing awareness as it was about to hit the Pentagon. For these people the prior path of the plane could well have been a mental reconstruction rather than a direct memory. An unbiased interviewer would recognize a memory that the plane hit the building as more likely true than any memories of a path inconsistent with that direct observation, especially when the eyewitness expresses certainty that it actually hit. The explosion and smoke cloud would not obscure the impact. They would follow the impact.

When I was in a PE class in the eighth grade I jumped over a low-hanging net, tripped and knocked myself out. I woke up in the nurse’s office some time later. I remember the accident clearly. The problem is I have two equally clear and competing memories of the event, and I cannot, even to this day, discern which is what actually happened. I remember jumping over the net as we were dismissed from the assembly formation at the start of class, but I have an equally clear and compelling memory that the event occurred at the end of the period, as the bell rang and we were running to the locker room. Tripping over the net, falling, and waking up in the nurse’s office were clear and legitimate memories burned into my brain. The circumstances surrounding my jumping over the net were mental reconstructions, equally as vivid as the undeniable memories, but in reality, not memories at all.

Our minds flesh out the details surrounding distant memories, as my own experience illustrates. The methodology at work in the CIT interviews is to distract a witnesses from an actual, vivid memory of a plane impacting a building, and soliciting, or even planting by suggestion, a minor secondary detail. This sets the stage for the witness to reconstruct or elaborate on the actual memories to “fill in the gaps” or to satisfy the questioner. That detail is then elevated to be considered the single most significant element of the testimony, and used to discount both the primary memory and the physical evidence. The witnesses themselves are then declared to have been deceived about the discordant elements of their testimony. The witnesses may come back and protest loudly that the one thing they know for certain is that the plane actually hit the building, but such protestations are ignored. When interviews are conducted in this manner, whatever the reason, the conclusions have no claim to any validity and should be dismissed.


Notes:

*External damage path: scarred VDOT traffic camera pole and notched tree on Hwy 26 overpass, five downed light poles, damaged and rotated large generator trailer, damaged fence around the generator trailer, scattering of a number of cable spools, notch in a low concrete retaining wall, and severed tree in front of Column 16.

Internal damage path: nearly 100 foot opening in the first floor of the Pentagon E-ring wall, external scars corresponding to the wing tips and tail of an impacting plane, a pattern of damaged and destroyed interior columns on the first floor of the Pentagon E, D, and C-rings and punch-out hole in the C-ring inner wall, all in line with the external damage path.

See original article here.

http://www.visibility911.org/1405137-2/

COINTELPRO and the 9-11 Movement – A Special Report by Visibility 9-11

EDITOR’S NOTE: Much of the information in this page was originally published in the October 2007 Visibility 9-11 Newsletter. Unfortunately due to time restraints, the newsletter was only produced for 3 months. However, the content here is too valuable to not have it’s own prominent place at this website. Therefore, the content with information regarding COINTELPRO, is reproduced on this page.

Dear Friends,

This month I am sending out a big THANK YOU to all the researchers and activists who have contributed so much in their self-less time and energy toward bringing the light of truth to bear on the 9-11 cover-up. Our numbers continue to grow and our influence is being more and more felt across our nation as ordinary folks begin to think the unthinkable; that 9-11 was orchestrated by rogue elements within the highest levels of our own government in order to bring about a police state here in America and to wage endless, perpetual war on a new and faceless boogie man. Make no mistake about it, we are having an effect. There are many indications that tell us this is true.

One clue to support this assertion is the number of hit pieces produced for the mainstream media which attempt to “debunk” the 9-11 Movement. Millions of dollars have been spent to counter all of our work and we should be proud knowing that none of this would have been necessary for the powers that be were it not for our work in bringing light to truth.

Other clues are out there but are more difficult to see and sort out. These clues revolve around the fact that our movement has been infiltrated at all levels by what appears to be an organized and orchestrated effort to discredit us and our work. This sort of tactic is really nothing new when it comes to our corrupt government. In fact, crimes against the Constitution by the tax payer funded intelligence agencies of America have been well documented in our country’s recent history.

We would all be extremely naive if we fail to recognize that those responsible for 9-11 will spare no expense to keep the truth about what really happened on September 11th, 2001 from ever being revealed, for when that happens, they know their jig is up. As 9-11 activists, we all need to learn about the tactics and methods which are being used against us. Disinformation, misinformation, and outright attacks on hard working 9-11 and peace activists are all being used RIGHT NOW in order to discredit us, divide us, destroy our work, and eventually conquer us. We must not let this happen or we risk losing everything; our country, our lives, and our future as a free people.

In order to secure the success of our efforts, we must first become aware of, and then take the necessary steps to ensure that you are not unwittingly participating in the campaign against us. Disinformation quickly spreads as misinformation by well meaning and good people. Once you learn what disinformation is and the effect it has on any movement, you can identify it, and then remove it from your talking points, film screenings, and public meetings. This does not make you a gatekeeper! It makes you a careful and thoughtful activist who researches what he/she presents as “9-11 Truth”. A campaign of education is absolutely necessary and we must all actively work to educate others about these efforts to discredit and divide us.

With that said, the bulk of this month’s newsletter is devoted to education about what COINTELPRO is, its manifestations, and how we can nullify its effects. In early 2007, I recognized this need when I produced a short series of programs which became my Special Report on COINTELPRO. This series is even more relevant today. That can also be said about the links to the important information throughout this month’s newsletter. With our eyes wide open, and with help from each other, we can disrupt the disruption.

Thank you.
Michael Wolsey

###

9/11 Truth and Division: Disinformation, Agent Provocateurs, and False Adversaries

By Arabesque

The subject of this essay is divisive. In fact, it’s about divisiveness. In response to the problem of divisive posts at 911blogger, Reprehensor wrote:

911blogger.com has been used as a tool to identify and amplify wedge issues that divide 9/11 skeptics and researchers, and this has occurred primarily in the comments area.” [1]

Why do people attack each other? There are many reasons, and most of them are irrational. Others attack deliberately. Does this happen in the 9/11 truth movement? In fact, divide and conquer was an intentional strategy used by the OSS during World War II: [2]

“Psychological warfare, as the term is used by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff … comprises all moral and physical means other than orthodox military operations which tend to destroy the will and ability of the enemy to resist, to deprive him of support of allies or neutrals and to increase in our own troops and allies the will to victory. The implements of psychological warfare are: open propaganda, subversion, special operations (sabotage, guerrilla warfare, espionage), political and cultural pressures, economic pressures. The principal effects sought are persuasion, sympathy, terrorization, confusion, division and physical interference.” [3]

From historical examples and COINTELPRO, we should not rule out the possibility that this tactic could be used against current day activists. [4] Having this problem in mind, Barrie Zwicker commented about possible disinformation and infiltration within the 9/11 truth movement:

“What’s needed is politically relevant education. Education about agents of all kinds, especially agents provocateurs, their history, who employs them, their tactics… While educating ourselves and others we can simultaneously actively combat agents of the state by refraining from engaging in the types of behaviour they employ to sow dissention: name-calling, rumour-mongering, insinuation. Especially specific name-calling. Refraining from this does not stifle vigorous discussion and debate, based on observable facts, statements and patterns. Education drains the swamp. Most of agents will stand out. It’s happening already. Other agents are deeper. Understanding their purposes and identifying them and dealing with them depends on more education yet.” [5]

Read the rest of this article here.

###

9-11 Synthetic Error – The meltdown of Webster G. Tarpley

By Michael Wolsey

“In our movement there has to be a sphere of theoretical discussion, which has to be done in a business-like and respectful manner, without slander, without defamation, without ad hominem attacks on every page.”
Originally broadcast on World Crisis Radio with Webster Tarpley, Sept. 9, 2006.

John Leonard, who as far as I can tell is the publisher of Webster G. Tarpley’s book, 9/11Synthetic Terror, Made in the USA, posted a blog entry at 911blogger.com dated September 6th, 2007 and titled Tarpley’s Rx for US 9/11 Truth Movement: Diversity and Civility in Discussion, Unity in Action. As you can see from the above quote attributed to Mr. Tarpley, he is asking the 9-11 movement to conduct themselves in a “business-like and respectful manner, without slander, without defamation, without ad hominem attacks on every page.”

I agree wholeheartedly with the above statement by Mr. Tarpley. I have been aware of the divisions within the 9-11 movement for years now and know that they have slowed our progress toward the truth behind the events of September 11th. We do need to come together around the best possible evidence we have and get behind the best researchers to keep propelling our 9-11 questions to the forefront of the public eye. So I was a bit surprised to find out that the very day that this article surfaced at 911blogger.com, Webster Tarpley was publicly attacking me, Cosmos, Col. Jenny Sparks, Jon Gold, and Arabesque on his radio program GCN World report. In order to understand better what prompted this attack, it is important to step back in time and examine the circumstances surrounding the emergence of what is known as “The Kennebunkport Warning”, hereafter known in this article as the KW. It is also worth a look at Mr. Tarpley himself and what he believes and advocates.

Read the rest of this article here.

###

COINTELPRO Revisited – Spying & Disruption

by Brian Glick

INTRODUCTION
Activists across the country report increasing government harassment and disruption of their work:

  • In the Southwest, paid informers infiltrate the church services, Bible classes and support networks of clergy and lay workers giving sanctuary to refugees from El Salvador and Guatemala.
  • In Alabama, elderly Black people attempting for the first time to exercise their right to vote are interrogated by FBI agents and hauled before federal grand juries hundreds of miles from their homes.
  • In New England, a former CIA case officer cites examples from his own past work to warn college students of efforts by undercover operatives to misdirect and discredit protests against South African and US racism.
  • In the San Francisco Bay Area, activists planning anti-nuclear civil disobedience learn that their meetings have been infiltrated by the US Navy.
  • In Detroit, Seattle, and Philadelphia, in Cambridge, MA, Berkeley,CA., Phoenix, AR., and Washington, DC., churches and organizations opposing US policies in Central America report obviously political break-ins in which important papers are stolen or damaged, while money and valuables are left untouched. License plates on a car spotted fleeing one such office have been traced to the US National Security Agency.
  • In Puerto Rico, Texas and Massachusetts, labor leaders, community organizers, writers and editors who advocate Puerto Rican independence are branded by the FBI as “terrorists,” brutally rounded-up in the middle of the night, held incommunicado for days and then jailed under new preventive detention laws.
  • The FBI puts the same “terrorist” label on opponents of US intervention in El Salvador, but refuses to investigate the possibility of a political conspiracy behind nation-wide bombings of abortion clinics.
  • Throughout the country, people attempting to see Nicaragua for themselves find their trips disrupted, their private papers confiscated, and their homes and offices plagued by FBI agents who demand detailed personal and political information.

These kinds of government tactics violate our fundamental constitutional rights. They make it enormously difficult to sustain grass-roots organizing. They create an atmosphere of fear and distrust which undermines any effort to challenge official policy.

Similar measures were used in the 1960s as part of a secret FBI program known as “COINTELPRO.” COINTELPRO was later exposed and officially ended. But the evidence shows that it actually persisted and that clandestine operations to discredit and disrupt opposition movements have become an institutional feature of national and local government in the US. This pamphlet is designed to help current and future activists learn from the history of COINTELPRO, so that our movements can better withstand such attack.

The first section gives a brief overview of what we know the FBI did in the 60s. It explains why we can expect similar government intervention in the 80s and beyond, and offers general guidelines for effective response.

The main body of the pamphlet describes the specific methods which have previously been used to undermine domestic dissent and suggests steps we can take to limit or deflect their impact.

A final chapter explores ways to mobilize broad public protest against this kind of repression.

Further readings and groups that can help are listed in back. The pamphlet’s historical analysis is based on confidential internal documents prepared by the FBI and police during the 60s.

It also draws on the post-60s confessions of disaffected government agents, and on the testimony of public officials before Congress and the courts. Though the information from these sources is incomplete, and much of what was done remains secret, we now know enough to draw useful lessons for future organizing.

The suggestions included in the pamphlet are based on the author’s 20 years experience as an activist and lawyer, and on talks with long-time organizers in a broad range of movements. They are meant to provide starting points for discussion, so we can get ready before the pressure intensifies. Most are a matter of common sense once the methodology of covert action is understood. Please take these issues seriously. Discuss the recommendations with other activists. Adapt them to the conditions you face. Point out problems and suggest other approaches.

It is important that we begin now to protect our movements and ourselves.

Read the rest of this article here.

 

A dozen questions about Flight 77 and the Pentagon that might lead to justice, and one that won’t

There are many questions to be answered about the events at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.    Here are a dozen such questions that, if answered, might help to bring about justice.

  1. Exactly how was Flight 77 hijacked, considering, among other things, that the alleged hijackers were said to be identified as security risks (possibly linked to al Qaeda) when they tried to board, and were not physically imposing (all 5 and a half feet tall or less, and slender in build)?[1]
  2. How was the nation’s air defense system disabled on 9/11, and how could anything have hit the Pentagon approximately 80 minutes after the first plane was known to be hijacked?
  3. Why was Dick Cheney tracking Flight 77?[2]
  4. Why were explosive experts, who had a history of covering-up the OKC bombing and have since been accused of obstructing other investigations, hired to write the FEMA report? (Mete Sozen and Paul Mlakar).[3],[4]
  5. Why did the roof of the Pentagon collapse 30 minutes after impact, giving additional evidence for the use of explosives?   Note:  The use of explosives at the Pentagon seems to be in agreement with the use of a large plane, which would have had little penetrating power.
  6. Why was AMEC, the company that had just finished refurbishing Wedge 1 of the Pentagon, hired to lead the clean-up effort at Ground Zero?[5]
  7. Why did the NTSB not make public reports on any of the planes as is the normal procedure?[6]
  8. Why did none of the planes squawk the hijack code?
  9. Why was the official explanation for alleged phone calls made by Flight 77 passenger Barbara Olsen changed several times, and ultimately how could Ted Olsen’s story make any sense?[7]
  10. Why did high-ranking Pentagon officials cancel travel plans for the morning of September 11 “…apparently because of security concerns.”?[8]
  11. How could Hani Hanjour still have successfully piloted Flight 77 given his poor qualifications?[9]
  12. Why are those interested in The Pentagon not intently reviewing documents released by the FAA and 9/11 Commission that reveal startling questions about the aircraft and events of that day?[10]

Why are these questions NOT being pursued by independent investigators?  That’s because the attention of many potential investigators has been hijacked by the much less useful question of “What hit the Pentagon.”  This is certainly the favorite subject of intentional disruptors and official story supporters.

A great example was when 9/11 Commission staffer Miles Kara and I exchanged messages a few months ago.  He had written to my local group in an inquiry seeking support for his positions.  My response was apparently not to his liking, and he therefore sought something in my own work that could be criticized.  Despite the fact that the vast majority of my 9/11 work has centered on the World Trade Center, Army intelligence officer Kara searched through my articles and presentations over the last seven years and chose one minor statement I made about the Pentagon, in March 2006.  He then enlarged this into his own emotional statement, suggesting that those who question what hit the Pentagon do “a disservice to the men, women and children who died there that day.  Visit the Pentagon Memorial and sit on the bench of the youngest victim.“[11] Kara was most interested in discussing what hit the Pentagon only so that he could turn the issue into an emotional question about the victims.  That is usually the case with mainstream media hit pieces, and with intentional disruptors as well.

The question of what hit the Pentagon leads directly to the question of what happened to the passengers, as Miles Kara was trying to insinuate.  That fact was also emphasized by the leading promoter of the “fly-over” theory when he gave a presentation in Europe recently.  His presentation ended with the questions he really wanted us to think about.

Demand answers to the question of what happened to the people on the plane.

How did they really die?”

Where they killed them, how they killed them, I can’t know.”

I can only know what the witnesses tell me.”[12]

Is this a good way to encourage people to question 9/11, and to bring justice?  Obviously not.

Finally, note that “endorsements” are a good way to pit people against each other, and that’s exactly what has been done.  There has never been another issue in the truth movement that has required the pursuit of endorsements but, for some reason, this least important question about the Pentagon is promoted as an important issue requiring us to divide into camps.  Divide and conquer is the strategy of the intentional disruptor.

In other words, what hit the Pentagon does not bring us closer to justice but actually brings us farther from that goal because it exacerbates the divisions within the truth movement while we waste time.  That’s probably why the intentional disruptors and government supporters always drive the conversations to that one question.

People who are serious about 9/11 truth and justice focus on the facts that help us come not only to truth, but to a useful truth.  We should make only minimal reference to any facts that do not help us achieve truth and justice.  Instead, we should make note that what hit the Pentagon, for example, is a minor and nearly useless issue that is used by intentional disruptors and official story promoters as they work to keep the truth from being exposed.


[1] Complete 911 Timeline, American Airlines Flight 77, http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=aa77

[2] Norman Mineta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission makes clear that Dick Cheney was tracking Flight 77 while it was more than 50 miles away from Washington DC.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

[3] Mete Sozen has since become a leading spokesman for the official story about the WTC as well.  For more about him, see my articles “Looking for Truth in Credentials: The Peculiar WTC ‘Experts’”, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=RYA20070313&articleId=5071 and “Finally, an apology from the National Geographic Channel”, http://911blogger.com/news/2009-08-22/finally-apology-national-geographic-channel

[4] Some very seriouis accusations have been made against Paul Mlakar by Prof. Raymond B. Seed of the University of California, Berkeley, Letter entitled Re: New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina, And the Soul of the Profession, October 30, 2007, http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-15/pentagon-investigation-leader-paul-mlakar-obstructed-investigation-new-orleans-according-uc-berkeley-professor

[5] Kevin R. Ryan, Demolition Access to the WTC Towers: Part Four – Cleanup, 911Review.com, February 11, 2010,  http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p4.html

[6] 911Research.com, NTSB Reports: Long-Hidden NTSB Reports Contain Flight Data, http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/ntsb.html

[7] David Ray Griffin, Ted Olson’s Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials, GlobalResearch.ca, April 1, 2008, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8514

[8] The Family Steering Committee for an Independent 9/11 Commission, http://www.911independentcommission.org/

[9] Complete 911 Timeline, Hani Hanjour, http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&the_alleged_9/11_hijackers=haniHanjour

[10] See the FOIA responses obtained by the 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington,

http://www.911workinggroup.org/

Also see the documents released by the 911 Commission here.

Here’s an example:

UAL and AAL employees:  Contradictions about transponders.  ACARS data missing.  UAL had radar continuity.

http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-01098.pdf

Many of the documents are just cover pages saying the information is still “Restricted”. These include interviews of the CIA agents, Prince Bandar, and the first responders.

[11] Miles Kara, Archive for the ‘Bloomington Group’ Category, 9/11 Revisited website, http://www.oredigger61.org/?cat=25

[12] Parody video of CIT tour and presentation in which, at 02:18, the speaker tells his French audience the reasons why CIT is working so hard.  Click here to watch the CIT parpdy.

9/11 Pentagon Attack – Small Hole Damage DEBUNKED

(mp3) Webster Tarpley Disinfo Alert: An unidentified “flying object” hit the Pentagon during a drone drill and there is a 9/11 Truth “intellectual gestapo” of “dubious characters” who don’t want you to know about it because they are “an example of Cass Sunstein”

tarpleyontoomuchbutter-00987

Webster Tarpley spreads misinformation or disinformation on Guns and Butter with Bonnie Faulkner, September 2011

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 11th 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.

Ae911Truth's Richard Gage Respectfully Pulls All Support for Citizen Investigation Team (CIT)

source: An email to supporters from Richard Gage
dateline: 02/08/2011

Complete Withdrawal of Support by Richard Gage, AIA, for CIT’s “National Security Alert”

In early 2009, I watched the “National Security Alert” video by the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) where recollections of 10 eyewitness accounts of the attack on the Pentagon were presented (of many more that were interviewed).  These accounts included the witnesses’ recollection of the path being taken by the plane prior to impact. The path that many of them recalled was to the north of the former CITGO gas station.  Based on these few accounts CIT presented its case that the plane flew over the Pentagon since the damage trail was not consistent with the north path.

My main focus relative to 9/11 had been on the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers.  I had not been able to spend much time on the Pentagon issue.  I was initially impressed by CIT’s presentation and, more than a year and a half ago, provided a short statement of support for their efforts.

After making my statement I became aware of more details of the CIT witness accounts as well as the rest of the compelling eyewitness testimony that is available. The vast majority of eyewitness accounts refute the CIT flyover conclusion, as they entail that the plane hit the Pentagon or was flying so low it could not miss.

I was also surprised to learn that 12 of the witnesses that CIT interviewed (including six witnesses to whom CIT refers to as north path witnesses) were in a position to see the Pentagon and all 12 stated that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.  It was clear from this that CIT used improper investigative methods. CIT used and presented only those portions of their witness reports which fit their conclusion. The preponderance of  CIT’s own evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon. (See Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert” and other works listed below for these and many additional witness statements that describe the plane as clearly impacting the Pentagon).

Because of these concerns I provided new statements in December 2009 and January 2010 pointing out that my previous statement of support should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their conclusion that the airplane flew over the Pentagon.  Despite these statements, CIT has continued to publish my original statement and characterize it as an endorsement of their flyover conclusion.  I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all.  In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

I base my present position also on a number of blogs, papers, blogs, and videos that have shed light on the Pentagon Flight 77 issues and on CIT’s work. These papers should be among those studied by anyone seeking the full truth about these matters.  Most of these works analyze additional evidence and come to different conclusions than CIT does.

Relevant critiques of CIT and their National Security Alert include:

Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert”, Chris Sarns, Feb 5, 2011

9/11 Pentagon Witnesses:  They Saw the Plane Hit the Pentagon, Video by Jeff Hill, June 14, 2010

Overwhelming Evidence of Insider Complicity, David Chandler and Jon Cole, Dec 2010

Debating” What Hit the Pentagon by Exaggeration, Name-calling, and Threats, Gregg Roberts, Jan 2011

And critiques that examine CIT’s earlier work “Pentacon” are helpful as well:

Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce or Critiquing PentaCon ,  by Jim Hoffman, July 2009

To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’, Victoria Ashley, July 2009

Relevant peer-reviewed papers (posted on Journalof911Studies.com):

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, (B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.)  January 2011

What hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.), July 2009 (updated Feb 2010)

There was a time in the four years after 9/11 when I simply assumed that the official story of the destruction of the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11 was true.  One could say that I “endorsed” the official story based on what I knew at the time, but as I learned more, my opinion of what happened to those buildings evolved radically. John Maynard Keynes, father of Keynesian Economics, once said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” A similar evolution has occurred in relation to my view of CIT’s work.

I strongly recommend that people who care to research what happened at the Pentagon take personal responsibility for forming their own conclusions by acquainting themselves with a wide range of analysis done by people who have come before them rather than jumping to conclusions based on a skewed selection of evidence and argument, or being unduly influenced by any type of authority figure.  Use your own discernment, based on your use of the scientific method to arrive at a coherent theory that you can confidently stand behind.

One of the authors cited above, Frank Legge, PhD., admonishes us to adopt a “prudent approach” to the Pentagon piece of the 9/11 puzzle.  In the end he wisely advocates the “precautionary principle” which is to “assert only what we can truly know,” given the contradictory evidence, misinformation, disinformation, and lack of information from official sources, and the difficulty in verifying much of it, years after the fact and with inadequate resources.

Legge concludes that there is prima facie evidence that “the official explanation of the event at the Pentagon is false and that a cover-up exists. He concludes as well this negative hypothesis: that there is “no proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.”  And, since officials are holding the cards (videos) as to what did or didn’t hit the Pentagon, Dr. Legge’s recommendation is that investigators take care to avoid publicly asserting that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon”.

We can all agree that no hijacked plane should have been able to violate the airspace of our nation’s capital and hit the headquarters of the most sophisticated defense system in the world – an hour and a half after the assault began on the Twin Towers.

The 9/11 Truth movement will be more likely to succeed in its effort to educate the public about the Pentagon by focusing on those areas of greatest agreement.

Sincerely,

Richard Gage, AIA

Complete Withdrawal of Support by Richard Gage, AIA, for CIT’s “National Security Alert”

Via e-mail, 2/8/11 
Friends and Colleagues –  below is my statement regarding my complete withdrawal of support for CIT.    -Richard Gage

Complete Withdrawal of Support by Richard Gage, AIA, for CIT’s “National Security Alert”

In early 2009, I watched the “National Security Alert” video by the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) where recollections of 10 eyewitness accounts of the attack on the Pentagon were presented (of many more that were interviewed).  These accounts included the witnesses’ recollection of the path being taken by the plane prior to impact. The path that many of them recalled was to the north of the former CITGO gas station.  Based on these few accounts CIT presented its case that the plane flew over the Pentagon since the damage trail was not consistent with the north path.

My main focus relative to 9/11 had been on the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers.  I had not been able to spend much time on the Pentagon issue.  I was initially impressed by CIT’s presentation and, more than a year and a half ago, provided a short statement of support for their efforts.

After making my statement I became aware of more details of the CIT witness accounts as well as the rest of the compelling eyewitness testimony that is available. The vast majority of eyewitness accounts refute the CIT flyover conclusion, as they entail that the plane hit the Pentagon or was flying so low it could not miss.
I was also surprised to learn that 12 of the witnesses that CIT interviewed (including six witnesses to whom CIT refers to as north path witnesses) were in a position to see the Pentagon and all 12 stated that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.  It was clear from this that CIT used improper investigative methods. CIT used and presented only those portions of their witness reports which fit their conclusion. The preponderance of  CIT’s own evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon. (See Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert” and other works listed below for these and many additional witness statements that describe the plane as clearly impacting the Pentagon).

Because of these concerns I provided new statements in December 2009 and January 2010 pointing out that my previous statement of support should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their conclusion that the airplane flew over the Pentagon.  Despite these statements, CIT has continued to publish my original statement and characterize it as an endorsement of their flyover conclusion.  I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all.  In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

I base my present position also on a number of blogs, papers, blogs, and videos that have shed light on the Pentagon Flight 77 issues and on CIT’s work. These papers should be among those studied by anyone seeking the full truth about these matters.  Most of these works analyze additional evidence and come to different conclusions than CIT does.

Relevant critiques of CIT and their National Security Alert include:
Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert”, Chris Sarns, Feb 5, 2011
9/11 Pentagon Witnesses:  They Saw the Plane Hit the Pentagon, Video by Jeff Hill, June 14, 2010
Overwhelming Evidence of Insider Complicity, David Chandler and Jon Cole, Dec 2010
“Debating” What Hit the Pentagon by Exaggeration, Name-calling, and Threats, Gregg Roberts, Jan 2011

And critiques that examine CIT’s earlier work “Pentacon” are helpful as well:
Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce or Critiquing PentaCon ,  by Jim Hoffman, July 2009
To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’, Victoria Ashley, July 2009

Relevant peer-reviewed papers (posted on Journalof911Studies.com):
Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, (B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.)  January 2011
What hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.), July 2009 (updated Feb 2010)

There was a time in the four years after 9/11 when I simply assumed that the official story of the destruction of the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11 was true.  One could say that I “endorsed” the official story based on what I knew at the time, but as I learned more, my opinion of what happened to those buildings evolved radically. John Maynard Keynes, father of Keynesian Economics, once said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” A similar evolution has occurred in relation to my view of CIT’s work.

I strongly recommend that people who care to research what happened at the Pentagon take personal responsibility for forming their own conclusions by acquainting themselves with a wide range of analysis done by people who have come before them rather than jumping to conclusions based on a skewed selection of evidence and argument, or being unduly influenced by any type of authority figure.  Use your own discernment, based on your use of the scientific method to arrive at a coherent theory that you can confidently stand behind.

One of the authors cited above, Frank Legge, PhD., admonishes us to adopt a “prudent approach” to the Pentagon piece of the 9/11 puzzle.  In the end he wisely advocates the “precautionary principle” which is to “assert only what we can truly know,” given the contradictory evidence, misinformation, disinformation, and lack of information from official sources, and the difficulty in verifying much of it, years after the fact and with inadequate resources.

Legge concludes that there is prima facie evidence that “the official explanation of the event at the Pentagon is false and that a cover-up exists. He concludes as well this negative hypothesis: that there is “no proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.”  And, since officials are holding the cards (videos) as to what did or didn’t hit the Pentagon, Dr. Legge’s recommendation is that investigators “take care to avoid publicly asserting that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon”.
We can all agree that no hijacked plane should have been able to violate the airspace of our nation’s capital and hit the headquarters of the most sophisticated defense system in the world – an hour and a half after the assault began on the Twin Towers.

The 9/11 Truth movement will be more likely to succeed in its effort to educate the public about the Pentagon by focusing on those areas of greatest agreement.

Sincerely,
Richard Gage, AIA

–end of Richard Gage’s e-mail

Editors Note: Thank you to Richard Gage for taking the time to properly look into CIT and withdraw your endorsement of misinformation.  Your information and presentations are much too powerful to be associated with sloppy, agenda driven misinformation like that found in the film “National Security Alert”.

Dr Frank Legge on Visibility 9-11: Mounting Evidence Shows Boeing 757-200 Impact with Pentagon Probable

In this podcast, Dr Frank Legge discusses his new paper which was co-authored with Warren Stutt and has been published at the The Journal of 9/11 Studies, titled Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf ).

In this lengthy and detailed discussion, Dr Legge is careful to lay out his way of thinking on the Pentagon issue and why it is so important to the 9/11 Truth Movement to not make unsupported claims about the events there. Legge looks at this issue from a purely scientific perspective and is only interested in what he can prove to be true based on hard evidence. It is clear to Legge and to the vast majority of scientists who have studied the issue, that while the Pentagon is a mystery to a degree, it is most likely that AA Flight 77, a Boeing 757-200 did hit the building based on the physical evidence available.

We now have the correctly decoded digital flight data from Flight 77 and it’s time for more people to get behind the call to reason on the Pentagon issue leading up to the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 Attacks!  There is nothing wrong with supporting the parts of the “official story” of  9/11 that are most likely true.   The team at Visibility 9-11 believe, as does Dr legge that it actually helps the interested public and especially the scientific community to see us as reasoned and balanced truth advocates when we do exactly that.

Lets stop being what we are labeled as “conspiracy theorist’s” and become “conspiracy factulist’s”!

For other instructive reading on the Pentagon please see related items below-

What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth

The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows

Music by Root1, also known as Three Shoes Posse.

To listen to this program, click Play in the embedded player below.

Your Support Needed to Keep This Website and Podcast Available

Please consider making a donation to keep this website and podcast archives of Visibility 9-11 with Michael Wolsey available.