IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working For The Other Side?, Rock Creek Free Press examines censorship

Craig Ranke CIT
post Oct 25 2010, 12:46 PM
Post #1





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



The Rock Creek Free Press does it again with this amazingly well written and researched article taking a look at the bizarre behavior of the controllers of 911blogger when it comes to work the of CIT.

I have copied the article below but you can also download the pdf which is the November 2010 edition on their website. It starts on page one and is continued on page 8.

Thanks Rock Creek!

QUOTE
Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working For The Other Side?
BY RCFP STAFF WRITERS

In the nine years since the attacks of September 11, 2010, 9/11 truth has become a significant social movement, with hundreds of millions of adherents worldwide. A Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll in 2006 found that 36% of Americans believe that the US government either promoted the attacks, or intentionally sat on its hands and let the attacks unfold.

Since 2005, the leading portal for news and discussion about 9/11 has been 911blogger.com. Of the many websites for researchers investigating the events of 9/11 (a Google search for “9/11truth” brings up over a half a million results), 911blogger is the most heavily trafficked. The content is user-generated; registered users post items of interest and other users post comments.

But over the past two years, many well respected 9/11 truth activists and scholars have been banned from 911 blogger without explanation or cause, while the moderators have become heavy-handed in squelching the views of one particular group. These actions have caused many of the banned activists to suspect that Blogger has been infiltrated by agents working for the other side, i.e., those tasked with keeping the truth about 9/11 from gaining widespread acceptance.

The mass bannings are not random, but directed at, among others, users who support the work of Citizen Investigation Team (CIT). (The RCFP ran front page articles about CIT in the April 2009 and July 2009 issues. All back issues are available as PDFs at rockcreekfreepress.com.)

The uninitiated are urged to read those 2009 articles to get the full picture, but a drastically reduced summary is: no plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11. CIT showed, through interviews of seventeen eyewitnesses, that the plane that was seen approaching the Pentagon flew over it and away, as explosives simultaneously detonated inside the building. This created an enormous fireball, filling the sky with dense, black smoke, which obscured the escaping plane. Observers who saw the plane head toward the Pentagon, and next saw the fireball, falsely but understandably concluded that the plane had hit the building. However, the airliner was seen after the fireball by several people, including a Pentagon police officer.

CIT has been endorsed by many of the leading figures of the 9/11 truth movement, including Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth, University of California at Berkeley professor and author Peter Dale Scott, author David Ray Griffin, and actor Ed Asner. In the 9/11 truth community, even among those who are not familiar with CIT, the general consensus is that no plane hit the Pentagon. For starters, plane crashes leave wreckage, and there was no wreckage at the Pentagon. No wings or tail, no fuselage, no luggage or bodies, no skid or burn marks on the pristine green Pentagon lawn.

Many 9/11 truth researchers had strongly suspected for years that no plane hit the Pentagon, then CIT came along and proved it: the plane flew away. And yet, the leading 9/11 truth site is actively suppressing CIT’s evidence and aggressively promoting the view that the plane hit. What is going on?

Before looking at the evidence that 911blogger is censoring the truth about the Pentagon and promoting disinformation, let’s look briefly at why this matters and what their motivations might be.

Although the entire 9/11 story is full of holes, the evidence proving that no plane hit the Pentagon stands in a class by itself, because a deception at the Pentagon is unspinnable. It may be possible to convince the American public that al Qaeda placed bombs in the World Trade Center towers, but the public will never believe, (nor should they) that al Qaeda planted bombs in the Pentagon. The military headquarters for the most powerful nation on earth is a very secure place, and evidence of an elaborate deception at the Pentagon is iron clad proof of complicity at the highest levels of government. Hence, for those trying to keep a lid on the truth, it is absolutely imperative that the facts about what happened at the Pentagon not get out.

Infiltration of the enemy is a common tool of warfare, and it would be surprising if the perpetrators of 9/11 had not attempted to infiltrate and subvert the 9/11 truth movement, to prevent it from doing them (the perps) any damage.

Why activists are so alarmed

Barrie Zwicker is an award-winning journalist, lecturer, author and documentary producer. He was astute enough to question the official 9/11 story from day one, as it was happening. He produced one of the first 9/11 Truth documentaries, “The Great Conspiracy”, in 2003. His most recent book, Towers of Deception, explores the media’s role in covering up the truth about 9/11. Based in Toronto, Canada, Zwicker is an expert on the subject of infiltration of social movements. When Zwicker peaks, people listen.

This summer, via YouTube, Zwicker created a ringing endorsement of CIT’s “National Security Alert” video. He not only enthusiastically applauded CIT’s work and their conclusion (that the plane seen at the Pentagon overflew the building as explosives were detonated), Zwicker delivered a stinging rebuke to CIT’s detractors:

“To me, two most important questions now, almost nine years after the events, urgently call out for investigation. First, who are those behind the vicious attempts to discredit the work of the Citizen Investigation Team? Second, what are the motives of the would-be discreditors and those behind them? And I say “attempts” because careful examination of the arguments of CIT’s tormentors show them to be tricky and unreliable, in fact as flimsy as the official story they try to defend.”

Zwicker submitted the video endorsement to 911Blogger on July 22, 2010.

Now, this is big news in the truth community. For someone of Zwicker’s stature to provide unambiguously enthusiastic support of citizen investigators, on an issue that has not (until now) had clear answers (namely, what happened at the Pentagon), is important to everyone in the truth community. But incredibly, Zwicker’s post to 911blogger was never published.

Zwicker, ever the gentleman, politely emailed the 911blogger moderators,
asking why his entry wasn’t approved. He never received a reply from any of
the four moderators.

However, just ten days later, 911blogger published a 3100 word article from an anonymous poster, titled “CIT is useless.” The amateurish writing and ad hominem attacks are evident from the very first paragraph:

“Some time ago I wrote an article about not wasting time on CIT. Most of their followers are impossible to convince and consequently the endless debates with them are entirely fruitless, resulting in nothing more than distraction. But that’s not to say we should ignore them completely. Just because we ignore them doesn’t mean they won’t be zipping around spouting their fl awed testimony, their aggressive behavior, anything that discredits those of us who are careful and have realistic standards of evidence.”

In part because of this decision by 911blogger, to reject Barrie Zwicker’s endorsement of CIT while publishing a childish hit piece from an anonymous source, Southern California 9/11 truth activist and We Are Change LA member Adam Ruff wrote:

“In my view it is now 100% confirmed that 911blogger is an enemy of the truth
movement as a whole and is engaged in an open campaign of attack on good
truthers.”

The RCFP interviewed Zwicker via email

RCFP: What do you find most compelling about CIT’s work?

Zwicker: A historically significant deception has been revealed by these eyewitnesses. The simplicity of CIT’s findings is also significant, as they don’t lend themselves to being undermined by obfuscations or convoluted scientific discussion. It comes down to this: South side of the gas station = official story, North side = inside job. Not even CIT’s detractors have found a way around this, try as they might. Any honest person who watches the interviews has to agree that the plane was on the north side proving inside job. It’s as good an example as any of critical truth, the primary goal of the 9/11 Truth movement.

RCFP: What do you make of those who say they appreciate CIT’s work but do not think they proved “flyover?”

Zwicker: Commercial airliners cannot make startling turns to left or right in such limited airspace, nor can they vanish into thin air. Flyover is the only rational explanation, not to mention that CIT provides a witness who saw the plane flying away. If this ever gets to a fair and uncorrupted court of law, I am as confident as I am of anything, that such a court will determine this plane overflew the Pentagon.

RCFP: Have you read the criticisms of CIT’s work from Arabesque, Jim Hoffman and Victoria Ashley, and do you think they have merit?

Zwicker: They lack merit because they do not provide counter-evidence. They have no firsthand eyewitness interviews from people who specifically place the plane to the south side of the gas station. Those I could weigh against the eyewitnesses interviewed by CIT. As far as I can see, Arabesque, whoever that is (I don’t care for anonymity), Hoffman and Ashley have provided none at all. They take snippets of third-hand printed media quotes, none of which are actually South of Citgo witnesses, just statements by people who said they saw the plane hit the building. Indeed, one particular detractor blog by “Caustic Logic” quotes a few people as “witnesses” who were not even in the area at the time of the attack! One was in North Carolina, arrived in DC the afternoon of 9/11, saw the downed light poles, and was thus presented as a “light pole witness.” This is in a blog entry titled “The South Path Impact: Documented.”

RCFP: What conclusions do you draw from 911blogger refusing to post your endorsement of CIT?

Zwicker: Actually, my endorsement was briefly posted for about 30 minutes, then withdrawn. It’s painful for me to learn that 911blogger, which I consider to be the premiere 9/11Truth site, is censoring CIT and those who support CIT. Even more distressing is that 911blogger has failed to censor some quite rude comments about CIT’s work and its team members. So it’s clearly one-sided. One conclusion that can be drawn is that there are players behind the scenes who have prevailed upon the moderators at 911blogger to stultify CIT and its findings. Since the censorship is so blatant and carries with it obvious penalties in the form of loss of credibility, those behind the censorship orders must really have their knickers in a knot about something. It’s a clear sign that those who control that website are trying to control thought when it comes to the Pentagon. Most people in the truth movement that I talk to in the real world are agreed that no plane hit the Pentagon. That the most visited 9/11 truth website would be so hostile towards evidence that supports this widely held belief within the ranks of Truthers is at the least disconcerting.

A little more than a month after Zwicker’s endorsement of CIT was rejected, the situation repeated itself, when retired NASA aeronautical engineer Dwain Deets recorded a video endorsement of CIT on August 30, 2010 and submitted it to 911blogger. Once again, 911blogger refused, without explanation, to post the endorsement of a highly qualified professional.

Prior to 911blogger rejecting these video endorsements from Zwicker and Deets, nearly all users at 911blogger who were vocal in their support of CIT had been banned. An informal poll easily came up with 25 former users of 911blogger who had been banned without explanation—about half of whom are CIT supporters.

Three of the most well-informed, articulate and prolific CIT supporters were banned simultaneously on May 24, 2010, while in the midst of a heated online debate with 911blogger moderator Erik Larson (aka Loose Nuke). Truth activist Stefan S. of London, England explains it:

“The exact moment that Adam Syed, Adam Ruff and I were banned, we were in mid-debate with Erik Larson. Nothing remotely offensive or rule breaking was being said by any one of us, let alone all three of us at the exact same time.

“What was happening was that Larson had been backed into a corner over a blog entry of his, which was a listing of what he claimed were witnesses to the plane flying south of the Citgo station prior to it striking the Pentagon.

“Not a single one of those witnesses even mentioned Citgo, it was just a collection of laughably tenuous arguments for why ambiguous witness statements must be supportive of the official story. The list was submitted to an intensive analysis and it was shown conclusively that none of the witnesses supported the official flight path, that the list included several witnesses who stated that the plane flew to the north of Citgo, and most strikingly, several who explicitly stated that they were not even in the vicinity at the time of the attack.

“The discussion was drifting into increasingly embarrassing territory for Larson when — presto — all three of us were banned and Larson, in a completely childish fashion, proceeded to have the “last word” in full knowledge that he had just stopped the people he was addressing from being able to respond.

“Larson’s articles are disinformation; the information he puts out there is deliberately false with a motive to undermine genuine research. 911blogger is no longer a 9/11 truth site, that much is clear.”

Response from 911blogger

Other than from moderator John Wright (aka LeftWright), who stressed that he was giving only his own personal views, not those of the website, there has been no response from 911blogger to questions emailed to them on September 15, 2010 about their treatment of Citizen Investigation Team. The email, which stated that the Rock Creek Free Press was working on an article about 911blogger and wanted to include their side of the story, was sent to the current email addresses for site owner Justin Keogh and moderators Erik Larson, Ted Tilton, Jr. and John Wright, as well as to the joint email address for the “blogger team.”

John Wright stated on September 16 that he was available for a phone interview, but, as of press time on October 23, has not replied to an email sent on October 5 to arrange that interview.

The lengthy emails from Wright explaining his view of why CIT has been treated so badly at 911blogger amount, in our view, to implausible excuses: he’s been busy; as a fulltime truth activist he has higher priorities; despite their best efforts, rules are not always enforced fairly; the site has been in a state of transition; and personality conflicts have gotten out of hand.

Most shockingly, Wright claims that Barrie Zwicker broke the site rules by stating in his endorsement that there is a “cadre of disinformation agents who are in the business of attempting to mislead and confuse honest authentic people everywhere about 9/11.” Is Wright really saying that the leading 9/11 truth site will not allow discussion of disinformation or even acknowledge that such a thing exists?

Truth activist and professional orchestral musician Adam Syed of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was banned during the debate with Larson in May, offered this comment on the censorship at 911blogger:

“Arguments in an online forum may at first glance seem to be of interest only to diehard keyboard warriors. But without the Internet, most of us would never have learned about 9/11—certainly the traditional media won’t go near it. 9/11 truth lives or dies on the Internet, and when the most heavily trafficked truth site decides to suppress certain evidence, it obviously makes it harder for people to learn the truth and figure out what happened. In the case of CIT, we are being told to disregard one of the most incriminating facts about 9/11: no plane hit the Pentagon. Now, why would any genuine truther ask us to turn our backs on such damning, unspinnable evidence?”

Answer: they wouldn’t.

Editor’s note: We welcome your comments on the situation at 911blogger; please send them to editor@rockcreekfreepress (dot) com.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Oct 25 2010, 03:12 PM
Post #2





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I think the people who moderate and own Blogger need to be scrutinized very closely. There is obviously censorship and this is unacceptable. People can have opposite opinions and interpretations, even arguing the facts, but let the arguments proceed.

It should be noted that this sort of top down editorial control exists at AE911T to a certain extent, another respected group which has down enormous work raising consciousness (similar to blogger). But this unfortunately does not excuse them or any group from openness and accountability.

I had the privilege to work with and serve on the board at AE911T. I found the same type of message control present and could not understand what it was about. Conceptually message control makes sense if you have a mission and want to not send out confusing signals. We believe X and we believe not X leaves the person confronted with these two statements thinking that the group doesn't know what it believes.

What is actually happening in many cases is that a thesis or a statement of a series of statements are issued as affirmative positions presumably based on sound research which supports that single conclusion. The following bits of evidence A, B, C, D, E, lead to the conclusion (thesis) X. This is our official position. This stakes out some firm ground. And the task now is to present the thesis and the supporting evidence and sound science leading to the thesis.

This often requires that the "reading" of the evidence be placed under scrutiny. Is this "evidence" actually what they say it is? How do we know? Who is the authority of this? What makes them an authority?

In the case of the destruction of the twin towers and wtc 7 we have very little physical evidence. What we have are videos, stills, witness accounts, and a body of scientific principles. Several researchers have shown that the visual record has been tampered with. Perhaps not all of it, but this does throw into question the entire body of "digital evidence" and should make us aware how easily it is to alter. If nothing we have learned from 9/11 that there was an enormous amount of deception thrown our way. How do we decide what IS evidence and what isn't? There is no easy answer in many cases. But there is one to whether we should debate and discuss this - and that is YES.

Dwain Deets resigned from the board of AE911T when I was voted off the board without cause. Well not entirely without cause - some directors believed that I was harming the group by wanting to open some things up for INTERNAL discussion, and accused me of being a dis info agent trying to undermine their entire controlled demolition thesis for the destruction of the 3 towers. This was not accurate though I did suggest the group consider changing the words - controlled demolition - to engineered destruction and ironically Gage seemed to be open to the idea. But in the end my suggestions and desire for debate and more structural analysis and understanding of the three building structures was determined to be unnecessary as the case for controlled demolition was made beyond a reasonable doubt. So much for discussion and openness.

I should point out that Justin Keogh was the lead person in my ouster and serves on the board of AE911T and leads their web team (responsible for their web site). Odd coincidence and interlocking relationship between 911Blogger and AE911T. I believe he is also associated closely with the Journal of 911Studies as are Hoffman and Ashley.

Is this all a matter of ego? I will assert that this is definitely in the mix. People who find themselves at the apex of the 911 Truth movement are looked up to by millions of people and are indeed informing them and shaping their understanding of the events of 911. Remember, going back to the evidence - it was a media event for everyone except the few who experience real time up close and personal. For the rest of us it was a managed media event and now the truth movement is "telling us what we saw" claiming it is the truth.

Many smart people have put themselves out on a limb so to speak with their analysis. Some have even gone the route of publishing and quasi peer review their findings to provide gravitas to their work and giving it an imprimatur and air of authority. And this does have its power on those who don't have the expertise to question authority - they just fall in line and say... he said it, he's a PhD, so it must be true. Oh really?

I personally am much more comfortable with exposing the contradictions in the official account... or any account for that matter than asserting affirmatively what happened when I wasn't there nor have the professional expertise to evaluate the experience. This, in fact, is why so much of witness testimony is unreliable. But if many witnesses tell substantially the same story a pattern of truth begins to emerge.

I can't decide in the end if Blogger and AE911T are "infiltrated" though they both claim they are targets of infiltrators, or whether some big egos are forcing some sort of message discipline which is actually making them both anti democratic and anti scientific by their methodology alone. it's hard to say. I want to believe that the vast majority of these 911 "leaders" are sincere, and well meaning and give people the "benefit of the doubt". But when outright censorship rears up... I want to say:

Houston, we've got a problem....

This post has been edited by SanderO: Oct 25 2010, 09:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Oct 25 2010, 09:22 PM
Post #3





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Interesting stuff. I'm glad I never visited 911Blogger
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lasthorseman
post Oct 25 2010, 09:34 PM
Post #4





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 848
Joined: 23-December 06
Member No.: 360



I do recall one of the eye opening sites on 911 featured the Amazing Pentalawn 2000. We are missing the largest message here, the official story is bogus, we have been lied to but that should not deter and divide us as a whole collective group. As time marches on we discover the anti-war people don't want to associate with 911 truth. People want purity in their movements for some strange Joesph Goebells psycho-sociopathic propaganda reason. Since 911 I have gone down every rabbit hole from chemtrails to UFOs and underground bases and I can see why most people just shut their brains down. What we do have now, in ADDITION to 911 are an entire multi-dimensional disconnect involving every arena of human endeavor in the western world. Climategate, swineflu gate, bailoutgate, BPgate, frankenfoodgate and Obama PeacePrizegate. Life is literally an Orwellian doublespeak dictionary. What was is most recently. A pilot who refused to get his DNA damaged because somebody still believes Elvis bin Laden is responsible for all the evil in the world.
In short and in total sites will come and sites will go. Mr. crashing no gates dailykos being the prime example, and or for that matter pick any large old established institution which has not become compromised beyond it's original purpose. I just find it better to wait until people are ready and receptive to it. Then I can introduce "The Illuminati Plan to Destroy America".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cheapchippy
post Oct 26 2010, 05:09 AM
Post #5





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 20
Joined: 27-September 08
From: South Australia
Member No.: 3,851



In relation to this statement in the OP...

"For starters, plane crashes leave wreckage, and there was no wreckage at the Pentagon. No wings or tail, no fuselage, no luggage or bodies, no skid or burn marks on the pristine green Pentagon lawn.

Many 9/11 truth researchers had strongly suspected for years that no plane hit the Pentagon, then CIT came along and proved it: the plane flew away. And yet, the leading 9/11 truth site is actively suppressing CIT’s evidence and aggressively promoting the view that the plane hit. What is going on?"


Im pretty sure there have been photos of some fuselage, wheel, engine and body in a seat.
I havent seen wings, tail or scorched lawn but thumbdown.gif

I dont think that CIT have proved the plane flew away either.
One Pentagon security gaurds (?) statement is not only dubious but its One statement....only.


However, it wouldnt surprise me if 911 blogger had been leaned on, just like Llyod England was.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Oct 26 2010, 08:34 AM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (cheapchippy @ Oct 26 2010, 11:09 AM) *
In relation to this statement in the OP...

"For starters, plane crashes leave wreckage, and there was no wreckage at the Pentagon. No wings or tail, no fuselage, no luggage or bodies, no skid or burn marks on the pristine green Pentagon lawn.

Many 9/11 truth researchers had strongly suspected for years that no plane hit the Pentagon, then CIT came along and proved it: the plane flew away. And yet, the leading 9/11 truth site is actively suppressing CIT’s evidence and aggressively promoting the view that the plane hit. What is going on?"


Im pretty sure there have been photos of some fuselage, wheel, engine and body in a seat.
I havent seen wings, tail or scorched lawn but thumbdown.gif

I dont think that CIT have proved the plane flew away either.
One Pentagon security gaurds (?) statement is not only dubious but its One statement....only.


However, it wouldnt surprise me if 911 blogger had been leaned on, just like Llyod England was.


There's an image of a "body in a seat"?

The "plane parts" are undocumented. As are most of the images.

The NOC trajectory alone proves "inside job". Until somebody explains how the aircraft could have "impacted" from this path given the exterior and interior damage, the only logical conclusion is flyover.

QUOTE
Zwicker: A historically significant deception has been revealed by these eyewitnesses. The simplicity of CIT’s findings is also significant, as they don’t lend themselves to being undermined by obfuscations or convoluted scientific discussion. It comes down to this: South side of the gas station = official story, North side = inside job. Not even CIT’s detractors have found a way around this, try as they might. Any honest person who watches the interviews has to agree that the plane was on the north side proving inside job. It’s as good an example as any of critical truth, the primary goal of the 9/11 Truth movement.

...

Zwicker: Commercial airliners cannot make startling turns to left or right in such limited airspace, nor can they vanish into thin air. Flyover is the only rational explanation, not to mention that CIT provides a witness who saw the plane flying away. If this ever gets to a fair and uncorrupted court of law, I am as confident as I am of anything, that such a court will determine this plane overflew the Pentagon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Oct 26 2010, 03:18 PM
Post #7


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: dc
Member No.: 96



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Oct 26 2010, 08:34 AM) *
There's an image of a "body in a seat"?


not to divert too far off topic - yes there is, but its NOT a plane seat. the following is a post i never got around to making, but it addresses the pic in question:

QUOTE
pentagon - more evidence of explosives and NOT jet fuel - have a look at these 2 pics:






large, hi-res:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/...ion/P200045.jpg
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/...ion/P200047.jpg


do you see jetfuel soaked anything? look at how clean the one guy's shirt is where it has become untucked from his pants after death. there isNt any jetfuel OR water on, around, or puddled under these victims. they died of 2 causes: the one whose outerflesh melted off, was hit at chest level by an explosive immediately in front of him. the others on the floor, may have also been killed from that same flash/blast, but the one male whose face we cant see also had the misfortune of something falling on him.

but nowhere in there do you see jetfuel, or an airplane part that ripped thru these poor folks. nowhere, and you dont have to be a blast expert or an ntsb investigator to see it or to decipher/deconstruct it.

for further analysis of that pic check these 2 posts:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums...56&t=273399
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums...42&t=273399
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Oct 26 2010, 04:14 PM
Post #8





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (cheapchippy @ Oct 26 2010, 09:09 AM) *
In relation to this statement in the OP...

"For starters, plane crashes leave wreckage, and there was no wreckage at the Pentagon. No wings or tail, no fuselage, no luggage or bodies, no skid or burn marks on the pristine green Pentagon lawn.

Many 9/11 truth researchers had strongly suspected for years that no plane hit the Pentagon, then CIT came along and proved it: the plane flew away. And yet, the leading 9/11 truth site is actively suppressing CIT’s evidence and aggressively promoting the view that the plane hit. What is going on?"


Im pretty sure there have been photos of some fuselage, wheel, engine and body in a seat.
I havent seen wings, tail or scorched lawn but thumbdown.gif


I agree precise language is important and the writer's point would have been made just as well if they had said, "...and there were no large pieces of wreckage at the Pentagon" or perhaps, "and there was a notable lack of debris at the Pentagon."

However, although you took it upon yourself to try and correct them, ironically your statement is even more inaccurate than the statement in the article.

1. As paranoia points out there is no photograph of a body in an airplane seat. Photos of people who where murdered inside the Pentagon are not relevant to the statement made by the author.

2. There is no "engine" photographed. There is a rotor piece that ALLEGEDLY comes from an engine but you have no way to verify what engine and from what plane it came or whether it was ever in a plane at all. Either way it is not an "engine" as you said.

3. What you are calling a "wheel" was actually a rim that was photographed outside of the C-ring hole but it has not been positively identified as belonging to tail #N644AA so for all we know it had been in the Pentagon for weeks prior to the attack.

4. A couple of uncharred mangled scraps of aluminum that appears to have the colors of an AA jet does not equal "some fuselage". In fact it is impossible to prove exactly what part of a plane it allegedly comes from or whether or not they were ever part of any plane at all. Either way they have not been positively identified as being part of tail #N644AA and none of this amounts to a significant or reasonable amount of wreckage as we should expect from a 90 ton Boeing.

QUOTE
I dont think that CIT have proved the plane flew away either.
One Pentagon security gaurds (?) statement is not only dubious but its One statement....only.


It's not CIT that proves it. The 15+ verified north side witnesses prove it even without Roosevelt Robert's account of seeing the plane flying away. This is a scientific fact that no objective person can deny. If you don't understand why read this article including a professional scientific analysis done by experts as you can see here:

NORTH APPROACH IMPACT ANALYSIS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cheapchippy
post Oct 26 2010, 05:41 PM
Post #9





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 20
Joined: 27-September 08
From: South Australia
Member No.: 3,851



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Oct 27 2010, 06:44 AM) *
I agree precise language is important and the writer's point would have been made just as well if they had said, "...and there were no large pieces of wreckage at the Pentagon" or perhaps, "and there was a notable lack of debris at the Pentagon."

However, although you took it upon yourself to try and correct them, ironically your statement is even more inaccurate than the statement in the article.

1. As paranoia points out there is no photograph of a body in an airplane seat. Photos of people who where murdered inside the Pentagon are not relevant to the statement made by the author.

2. There is no "engine" photographed. There is a rotor piece that ALLEGEDLY comes from an engine but you have no way to verify what engine and from what plane it came or whether it was ever in a plane at all. Either way it is not an "engine" as you said.

3. What you are calling a "wheel" was actually a rim that was photographed outside of the C-ring hole but it has not been positively identified as belonging to tail #N644AA so for all we know it had been in the Pentagon for weeks prior to the attack.

4. A couple of uncharred mangled scraps of aluminum that appears to have the colors of an AA jet does not equal "some fuselage". In fact it is impossible to prove exactly what part of a plane it allegedly comes from or whether or not they were ever part of any plane at all. Either way they have not been positively identified as being part of tail #N644AA and none of this amounts to a significant or reasonable amount of wreckage as we should expect from a 90 ton Boeing.



It's not CIT that proves it. The 15+ verified north side witnesses prove it even without Roosevelt Robert's account of seeing the plane flying away. This is a scientific fact that no objective person can deny. If you don't understand why read this article including a professional scientific analysis done by experts as you can see here:

NORTH APPROACH IMPACT ANALYSIS



I wasnt taking it upon myself to try and correct words...just using them from the article... OK
So the "wheel" was a rim and the "engine" was a rotor....and what do you want to call the fuselage?


So how many witnesses saw the plane flyover? I wasnt aware that it was more than one.

I have seen the North-Approach-Impact-Analysis and it is an excellent piece of work.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Oct 26 2010, 07:30 PM
Post #10





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (cheapchippy @ Oct 26 2010, 10:41 PM) *
I wasnt taking it upon myself to try and correct words...just using them from the article... OK
So the "wheel" was a rim and the "engine" was a rotor....and what do you want to call the fuselage?


You mean the unidentified mangled and relatively small uncharred pieces of aluminum? I suggest you call them "unidentified mangled and relatively small uncharred pieces of aluminum".

I agreed with you that the author could have used more precise language regarding the suspicious lack of debris.

I just pointed out how you could have as well.

QUOTE
So how many witnesses saw the plane flyover? I wasnt aware that it was more than one.


No doubt several saw it. Since much like the video, the 911 calls were confiscated and permanently sequestered, we know there was a deliberate cover up of what people first reported. Yet we were still able to find Roosevelt Roberts' account as well as the report from Erik Dihle that the first thing "people" (note plural) were yelling was that "a bomb went off and a jet kept on going". This was included in our presentation National Security Alert. It's recommended to view more than once.

QUOTE
I have seen the North-Approach-Impact-Analysis and it is an excellent piece of work.


Ok great then if you find that to be so excellent then you must agree that a north of the gas station approach PROVES a flyover even without ANY witnesses to the plane flying away.

Do you believe we provide enough witness evidence to demonstrate that the plane was on the north side of the gas station?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Oct 26 2010, 09:28 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Cheers P.
I've seen those images before. Totally agree that they weren't in "aircraft seats".
I'd never seen that third image before (RIP) showing that the only images of corpses we know of were in close proximity to eachother.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
maturin42
post Oct 27 2010, 01:53 PM
Post #12





Group: Core Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 18-February 07
From: Maryland, USA
Member No.: 633



Excellent article by RCFP staff. CIT has established a solid basis for the flyover hypothesis that is consistent with facts that have been known from the beginning. What was not known, generally, is the weight of the evidence from the well-placed and credible witnesses and the correlation of those accounts to produce an airtight case, and CIT put that together in a documentary that patiently established that case. It convinced the best 9/11 researchers in the field and garnered them recognition as having produced the smoking gun of Pentagon evidence. The research on the "black box" data, while exposing the fatal flaws in that data and the important fact that, even though it was government-provided, it did not support the government official story, and could not be the bedrock on which the lie was exposed, because the assumption has to be that it was manipulated.

It was a bit like examining the confetti and smoke machine and magic wand in a Las Vegas magic act to try to determine where the pretty lady went when the puff of smoke went up. The black box was part of the show, intended only to amuse the audience by providing a similacrum of the expected evidence from an air crash without actually proving anything except that sloppy staging makes close observers suspicious. It isn't taking anything away from Pilots efforts to say that.

I regard the kind of attacks leveled at CIT and Pilots for truth to be strong evidence that Cass Sunstein's proposed "Cognitive Infiltration" has been under way from the beginning. The purpose is to sow the seeds of doubt and dissention among the community and to provide a basis for people unacquainted with the vast amount of information turned up by Truth researchers to dismiss it as inconclusive. It seems to me that the stance enforced on Blogger had precisely that end in mind. RCFP has dealt them a punch from which recovery is highly questionable unless there is a house-cleaning and a very public decision to become a credible truth site again. Bursill's reactions to Adam Syed's post on Facebook was an incoherent appeal to red herring issues that, more than anything, illustrated the poverty of his position.

It's great to see the good guys prevail - not that I expect the forces of Sunstein to give up, but they will have to find a new platform for their infiltration.

I recently participated in a couple of discussions in which the remark that CIT's work was described as "controversial" by two or three commenters without saying what the nature of the controversy was. The implication was that the presence of a controversy tainted the work and cast doubt on the validity of their research. In light of the nature of the type of attacks we have seen directed at CIT as well as Pilots, it is clear that "controversy" is the intended result of the attacks. Saying that something is controversials says nothing about the truth of the matter. If a claim of controversy contains no credible countervailing evidence, it is worthless as a criteria for judging. The people who cited controversy based on evidence-free personal attacks or allegations from anonymous sources should have known better.

If the 9/11 Truth movement can be said to have a unifying purpose, it is to achieve a strong consensus around a real investigation driven by evidence, empowered to compel testimony, bound by sound investigative procedure, and consisting of trustworthy individuals of integrity and intelligence. Sounds like a tall order, but not impossible. But if we remain focused on that end, inconsistencies are our friend. There are going to be inconsistencies born of the attempts to introduce "controversy" into the movement. The red herrings and disinformation become part of the case for an investigation. A real investigation will make gems like CIT's National Security Alert and the conundrums documented in David Ray Griffin's books stand out as true signposts leading to a new view of our recent history.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rickysa
post Oct 27 2010, 02:49 PM
Post #13





Group: Contributor
Posts: 289
Joined: 18-February 08
From: USA: N.C.
Member No.: 2,762



QUOTE
The research on the "black box" data, while exposing the fatal flaws in that data and the important fact that, even though it was government-provided, it did not support the government official story, and could not be the bedrock on which the lie was exposed, because the assumption has to be that it was manipulated.


Not to argue at all, but to just ask..."why?" The altitude data appeared to be the stake through the heart for me, and I use it as a "fact," rather than how we have often had to rely on conjecture as hard data wasn't always available. So as not to distract from the original post, I've always admired your take on things and would welcome a discussion via e-mail/pm.


Rick
Rickysa@aol.com

This post has been edited by Rickysa: Oct 27 2010, 02:50 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
maturin42
post Oct 27 2010, 03:21 PM
Post #14





Group: Core Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 18-February 07
From: Maryland, USA
Member No.: 633



QUOTE (Rickysa @ Oct 25 2010, 05:49 PM) *
Not to argue at all, but to just ask..."why?" The altitude data appeared to be the stake through the heart for me, and I use it as a "fact," rather than how we have often had to rely on conjecture as hard data wasn't always available. So as not to distract from the original post, I've always admired your take on things and would welcome a discussion via e-mail/pm.


Rick
Rickysa@aol.com

It is a fact in that the data doesn't support the official story in any important respect. Since, as far as I know, the FBI/NTSB refuses to comment and address the contradictions and inconsistencies, there it rests. Rob and the analysts have done a great job of teasing out the threads of those inconsistencies. Rob may have more to say on the issue but the fact that the data was in control of the government which has refused to address those inconsistencies, is, it seems to me, a valid reason to question it.

On the other hand, if you take the CIT evidence as establishing that the aircraft seen over Arlington that day could not possibly have caused the trail of destruction (and I do so take it) starting from light pole 1 and continuing through the generator, Pentagon fascade, and to the exit hole in the C ring, then the black box becomes a piece of planted evidence constructed of whole cloth and probative of nothing except the attempt to deceive the public and possibly unwitting investigators. North of the Citgo = No impact AND Staged Evidence including the black box and data. That's a lot to take in but you can't have it both ways. Craig has been making this argument from the time he arrived at the mind-blowing conclusion that North side approach equals no impact. That statement is challenged by the Frank Legge camp on pretty shaky grounds, I might add.

If I have misstated anyone's position or facts, please correct me. I may have missed some important posts that are relevant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Oct 27 2010, 07:33 PM
Post #15





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (maturin42 @ Oct 27 2010, 07:21 PM) *
If I have misstated anyone's position or facts, please correct me. I may have missed some important posts that are relevant.


That was a perfect representation and an important point to clarify.

Yes the alleged black box data is questionable and anomalous on many levels, and it alone fatally contradicts the official story which is a MAJOR issue that has been ignored by the media and much of the controlled so called "truth movement".

But the alleged black box data is not only irreconcilable with the official story, it's also irreconcilable with the witnesses who prove the plane was on the north side and therefore did not hit the Pentagon ultimately proving that the data has been fabricated.

While it's important to point out discrepancies and problems with official data, we can only rely on INDEPENDENT evidence to determine what really happened. As it turns out the independent evidence (eyewitnesses) amount to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane did not hit the light poles or the Pentagon.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Oct 27 2010, 07:35 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Oct 27 2010, 08:04 PM
Post #16





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Witness testimony can be unreliable. Yet there are so many that saw something fly the north pass. This is damning. There are probably hardly anyone who could have seen a plane hit the building.

The fireball is indisputable... but lots of things can make a fireball and in this case people seem to be assuming it was from the plane... probably largely because they heard that planes slammed into the twin towers. Not hard to see how they could connect the two and think the plane slammed into the building.

The video evidence released is inconclusive to leaning to no large commercial jet hit the building. Those 5 frames proved nothing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 27 2010, 08:14 PM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Well said Craig and Shelton.

To reiterate, it is fact that the FDR data does not support an impact when it should.

FDR data is used in a court of law all the time as are witnesses. Pilots For 9/11 Truth have never claimed the data is "proof" of anything and in fact it conflicts with witnesses statements.

In other words, if the data is fake it is as alarming as it being accurate and authentic.

Both outcomes are felonies.

People at Blogger are trying to tell others, "Nothing to see here folks, move along".

Why would they do such a thing if they were seeking the truth and when both sets of information can be used as evidence?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moh2o
post Oct 28 2010, 01:15 AM
Post #18





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 15-April 07
Member No.: 953



I am not conclusive in my view. I still think that some kind of missile hit the building. Could it have been the plane shot out a missile and then flew over? Possibly me thinks.
There was that nice round series of holes through so many of the walls of the pentagon. I think that there was a missile.
Wish we could see all the security camera footage,,,uncensored.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Oct 28 2010, 01:31 AM
Post #19





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (moh2o @ Oct 28 2010, 05:15 AM) *
I am not conclusive in my view. I still think that some kind of missile hit the building. Could it have been the plane shot out a missile and then flew over? Possibly me thinks.
There was that nice round series of holes through so many of the walls of the pentagon. I think that there was a missile.
Wish we could see all the security camera footage,,,uncensored.


The plane couldn't have shot a missile because it was on the wrong trajectory.

And nobody saw a missile. The saw one big plane on the north side that did not hit the light poles or the Pentagon.

But there also wasn't a "nice round series of holes through so many of the walls of the pentagon".

There was only one round hole in the C-ring

The bottom two floors between the E and C ring are not divided.

Count how many stories of windows there are on the outer edge of the C-ring compared to the E and D rings and you can see it for yourself:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cheapchippy
post Oct 28 2010, 05:08 AM
Post #20





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 20
Joined: 27-September 08
From: South Australia
Member No.: 3,851



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Oct 27 2010, 09:00 AM) *
No doubt several saw it. Since much like the video, the 911 calls were confiscated and permanently sequestered, we know there was a deliberate cover up of what people first reported. Yet we were still able to find Roosevelt Roberts' account as well as the report from Erik Dihle that the first thing "people" (note plural) were yelling was that "a bomb went off and a jet kept on going". This was included in our presentation National Security Alert. It's recommended to view more than once.


Doesnt Dihle also say.... “somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building.” blink.gif

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Oct 27 2010, 09:00 AM) *
Ok great then if you find that to be so excellent then you must agree that a north of the gas station approach PROVES a flyover even without ANY witnesses to the plane flying away.


A North of Citgo flightpath proves the lightpoles were not knocked down by FLT 77...I dont see how it proves a flyover ...sorry.

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Oct 27 2010, 09:00 AM) *
Do you believe we provide enough witness evidence to demonstrate that the plane was on the north side of the gas station?.


Yes; but then Arabesque collected statements of 13 witnesses from the public record that support a south-of-Citgo path- including statements by 2 of your witnesses, Ed Paik & Terry Morin; plus statements of around 100 first hand accounts of the plane impacting the Pentagon too so Im pretty confused.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
6 User(s) are reading this topic (6 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 5th July 2020 - 06:36 AM