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 )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
The Sliming Of Pilots For 9/11 Truth And Citizen Investigation Team, Michael Wolsey and Jim Hoffman call our research DISINFORMATION

painter
post Aug 7 2009, 01:05 PM
Post #1


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



First, as most of you know, I'm not around much any more. That isn't to be taken as an abandonment of the ship. I'm just trying to bring some badly needed balance back into my life after years of neglecting necessities such as finances, not to mention my physical and mental health. I'm limiting my on-line time and my involvement in political issues of any sort.

That said, it was recently brought to my attention that Michael Wolsey of Colorado 9/11 Visibility, 911truth.org, and visibility911.com and well known researcher Jim Hoffman of 911research.wtc7.net (among others) have publicly stated that Pilots for 9/11 Truth and Citizen Investigation Team are, and I quote, "a coordinated disinformation campaign" with the purpose of dividing the 9-11 movement and discrediting it with "some of the worst, most speculative and ridiculous theories about what happened on 9-11."

On August 4, 2009, Wolsey posted a lengthy introduction to a recorded MP3 interview with Hoffman conducted some time earlier. The on-line post can be found here: http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1351 and here is a direct link to the MP3 interview: http://media.libsyn.com/media/visibility91...hoffman_cit.mp3

I am opening this thread in the debate section because I hope that it will give everyone concerned an opportunity to publicly explore this accusation regarding the purpose and nature of Pilots for Truth and Citizen Investigation Team. The debate forum is visible to guests and can be posted in by any registered member who follows the requirements listed below:

First Anyone posting in this thread MUST have READ the above link, LISTENED to the above linked MP3 and, finally, READ this July 2009 post by Jim Hoffman, entitled "Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce or Critiquing PentaCon (Smoking Crack Version). I also strongly suggest that anyone reading Hoffman's critique follow some of the numerous links out from that page to other supporting material.

In the above link, Wosley writes:

QUOTE (Michael Wolsey)
One of the main goals we have at Visibility 9-11 is to educate our listeners and ourselves about all aspects of the September 11th tragedy. To this end, we are taking on a more active role in addressing this important issue. In fact, we believe the issue of disinformation to be the most important issue that each of us face as 9-11 activists. As blogger Arabesque has pointed out many times, the “Official Story” is itself disinformation and must be regarded as such. Ultimately, we are the ones in the street and on the blogs and forums who will have to face the ridicule if our facts are not straight and if we are to be successful, we must learn to identify the disinformation and insert caution into your activism.

As pointed out by my guest on this program, it is agreed that central to the various themes of disinformation are the “no jetliner” claims, especially the “no 757? claims for the attack on the Pentagon. In spite of substantial resources being poured into books and videos which claim that there was no airliner crash at the Pentagon on 9-11, Jim Hoffman has published extensive work which would bring these claims into question. Careful examination of Jim’s work reveals a different picture of the Pentagon attack than the “no jetliner” advocates. We at Visibility 9-11 acknowledge that there are many valid reasons for us to believe the “no jetliner” claims. However, a closer look reveals the real possibility that the event at the Pentagon has been manipulated from the start through the use of “official” and un-offical sources.

This program takes a closer look at “Citizen Investigation Team” (CIT) and it’s biggest promoter Pilots for 9-11 Truth and their latest effort to advance the “no jetliner” theory. Their new video, National Security Alert, which is being aggressively promoted on the internet and at public events, alleges that not only did the Boeing jet not strike the Pentagon, but flew over it at the last minute in an elaborate deception that not a single witness has claimed to see, and, contradicts the testimony of hundreds of eyewitnesses in the area.

I certainly agree with Wolsey, Hoffman and many others that DISINFORMATION (defined as the intentional dissemination of false and inaccurate information) has been present in various forms from the outset of the 9/11 event, that it has played and continues to play a debilitating role in the process of both uncovering the truth about 9/11 and disseminating that truth to the wider world beyond the 9/11 Movement. However, I strongly disagree that Pilots for 9/11 Truth and Citizen Investigation Team are "a coordinated disinformation campaign." I am opening this thread here in the hopes that Michael Wolsey, Jim Hoffman and others will at least see it and participate in it directly. I will make an effort to inform them of its existence.

MOREOVER I strongly request that participants in this thread, whether long-time P4T or CIT members or new members KEEP IT CIVIL AND ON POINT. That means NO NAME CALLING and NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. I prefer that there not even be an inference of a personal attack. If you find yourself feeling angry and wishing to say something that does not speak directly to one of the many issues that could be covered in this thread, REFRAIN FROM POSTING AT ALL until you have cooled down and given cooler thought to what it is you are saying.

My hope is that by airing our differences publicly and civilly this thread will begin to bridge the divide that has existed FAR TOO LONG within the 9/11 Truth community between those who, based on their respective research, firmly believe that Flight 77 DID hit the Pentagon (or at least could have) and those who believe it DID NOT (and could not have).

Thank you for your consideration,

Michael Wells : aka painter
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 7 2009, 07:51 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

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



yawn...

Yet another attack campaign. Its not the first, certainly wont be the last.

The only people attempting "divide" are those who coordinate such frivolous attacks.

They only end up discrediting themselves.

Meanwhile, we bring our concerns to court.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon_lawsuit.html

Heres a good speech done by Dave vonKliest a few years ago.. it still holds true today...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=4427

"When you see or hear an accusatory finger, it’s time to look at the finger instead of the direction it’s pointing."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Aug 7 2009, 08:16 PM
Post #3





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



I totally agree Rob,

Real truthers try to educate each other and
promote unity. All the groups together CAN
get it done. I truely believe this and i am catching
hell for trying to fight the machine. People want to
believe the lie, rather than face a hard truth.

What happened at the Pentagon is so unbelievable
that it blows peoples minds, and they label it disinfo
almost immediately. And unless you have been in
aviation for awhile, you would have a hard time wrapping
your head around it. Which i suppose was the intention and
a very effective one at that.

I trust the work that CIT has done.
It the government didnt have anything to hide,
they would release all the video.

-Aero

This post has been edited by aerohead: Aug 7 2009, 08:30 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ligon
post Aug 7 2009, 08:22 PM
Post #4





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 2-March 09
Member No.: 4,182



I sent Michael Wolsey this e-mail on Aug 4:

QUOTE
If you're calling CIT disinfo you need to either stop or debate them Michael. They're not disinfo.

You've been formally challenged by Craig.
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=662

Alternatively, their phone number is on their website, www.CitizenInvestigationTeam.com, in the contact section; call them and talk to them privately if you'd prefer. Either way it's ridiculous for you to sit there and talk badly about them or the evidence they present when they're so accessible. If you're a real truther you'll talk to them about why you disagree. I e-mailed Jim Hoffman a year ago and made the same plea and he ignored me. Are you a coward and fraud like him? I hope not. We'll see though.

P.S. You can talk to me on the phone too if you'd like. Just ask for my number and I'll give it to you. If we're all really on the same team here you need to act like it.

I got this response from ford@visibility911.com, probably automated:

QUOTE
"Thank you for contacting us at Visibility 9-11. We will get back to you shortly."


Three days so far and no response, no retractions, as predicted.

This post has been edited by Ligon: Aug 9 2009, 12:08 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Aug 7 2009, 09:07 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE
1. The only meaningful eyewitness accounts are those taken by CIT, and the only valid elements of those are the ones that support their theory.
2. A jetliner did not crash at the Pentagon, and all of the apparent impact damage to the surroundings and building, and the plane debris, passenger DNA identification, etc. was faked.
3. The jetliner observed approaching the Pentagon and appearing to crash into it actually overflew the building.

Presumption 1 has been exposed, perhaps most thoroughly, by Arabesque in a series of articles including A Critical Review of 'The PentaCon - Smoking Gun Version'.

Presumption 2 is the subject of my earlier essay The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows. If you have been persuaded against the crash of a 757 by the paucity of plane parts in post-crash photos, as was I, this article is for you.

Presumption 3 is the subject of this essay. In it, I will show that the flyover theory isn't even remotely plausible, primarily because it would have been observed by hundreds of people around the Pentagon.


'The PentaCon has it all -- from the unlikely accomplice (an elderly cabbie) to the greatest aeronautical feat of all time. Get yours while supplies [of credulity] last!'
Apart from the presumption that a jetliner couldn't have crashed into the Pentagon, The PentaCon's entire case for the overflight rests on interviews with a handful of witnesses who recalled seeing the plane approach to the north of the Citgo gas station located directly west-southwest of the crash site. Such a flight trajectory is about 15 degrees clockwise of the "official" one indicated by the downed light poles, damage to objects in the construction yard, and the path of debris through the building.

Never mind that the same witnesses claim to have seen the plane crash into the building, or that the CIT's premier witness Lagasse seems to infer the north-of-the-station trajectory from his mistaken placement of the downed light poles. And never mind the scores of other witnesses, and what they have said or might be able to tell us about their recollection of the plane's final approach. To the end of focusing on the overflight in this essay, I will overlook CIT's thoroughly unscientific treatment of witness accounts, and I will ignore the physical evidence that fits a 757 clipping light poles, gouging the generator and retaining wall, puncturing the Pentagon's facade throughout a span of about 100 feet, and injecting its remains into the building.


What a bunch of baloney.

I'm not familiar with Arabesque's articles, but I notice he doesn't put his real name on his work. (Neither do I, but I'm not presenting evidence for or against a fly-over.) I did see those DoD police sign their names to their testimony on camera ... good enough for me.


QUOTE
Debris is Consistent with a Jetliner Crash

The Pentagon attack left debris scattered over a wide area. Judging from the dimensions of punctures in the facade the vast majority of debris ended up inside of the building. Nonetheless, the few photographs that show portions of the lawn near the building show an extensive debris field, easily accounting for the portions of a 757 that did not penetrate the building. Although no photographs show large pieces of aircraft, it is not reasonable to expect large pieces to have survived intact given the nature of the crash.


Ridiculous. Where'd the tail go?

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/5236/071106pentagon.jpg

I couldn't listen to the mp3, it kept stopping. But I've been involved with this site and these people from the beginning. If the p4t FDR evidence and conclusions are part of some disinformation campaign, then I'm a Hershey bar.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ligon
post Aug 7 2009, 10:02 PM
Post #6





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 2-March 09
Member No.: 4,182



On the truth action forum Wolsey writes:

QUOTE
It was said that parts of the show description "may" be calling CIT disinfo agents, which of course isn't true. I was also very careful not to call anyone disinfo agents during the show.


Here are a few quotes from the show.

QUOTE
[15:30] WOLSEY: If they can get you asking the wrong questions they don't have to worry about the answers.' And this is, in my opinion, one of the things that happens with the disinformation. And there are groups out there that have refrained from talking about it in the past, but today we're going to talk about it; in particular Pilots for 9/11 Truth and a group called Citizens [sic] Investigatoin Team, or CIT. And I recall a [sic] article from Reprehensor from 911Blogger.com and a paper that he wrote called "On DisInformation And Damaging Associations". And Reprehensor said basically 'If you're promoting this kind of poor information then you're no friend of mine, you're no friend of 9/11 Truth." And it's time to break the silence about this. It's time to start talking about this amongst ourselves, and to that end I'm happy to have on the line with me today Jim Hoffman, who's done some excellent work with regards to the disinformation.


Here is another segment of interest:
'
QUOTE
[19:30 - 21:20] HOFFMAN: "I'd like to get into it with you about how [Thierry Meyssan's work] relates to what I think is a state of the art in this kind of disinformation... um, I, what I hope we'll talk about there's the video PentaCon, the various productions of the so-called CIT. Because, um, I think that they are, um, largely based on that work, or they, the, because they've had so much success with convincing people that there was no jetliner crash at the Pentagon that they've been able to exploit that and make, um, um, get as much mileage as they have."

WOLSEY: Let's take that back even one step further Jim; let's go to the -- what I consider to be the parent organization of CIT -- and that's Pilots for 9/11 Truth. [...] I go to this website, and, one, a good friend, researcher of mine, he jokingly says, you know, they might as well be called No757AtThePentagon.org because that's what they basically promote. And I think you can tell just as much about a website as what they don't have as what they do. And when you look at Pilots for 9/11 Truth, all of the things that you would expect to be at a website called Pilots for 9/11 Truth -- and it's a great name by the way, and, and I just think so many people hear that name and they go put the link on their website and say "Yeah! This is a good thing!" -- but when you actually go and you look at the site, all of the things that you would expect to be there, like, uh, standard operating procedure for hijackings, uh, NORAD proceedures, uh, all of the inconsistencies in the 9/11 Commission Report between the three different stories that came... all of that stuff about NORAD and what happened to the plane... none of that's there. It's all no fif... uh... Boeing at the Pentagon.

JIM HOFFMAN: That's right.


This post has been edited by Ligon: Sep 15 2009, 01:35 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 7 2009, 10:19 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

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



QUOTE
standard operating procedure for hijackings,


See:

Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight Of American 77, streaming for free on home page.

Top of page http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon titled "Common Strategy Prior to 9/11"



QUOTE
NORAD proceedures


See Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight Of American 77, streaming for free on home page.


QUOTE
, uh, all of the inconsistencies in the 9/11 Commission Report


See bottom of page http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon

Article titled, "Analysis of 9/11 Commission Report prior to release of Flight Data Recorder"

Woosley... rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ligon
post Aug 7 2009, 10:30 PM
Post #8





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 2-March 09
Member No.: 4,182



Hoffman says so many dishonest things that really make me mad, but this one is so bad that he just embarrasses himself. Starting around 36:45...

QUOTE
JIM HOFFMAN: ...One thing that's really interesting about Lagasse is in that in that very interview in PentaCon he's convinced that the light poles that were damaged were well to the north of the ones that were actually damaged! So that prompts the theory, well, you know, maybe he, he kind of, um, recostructed that memory to fit where he thought the light poles were! I mean it's very plausible!


You be the judge (fast forward to 28:15)



This post has been edited by painter: Aug 10 2009, 06:37 PM
Reason for edit: removed meta question
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ligon
post Aug 7 2009, 11:11 PM
Post #9





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 2-March 09
Member No.: 4,182



40:35

QUOTE
WOLSEY: Well I guess the point that I was gonna make Jim is that, um, they are using this, uh, information that’s supposedly from the flight data record, right? Isn’t that where they allege it... that it comes from? The uh...

HOFFMAN: Well that’s what... that’s what people think. But if you actually look at the data on the flight data recorder it actually indicates a path that's more like the damage path, whereas the animation... the animation that Pilots For 9/11 Truth features shows it coming in from a more northerly heading.

WOLSEY: Yes, indeed. And it also shows it coming up at a higher altitude as well.

HOFFMAN: Yeah, I don't kn... um....... I... I don't know the details about, the uh, the altitude. But, um, I think the... I think the data cuts out a few seconds before it hits... er... a few hundred... uh... a few hundred feet before it hits or something like that.

WOLSEY: Sure, but one of the claims -- and I believe that this quite possibly be... could be what gave them the idea that it flew over -- was that this data showed that, you know, whether it's genuine or not, Pilot's or 9/11 Truth is, is purporting it as such, and it shows the plane coming in too high. And so I thought maybe that might have been what spawned this whole flyover thing to begin with...

HOFFMAN: Yeah, yeah! Could be! It could be. I mean it dove tails nice... it dovetails very nicely with what they're doing. But again, why if it were real -- if this animation were real -- why wasn't it released through official channels? Instead it was inserted via the back door, ya know?


This post has been edited by Ligon: Sep 15 2009, 01:37 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 7 2009, 11:21 PM
Post #10



Group Icon

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



For those who wish to email Mike,

michael@visibility911.com
Reason for edit: removed meta reply
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 7 2009, 11:32 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

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



QUOTE
HOFFMAN: Yeah, I don't kn... um....... I... I don't know the details about, the uh, the altitude. But, um, I think the... I think the data cuts out a few seconds before it hits... er... a few hundred... uh... a few hundred feet before it hits or something like that.


Hoffman... lol. What a bonehead.

QUOTE
WOOLSEY: ....whether it's genuine or not, Pilot's or 9/11 Truth is, is purporting it as such, ....


No we dont.

QUOTE
HOFFMAN: if this animation were real -- why wasn't it released through official channels? Instead it was inserted via the back door, ya know?


"Back Door"? Does this look like it came from a back foor?





Those have been posted on our site since Oct 20, 2006.

I reiterate the "bonehead" comment i made above.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 7 2009, 11:50 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

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



QUOTE
Pilots For 9/11 Truth "Disinformation"?
Friday, August 7, 2009 11:45 PM
From:
"Pilots For Truth" <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com>

To:
michael@visibility911.com

Hi Mike,

I was recently informed you did an interview with Hoffman regarding our work and labeling it as "disinformation". A thread was started on our forum by one of our members regarding this topic. Your interview is so full of logical fallacies, strawmans, and flat out ignorance it's not even funny.

For instance, Hoffman claims the "animation" we received came through a "back door" and not official channels. We have had cover letters posted on our site since Oct 2006 from the NTSB which accompanied the animation CD's, along with links to the NTSB FOIA request form and contact information for others to get their own. Is the NTSB "official" enough?

It also apears Hoffman hasnt even reviewed the work as clearly he is unsure of himself when talking about what the data contains, such as altitude.

Anyway, you may want to check out the thread at our forum. Many, including myself, are picking apart your little interview of ignorance.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=17787

Regards,
Rob

BCC: Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core Member
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ligon
post Aug 7 2009, 11:58 PM
Post #13





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 2-March 09
Member No.: 4,182



Again, Wolsey said on TruthAction forum:

QUOTE
It was said that parts of the show description "may" be calling CIT disinfo agents, which of course isn't true. I was also very careful not to call anyone disinfo agents during the show.


And yet here is what he says talking about CIT during the show....

60:19

QUOTE
WOLSEY: Yeah, it’s just, it’s unbelievable. And I mean, I’m not going to sit here and defend the official story, but at the same time, we have to... we have to follow the evidence where it leads. And if it’s leading us in a particular direction then so be it. But if you have con artists, and disinformation specialists out there shoving this garbage down your throat, which is, you know, a lot of the behavior that we have observed and documented. You know, Arabesque has really done a lot on these guys. And, you know, let’s tell folks where they can go, Jim, so they can get some more information, read Victoria’s article, your article, and, uh, some of Arabesque’s work.


This post has been edited by Ligon: Aug 9 2009, 12:09 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 8 2009, 12:00 AM
Post #14



Group Icon

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



Does anyone else find it funny that the people they source are named "Arabesque", "Reprehensor"... etc etc.

While we source people with real names and govt agencies.

Does anyone take these guys seriously?

Too funny...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Aug 8 2009, 01:37 AM
Post #15



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (Ligon @ Aug 11 2009, 09:49 PM) *
Thanks Rob!

I'm still having some trouble though. I only have two check boxes under "Post Options", enable emoticons and enable signiture. I just tried embedding NSA instead of the video I had and it's not working for me. I think you may be doing an admin-only thing, no?

EDIT: To keep the thread on topic please just PM me the response and delete this post. Thanks!

SECOND EDIT: Thanks for helping Sanders. I tried to delete the second embed and now it's back to the same problem. I don't think I'm able to turn HTML on.


You're welcome, I saw it wasn't embedded and just did it, not realizing you had the same code in there twice. I see you've straightened it all out.

.....

What IRONY that these guys are yelling "disinfo". rolleyes.gif


Well, Pilots for 9/11 Truth may be finally getting some long-deserved attention from this ...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Aug 8 2009, 04:35 AM
Post #16





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hoffman sez . . . .

QUOTE
QUOTE
But again, why if it were real -- if this animation were real -- why wasn't it released through official channels? Instead it was inserted via the back door, ya know?


Now that's exactly what I say about the "South Flight Path - it was inserted through the back door!
The government has never made an express claim through any official agency that the plane took ANY specific path at all, let alone the South Path. It has never collected together the various tidbits that it has released through its own "back door" and said that this is our evidence of the South Path or even of Some Path. The so-called "south Path" evidence was at best released through the back door and is so shaky that the government won't even collect it together and cite it as evidence!

I have posted my reasons for this on many occasions and I trust that whether or not anyone agrees with me, they have read them and are familiar with them (hence I won't post links again here).

Now people are using the exact same "back door" argument in reverse to shove it up our a s s ! The obvious answer to this is that the animation is not in opposition to or inconsistent with anything the government has ever said and everything that might contradict the animation "was inserted through the back door, ya know?"!!!!!!

If you asked Hoffman to show you his "front door", I'll bet he couldn't do it.

ANNANUDDERTING . . . .

QUOTE
QUOTE
Yeah, I don't kn... um....... I... I don't know the details about, the uh, the altitude. But, um, I think the.. I think the data cuts out a few seconds before it hits... er... a few hundred... uh... a few hundred feet before it hits or something like that.


Does this sound like a guy who knows what he it talking about or has any conviction about what he is saying! I don't think so! In fact, it's an admission of his ignorance, evidences by the "I think"s and "I don't know the details". He basically says he has no answer!

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Aug 8 2009, 04:44 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Aug 10 2009, 12:10 PM
Post #17


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



Again, I request that everyone keep this civil. I understand why you would call someone an "idiot" for disagreeing with you/us -- given all the man hours that have been put into this over the last three years, to have our research labeled "disinformation" and discounted as unworthy of serious attention is beyond exasperating.

Still, to fall into the trap of expressing our emotions rather than our intelligence -- to name-call rather than address the issues point-by-point -- is to end up doing precisely what Wolsey and Hoffman have done in this interview. They claim to have evidence which refutes our claims and have posted links to this evidence in various locations. Very well, lets take those claims, list them, link to the arguments presented here in this thread and offer our reasoned counter positions.

Why bother? Because, as aerohead said up thread:

QUOTE (aerohead @ Aug 7 2009, 05:16 PM) *
<snip>
Real truthers try to educate each other and
promote unity.


This is what I would like to accomplish in this thread -- provide a public educational resource that attempts to heal the divide which has existed in the 9/11 movement regarding the events at the Pentagon at least since early 2006.

In this regard, I submit that the best approach is, first of all, establish certain points of agreement and then, from those points of agreement, establish precisely which points upon which we disagree and why.

For example: Do we (by which I mean the majority of 9/11 truthers) all agree that the South of Columbia Pike (SOCP) approach is the ONLY approach that satisfies the physical damage found outside and inside the Pentagon?

You see how fundamental this is? If we do not agree on this point, then all further debate is pointless.

On the other hand, if we DO agree on this point, we have a foundation for further, potentially fruitful discussion. Pilots for 9/11 Truth (P4T) and Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) has spent years analyzing this flight path using a variety of data sets: The analysis of the FDR information provided directly by the NTSB itself and the on-camera interviews of multiple eye witnesses to the event to name ONLY two examples (there are several others).

I consider myself a "real" truther as defined by aerohead above: My goal is to educate and unite -- to put an end, once and for all, to this DIVIDE within the 9/11 truth community. THIS CAN NOT BE DONE WITH INSULTS AND INSINUATIONS (no matter how justified you feel you are in using them). There is simply no need for them. We have verifiable facts behind us. Some of these facts are very easy to grasp, others (especially for those of us who are not aeronautics professionals) are more difficult to grasp. It does not help us, in fact it makes our job as "real truthers" far more difficult, when we allow ourselves to engage in the SAME ad homonym attacks used by those who are our detractors.

Thank you for your consideration.
Reason for edit: removed meta commentary
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ligon
post Aug 10 2009, 02:16 PM
Post #18





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 2-March 09
Member No.: 4,182



Good post painter. I agree.

Anyway, I want to keep providing transcripts of parts of this so we have it on record exactly what these people are saying and so that people can (civilly) respond.

Remember that as I have shown already in this thread (and there are many other examples in the interview) both Hoffman and Wolsey are specifically calling P4T and CIT "disinformation" over and over.

Early in the show Wolsey defined the difference between disinformation and misinformation.

QUOTE
[13:41-14:10] MICHAEL WOLSEY: Now, misinformation and disinformation are two different things. Misinformation is false or inaccurate information that's been spread unintentionally. By well meaning people. That's misinformation. Now disinformation is distinguished from misinformation by motive. Because while people who are spreading misinformation... they don't realize they're doing it... people who are spreading disinformation do.


Now look at some of the other things they say...

QUOTE
[65:29] JIM HOFFMAN: ...as long as this disinformation remains ascendant and, and unchallenged by, by some of the more influential people that are identified with the 9/11 truth movement, and things will stay where they are, or, are, and as the attack recedes we’ll, we’ll, we will never get a genuine investigation, we’ll... the public opin... the public will fail to understand what really happened. So that’s a pretty grim... I think that’s a pretty grim assessment but, um... and, and that just underscores the need to, to um, to really identify what the full scope of this psyop is. I mean if you understand that 9/11 was an inside job then it just doesn’t make any SENSE that they would, would do anything other than muck up the... the... the umm... independent investigation of it by, by, by throwing up all of this nonsense.

WOLSEY: Yeah, I couldn’t agree more...


It seems clear that "they" in that context means the perpetrators of 9/11. Hoffman clarifies this elsewhere (see below).

QUOTE
[49:00-49:27] JIM HOFFMAN: I mean how could -- how could you imaging something more offensive to the victims of the attack than, than, than this, you know, “Everything was faked!”, you know, and just, just, you know, in your face! You know, it’s like, “You didn’t see... you were fooled!”, you know, “You thought you saw a plane crash but really, you know, it flew over the building”, you know. And all... think of all the people that we don’t, you know, that um, that we’ll never hear from, that were driving on I-395, probably the five hundred people who saw the explosive, and “Oh, they just... they were just too stupid to see that there was a plane that flew over the Pentagon!” Or, “they were fooled!”, or, you know. It’s just, really... um... so it’s designed... so the disinformation is designed to do multiple things. It’s designed to offend the victims of the attack. It’s designed to make... to reinforce the loony conspiracist meme; to make it, you know... ta...ta... to ridiculous, to reinfor... because that’s what... that’s the main defense against all... against considering alternatives to the official story: that these are loony conspiracy theorists that don’t have critical thinking abilities and they will believe the worst non-sense.


"DESIGNED" to offend the victims. "DESIGNED" to "reinforce the loony conspiracist meme". He is calling this a deliberate, calculated disinformation operation.

QUOTE
[50:48] HOFFMAN: If you look at the number of websites like... st... uh... like...that have been around the whole time, um, uhh, um that c... you know, challenging the official story, it seems like, you know, uh, more than have of them, um, have been just promoting non... you know, promoting the worst nonsense. And um, and, and think, if... if... given the resources of the people who created the attack, and given... given, you know, if you understand it as an inside job of COURSE they’re going to have the resources to put in... to putting up all this nonsense in order to discredit challenges to the official story.

WOLSEY: Absolutely. And it’s our job, it’s everybody who’s listening’s job, to make sure that you’re vetting your information as.... eh....eh.... eh... to... only presenting to the public that which is the best. And Jim, I don’t know how people can go out there, and I mean SERIOUSLY go out and talk to people they don’t know and, uh, promote this ridiculous stuff. I mean I would be scared to death to go out there and ta... uh... talk, I mean it’s hard enough as, as, as it is, especially when you first start, to become an activist, and it’s scary because you know there is going to be a certain percentage of people that are gonna look at you like you’re crazy. But, you know, so you wanna have all your ducks in a row and you wanna be able to say, you know, “I’m gonna show this person the best information because I wanna wake him up!” But yet, can you imagine going up to somebody that you didn’t know and try to... try to uh, get them to believe this CIT bullshit!

HOFFMAN: Nooo. I, uh, It’s just... sa... it’s really sad...


QUOTE
[54:44] HOFFMAN: ...I don't know if some of these people endorsing the... the um... the... north.... the... the... CIT's work have realized how, how umm... how effectively they've been conned. By.... and um, you know and that's um, you know, and that's... it's really sad but I think, um, it's, I, it... hopefully it can be instructive to some people, to those very people especially, maybe, um, you know, maybe some good can come out of this. But it's, but um, um, ehh um, maybe... maybe one way... one way to understand it is if you understand what effective salesmen these people are... this... the CIT... maybe there's less shame in having been conned if you can understand that you've been conned by professionals, you know, whose, people whose job it is to, um, you know, who are really good at creating, uhh, at, at, at restricting your attention. At getting you to look at something and not taking in the broader context of it.


It seems clear that he is trying to imply that CIT and possibly P4T are professional "disinformation specialists" (as Wolsey put it earlier) who are somehow funded, created, and/or promoted by "the people who created the attack" as part of the psyop.

This post has been edited by Ligon: Aug 10 2009, 03:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ligon
post Aug 10 2009, 02:48 PM
Post #19





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 2-March 09
Member No.: 4,182



Regarding this...

QUOTE
[49:00-49:27] JIM HOFFMAN: I mean how could -- how could you imaging something more offensive to the victims of the attack than, than, than this, you know, “Everything was faked!”, you know, and just, just, you know, in your face! You know, it’s like, “You didn’t see... you were fooled!”, you know, “You thought you saw a plane crash but really, you know, it flew over the building”, you know. And all... think of all the people that we don’t, you know, that um, that we’ll never hear from, that were driving on I-395, probably the five hundred people who saw the explosive, and “Oh, they just... they were just too stupid to see that there was a plane that flew over the Pentagon!” Or, “they were fooled!”, or, you know. It’s just, really... um... so it’s designed... so the disinformation is designed to do multiple things. It’s designed to offend the victims of the attack. It’s designed to make... to reinforce the loony conspiracist meme; to make it, you know... ta...ta... to ridiculous, to reinfor... because that’s what... that’s the main defense against all... against considering alternatives to the official story: that these are loony conspiracy theorists that don’t have critical thinking abilities and they will believe the worst non-sense.


First of all, CIT definitely has never said that the people on 395 were "too stupid" to know that the plane did not hit the building but rather flew over it and away. This is horribly disingenuous. Victoria Ashley does the same thing in her article when she says that CIT endorses the theory that after the explosion the plane "somehow flew away, unnoticed by anyone in the area".

CIT has NEVER made any claims remotely like this, and there is no way Ashley and Hoffman don't know it. They have ALWAYS said that they know people saw the plane, and they have released TONS of information explaining how an elaborate "second plane cover story" was used to convince witnesses on 395 (most of whom would not have seen the plane approaching but only flying after the fireball) that what they saw was a second plane. As pointed out by CIT in National Security Alert (and many other places) it is clear that this worked wonders because even Pentagon Police Officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr. -- who saw the "commercial aircraft" flying away from the scene "as clear as day" just seconds after the explosion at an altitude at less than 100 feet, and which came from the same side as the alleged "impact" -- convinced himself that what he saw must have been a second plane.

CIT has also pointed out that: "...we will NEVER know what people really reported that day due to the fact that the 911 call tapes and transcripts were quickly confiscated and permanently sequestered by the FBI. This is just as important as the fact that they refuse to release any of the clear video of the event. 911 calls are typically available for the public and in fact they were released for the 9/11 attacks in New York. So why not in Arlington?"

More info on that here: http://thepentacon.com/Topic6.htm

Additionally, as CIT has repeatedly said and shown, the Pentagon is about one mile from Reagan National Airport so extremely low flying airplanes flying over that section of 395 is an EXTREMELY common site, occuring every few minutes (or even more frequently sometimes) all day every day.

Anyone who did understand what they saw and who was not persuaded otherwise by the 2nd plane propaganda would undoubtedly fear for their lives, especially when they saw the "plane hit the building" official story go into full effect in the hysteria after 9/11. Even today they would probably fear for their lives, just like Roosevelt Roberts now that he understands the implications of his testimony.

See these videos by CIT for MUCH more information about how they were able to pull the flyover off in broad daylight, and to understand how Hoffman and Ashley are blatantly misrepresenting what CIT thinks and say.

The Pentagon Flyover: How They Pulled It Off (Video, 100 Min)

The Second Plane Cover Story (Video, 34 Min)

Also his whole "alienating the victims" argument could just as easily be made about the WTC, and is not a valid reason not to discuss the evidence proving what happened in either case. Someone could just as easily say:

QUOTE
I mean how could -- how could you imaging something more offensive to the victims of the attack than, than, than this, you know, “The collapse of the twin towers was faked!”, you know, and just, just, you know, in your face! You know, it’s like, “You didn’t see... you were fooled!”, you know, “You thought you saw buildings collapsing but really, you know, they were being blown up with explosives!”, you know. And all... think of all the people that we don’t, you know, that um, that we’ll never hear from, that were working in the World Trade Center, probably thousands of people who saw the contractors coming in and out of the building working on the elevator modernization, and “Oh, they just... they were just too stupid to see that they were carrying in tons and tons of explosives!” Or the people in NY and watching on TV: “they were fooled!”, or, you know. It’s just, really... um... so it’s designed... so the disinformation is designed to do multiple things. It’s designed to offend the victims of the attack. It’s designed to make... to reinforce the loony conspiracist meme; to make it, you know... ta...ta... to ridiculous, to reinfor... because that’s what... that’s the main defense against all... against considering alternatives to the official story: that these are loony conspiracy theorists that don’t have critical thinking abilities and they will believe the worst non-sense.


The bottom line is that both the flyover at the Pentagon and the controlled demolition of the twin towers sound crazy to many people before they see the evidence. However, both are conclusively proven to be true by the evidence, and that is what matters. This is about truth, period, and as a matter of fact I find that there is a larger emotional and psychological hurdle for many people to clear to accept the evidence for controlled demolition of the towers than the flyover evidence at the Pentagon. In my experience people tend to have a stronger emotional attachment to the official story of the WTC since it was something that they actually watched on TV and were traumatized by, whereas the Pentagon attack is much more nebulous and thus people are often able to look at it more objectively.

This post has been edited by Ligon: Aug 10 2009, 05:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Aug 10 2009, 04:46 PM
Post #20


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (Ligon @ Aug 10 2009, 11:48 AM) *
The bottom line is that both the flyover at the Pentagon and the controlled demolition of the twin towers sound crazy to many people before they see the evidence. However, both are conclusively proven to be true by the evidence, and that is what matters. This is about truth, period, and as a matter of fact I find that there is a larger emotional and psychological hurdle for many people to clear to accept the evidence for controlled demolition of the towers than the flyover evidence at the Pentagon. In my experience people tend to have a stronger emotional attachment to the official story of the WTC since it was something that they actually watched on TV and were traumatized by, whereas the Pentagon attack is much more nebulous and thus people are often able to look at it more objectively.

Excellent points, Ligon.

The question I'm asking myself is why is it so important to keep the Pentagon issue out of the public consciousness -- not only the public at large but even those who already ascribe to the "9/11 was an inside job" meme? This question would be moot if it weren't for the fact that, at this point, as the result of all the analysis of available information and witnesses to date, we have every bit as much STRONG evidence that Flight 77 did not impact the Pentagon as we do STRONG evidence that the WTC complex was demolished in a staged controlled demolition.

Again, I return to the central questions:
  • Do we agree that the physical damage within and around the pentagon narrowly identifies the SOCP flight path?
  • Do we agree that the eye witnesses recorded by CIT, the descriptions by many of them verified by the CFMH and Library of Congress, substantially contradict this flight path?
  • Does the evaluation of the FDR data by P4T show conclusively that even IF the plane had flown on the SOCP flight path it could NOT have impacted the building?
  • Does the many hours of recorded interviews with Lloyd England establish that he is not only a witness but has direct involvement (at whatever level) in the staging of the Pentagon "attack" event?
  • Does the account given by Rosevelt Roberts Jr indicate that there WERE (and are) witnesses to the flyover of an aircraft that looked like a "commercial aircraft".

I maintain that if we can agree on the first item and any ONE of the other items, then we have succeeded in providing STRONG evidence to the 9/11 Truth community that the Pentagon "attack" IS an on-going deception.

This then moves the whole debate to the question of the motives behind those who have libeled P4T and CIT by implying in no uncertain terms that their research is intentional disinformation with the intent of dividing the 9/11 Truth community.

Indeed, it is DIFFICULT to convey to others the significance of this information IF ONE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND IT AND ITS IMPLICATIONS THOROUGHLY. This is the accusation I level at Victoria Ashley, Arabesque, Jim Hoffman, Michael Wolssey and others who are the self-appointed gate-keepers, attempting to discredit and, indeed, slander P4T and CIT. Repeatedly they have put forward criticisms of the research done by these two organizations that DOES NOT address the most salient points made. Whether due to prejudice, intellectual dishonesty or some other unknown motivation, they have launched a coordinated attack against this research and the individuals involved in it. It is time we bring this to an end, once and for all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 8th December 2019 - 03:29 PM