Announcing: Conference on the 9/11 Pentagon Evidence

University Park United Methodist Church (East Fellowship Hall)
2180 S University Blvd, Denver, CO 80210

May 4, 2019 / 9:30 am – 5:00 pm

Tickets

GoFundMe — https://www.gofundme.com/conference-on-the-911-pentagon-evidence
[This is an expensive event. If this effort is meaningful for you, please contribute.]

Scientists for 9/11 Truth and the International Center for 9/11 Studies will be sponsoring a “Conference on the 9/11 Pentagon Evidence” on May 4 in Denver, Colorado. To date we have three co-sponsors: Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance911Truth.org, and Michael Wolsey of visibility911.org.  Other groups are invited to co-sponsor this event.

The 9/11 Truth Movement’s strongest and most rigorously verified evidence-based theory is the explosive demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center.

By contrast, the Truth Movement’s most contentious and divisive issue has been the question of what happened at the Pentagon. The early study of the Pentagon was plagued by lack of information and misinformation, much of which has persisted. But even though we now have more evidence, most current theories fail to address the full range of evidence, especially that which supports large plane impact. Why? For all of us, anchoring and confirmation bias make it hard to let go of initial impressions. The scientific method requires us to challenge our biases as we seek truth.

A key word for this conference is “evidence.” Addressing all of the currently known relevant evidence is a crucial component of the scientific process – a process in which anyone can participate. The goal is to put all of the evidence on the table, not to end discussion, but to be the basis for ongoing discussion. We believe the current evidence supports large plane impact of the Pentagon. Scientific conclusions remain fluid, however, so all research remains open to critique.

The goals of this conference are to present current evidence that any viable theory must address and to put the discussion of what happened at the Pentagon on a solid scientific footing to make our movement as strong as possible. If the Truth Movement ever gets real traction in a court of law or with society at large, we will be attacked at our weakest point. Our adversaries are very powerful and have the media at their beck and call. If we are shown to be in disarray on such a major issue as the Pentagon, our good work proving demolition at the World Trade Center might well be ignored. Thus we welcome your participation in this conference and your questions as we continue in the search for truth.

The invited speakers at this event are, in alphabetical order, David Chandler, Wayne Coste, Ken Jenkins, Warren Stutt, and John D. Wyndham, all of whom have done active scientific research on the evidence at the Pentagon. We invite you to join us in Denver on May 4 and/or help us defray the costs by contributing financially through our GoFundMe account. The event will be videotaped.

We invite 9/11 Truth organizations and individuals to co-sponsor this event. Sponsorship does not imply endorsement of the particular conclusions of the various presenters, but implies support for the goals and process that are being advocated. Let us know if you or your group would like to be listed as a co-sponsor.

 

Presenters and their 9/11 Pentagon Evidence Research

David Chandler; BS (IPS) Physics/Engineering, Harvey Mudd College; MA Education, Claremont Graduate University; MS Mathematics, California Polytechnic University; Coordinator, Scientists for 9/11 Truth; Board, International Center for 9/11 Studies

A Joint Statement on the Pentagon (with Jonathan Cole)

Pentagon Plane Puzzle + Going Beyond Speculation (with Ken Jenkins)

The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis Based on Analysis of the Flight Path and Addendum (with Frank Legge)

Critique of CIT’s Fundamentally Flawed Methodology

Blink Comparator Views of the Plane at the Pentagon

Wayne Coste; BS Electrical Engineering, University of Connecticut

Explanation of the Evidence at the Pentagon on 9/11 – Answering the 9/11 Consensus Panel Challenge

Ken Jenkins; BS Electrical Engineering, Carnegie-Mellon University; Post graduate studies, Psychology

Pentagon Plane Puzzle + Going Beyond Speculation (with David Chandler)

The Truth is Not Enough: How to Overcome Emotional Barriers to 9/11 Truth

The 85 Pentagon Area Surveillance Cameras

Why Not Use a Plane? — Fake vs. Real Events (with Frank Legge)

Warren Stutt; BSc (Hons) Comp. Sci., Auckland University

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon (with Frank Legge)

A Response to Pilots for 9/11 Truth (with Frank Legge)

John D. Wyndham; PhD Physics, Cambridge University (U.K.); Board, Scientists for 9/11 Truth

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate

The Pentagon Event: The Honegger Hypothesis Refuted, Ver 2 (with Victoria Ashley, David Chandler, Jonathan H. Cole, Jim Hoffman, Ken Jenkins, Frank Legge)

The Pentagon Attack: Eyewitnesses, Debris Flow and Other Issues – A Reply to Fletcher and Eastman

The Pentagon Attack: The Event Time Revisited

The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact

[Print the pdf version of this announcement for specific information about accommodations, guidelines, and other details]

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/

The Pentagon Plane Puzzle

Two complementary videos are combined here in the order that they were presented at the 9/11 Truth Film Festival in Oakland, CA, on Sept 10, 2015.

The first video is a preview of the witness section of a forthcoming film by Ken Jenkins titled The Pentagon Plane Puzzle.

That is followed by a PowerPoint presentation by David Chandler titled Going Beyond Speculation – A Scientific Look at the Pentagon Evidence. In post-production, Ken Jenkins of 9/11 TV added many additional graphics to the live video footage of Chandler’s presentation.
David Chandler’s presentation starts at 26:40.

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

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.

“Debating” by Exaggeration, Namecalling and Threats by Gregg Roberts

January 8, 2011
Author: Gregg Roberts

“The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.”
-Friedrich Nietzsche, German philosopher (1844 – 1900)

This article is a response to “Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working For The Other Side?”, credited to “staff writers” at the Rock Creek Free Press, November 2010 edition, available at: http://www.rockcreekfreepress.com/CreekV4No11-Web.pdf

The “leading 9/11 Truth site” being referred to is 911Blogger.com. The authors of the article critiqued here chose to remain anonymous, and the article’s title doesn’t lend itself to an easily pronounceable acronym. Therefore I will refer to the article’s authors, along with their vocal message board sympathizers and Barrie Zwicker, as The Complainers. We will abbreviate Citizen Investigation Team as “CIT” and their video National Security Alert as “NSA” (noting the irony).

I normally prefer the high ground when it comes to accusations regarding intentions. However, since the Complainers routinely impute sinister motives to their critics, the reader must consider whether that behavior is more consistent with an intention to support or subvert the overall agenda of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Contents

The Complainers’ article, like NSA itself, is fraught with logical fallacies and intellectual dishonesty. Examples are discussed in the following sections:

A Running Ad Hominem…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2

A Key Exaggeration………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3

False Statements and Exaggerations………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4

“There was no [plane] wreckage at the Pentagon”…………………………………………………………………………… 4

“CIT came along and proved [that] the plane flew away”…………………………………………………………………… 7

“The leading 9/11 truth site is actively suppressing CIT’s evidence”…………………………………………………….. 8

“Zwicker is an expert on the subject of infiltration of social movements.”……………………………………………… 9

“Many well respected 9/11 truth activists and scholars have been banned from 911 blogger without

explanation or cause”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9

Refusal to Acknowledge Rational Criticism and Respond to It Rationally……………………………………………… 10

Appeal to Popular Opinion………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11

“Authorities Would Blame Controlled Demolition on Al Qaeda”…………………………………………………………… 11

A Severe Non Sequitur: Poor Political Analysis……………………………………………………………………………… 12

Deceptive Mentions of NSA “Endorsements” or Reviews………………………………………………………………….. 13

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 13

Page numbers refer to the attached PDF.

A Running Ad Hominem

Most of the article consists of a running ad hominem attack, accusing people who run one of the admittedly “leading” 9/11 Truth websites of wanting to cover up mass murder. The Complainers correctly state “it would be surprising if the perpetrators of 9/11 had not attempted to infiltrate and subvert the 9/11 truth movement”, but knowing this alone does not help to identify the infiltrators.  Sorting out the cast of characters requires close examination of the devilish details in order to distinguish among knavish infiltrators, simple fools, and sincere truth-seekers who have been fitted into a well-designed “snitch jacket” in the spirit of COINTELPRO.  The implicit assumption of the Complainers is that criticizing the investigative quality of CIT’s work is the same as working to cover up 9/11 – a manipulative appeal to emotion. The accusation of disloyalty echoes the McCarthyists and their modern-day brethren. It comes from the same playbook used by those who defend the illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, for which 9/11 served as the pretext, by calling 9/11 activists “terrorist sympathizers.”

The Complainers drew warnings from 911Blogger moderators, for their vicious and divisive attacks on other researchers, the real cause of the banning of which the Complainers … complain. A moderator told them that this was one of the reasons that they were banned. Yet this explanation brought no humility or lessened outrage to the Complainers. Is their reaction simply an inability to see their own misbehavior as others see it, or something more? Does it perhaps come from the idea that the best defense is a good offense? (Readers with a well-developed sense of consistency will understand my indulgence in some questions regarding the Complainers’ intentions, given that they “went there” first.)

Whatever the reason, many comments supportive or critical of CIT/NSA that violated 911Blogger rules were allowed to stand because of the overwork that is endemic to the 9/11 truth movement. Whatever inconsistencies there might have been, in terms of who was allowed to get away with what, say little or nothing about the moderators’ intentions.

A Key Exaggeration

The Complainers write as though the evidence against a large airliner having flown into the Pentagon were strongly in their favor, and they make vastly exaggerated claims for the power and the clarity of that evidence. Jim Hoffman’s essay, The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics, published in October 2004, finds that much of the evidence regarding what hit the Pentagon is inconclusive, and is incapable of being made much better than it is. Since the 9/11 Truth movement is working to uncover the truth about 9/11, against a backdrop of blatant lies that constitute an orchestrated coverup, it is important to deal very cautiously with facts.  Deviating from the official story carries a heavy burden of proof, especially in the mind of the public. Speculation lays us open to debunking. Speculation that appears outrageous, and is proved wrong, can paint the whole 9/11 Truth Movement with a broad brush as crazies. We could lose all the hard fought ground we have gained, rendering our solid accomplishments moot. On these grounds, the question of what hit the Pentagon is a self-defeating choice as the focus of any demand for a new investigation. In one of his later analyses Hoffman concludes that “[the] evidence comports with the crash of a Boeing 757.” He added that while “the evidence does not conclusively prove that the aircraft was a 757, much less that it was Flight 77”, “that lack of conclusiveness should not be surprising given the systematic suppression of evidence by authorities.” We need to be willing to let the official story stand unless the proof to the contrary is extremely solid.

For critiques of the deceptive tactics used by CIT, see:

* Victoria Ashley, “To Con A Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’

* Chris Sarns, “Summary and Analysis of ‘National Security Alert’

* Shinki and Ed Paik Accounts vs. CIT Methods by Erik Larson

* Dawn Vignola’s Account vs. CIT’s Methods by Erik Larson

Here are three essays and a shorter but very recent piece describing what the Pentagon evidence actually shows. They also contain explanations of the severe disadvantages of focusing publicly on the question of what hit the Pentagon, and the benefits of focusing on the evidence that many other key aspects of the official account of what happened at the Pentagon are demonstrably false:

* Jim Hoffman, “The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows

* Michael Green, “How They Get Away With It.

* Frank Legge, “What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth

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

[Read more…]

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.