truthaction.org

[Arcterus]

[element]

Hello everyone,

I’ve been lured out of my usual “lurk” mode by this thread.

I’d like to respond most directly to the implication that I am somehow foolish, naïve, misguided, or (relatively) unlearned because of my strong disagreement with those of you who find CIT’s work “ridiculous”, their “claims” “baseless”, “false”, weak”, “hoax-related”, etc., and their value to the “movement” less than or equal to zero.

I have spent many hundreds of hours studying the attack on the Pentagon. I have watched every video that CIT has released multiple times.. I have read everything in the “Info” section on their website. I have read all of the articles by Arabesque and Adam Larson cited in this thread, as well as other articles by them and other opponents of CIT. I have also read the responses by CIT to these critical articles, including Craig Ranke’s lengthy rebuttal to Arabesque’s oft-cit “critical” review of their first release. I have listened to both telephone debates between Adam Larson and CIT multiple times each. I have spent countless hours reading debates between CIT and their critics on a variety of online forums. I have studied Pilots for 9/11 Truth’s analysis of the alleged black box data. And on and on.

Can anyone else here truthfully say the same?

A few more questions: Is Marine Aviator Terry Morin, who was at the Navy Annex and claims to have had a view of the belly of the plane as it flew directly over the building, wrong? Was it actually across the street on the south side of Columbia Pike, even though he says that he did *not* have a side view and that there is “no frippin way” that it was over there? Is it just a coincidence that Edward Paik, who saw the plane just before it reached the Navy Annex, says that the plane crossed over Columbia Pike and flew over the Navy Annex, exactly where Morin says he saw it? Is Sgt. William Lagasse incorrect when he places the plane to the north of the gas station (where he was located), even though he says he is “100%” certain about it, would “bet his life on it”, and would have had a building obstructing his view of the plane if it were on the south side path? Is Sgt. Chadwick Brooks, who was across the street, incorrect when he confidently places the plane in the same location? Is Robert Turcios, incorrect when he corroborates all of these men with “100%” certainty, saying that the plane definitely flew north of the gas station, which he was also located at? Was William Middleton imaging that the plane flew so close to him (just north/northeast of the Navy Annex) that he could feel the heat? Was the plane actually way over on the other side of the building? Is it just a coincidence that Darrell Stafford, who was outside the Arlington National Cemetery maintenance buildings across from the Citgo station, says the plane flew over the Navy Annex, directly towards him, north of the Citgo station, while banking to its right, perfectly corroborating the aforementioned witnesses? Is Donald Carter, who was in the same location, also mistaken when he says the exact same thing, even though he insists that anyone who would claim that the plane flew south of the station must not have seen it? Is Darius Prather also incorrect when he says the plane flew over the Navy Annex? Was it actually south (left from his point of view) of the building? Is it just a coincidence that so many other previously published accounts also have the plane flying over the Navy Annex? Is it just a coincidence that when CIT asked the alleged “light pole strike” witnesses if they actually saw the plane hit the light poles or if they simply saw the plane, then later saw the light poles, and put two and two together, that *none* of them claim to have seen the light poles get hit, including the people who were on the highway with the perfect view? Is it just a coincidence that no one saw the pole in Lloyde’s car? Is it just a coincidence that there is a large scratch in the road leading up to where the pole is resting in the photos, and that the scratch comes from the opposite direction of where the plane came from? Is it just a coincidence that proven liar Keith Wheelhouse, who claims to have seen the plane approach for approximately sixty seconds when he could have only seen it for a few seconds if at all from his alleged location also falsely claims that the C-130 was “shadowing” the plane? Did Roosevelt Roberts Jr. actually *not * see a large commercial airliner flying extremely low (approximately 100 feet or less) away from the Pentagon seconds after the alleged impact as he has claimed since 2001? Is it another coincidence that Lloyde’s FBI-employee wife agreed with Craig that the plane did not hit the building but rather “kept on going”. Is it also a coincidence that Erik Dihle, in 2001, reported that witnesses around him said the same thing (that the plane “kept on going” after the explosion)?

Am I really to believe that those of you who are making the vitriolic comments about CIT’s work and “claims” have done your homework enough to answer these questions confidently, and that your answer to every single one of them is “yes”?

[truthmover]

[Arcterus]

[truthmover]

[kameelyun]

Not only am I a rational researcher, I am someone who is regarded by people who know me in person as unusually smart.

Do the CIT boys perhaps have a 'tude and get angry with those who don't accept their findings? Probably so. I bet I would too. They're young. They'll mature. I used to have a juvenile attitude in my early truthing days 4 years ago, sometimes making comments online like "If you can't see WTC7 was a CD, you're a fuckin' idiot!" Then I learned that such an approach can only serve to alienate and so I toned it down and learned how to be civil, all the time.

But the interviews documented by CIT do speak for themselves. Give me even one on-camera interview with a person who unequivocally confirms the south-side approach, and also states that the 13 north side witnesses are wrong. Then the south side defenders might have a shred of credibility.

Do I suspect Pilots for Truth and CIT to be one massive disinfo campaign? Hardly. Do I suspect a disinformation campaign against CIT because their research is damning, and only lots of spin and half-truths can muddy the issue for newbies (as it did for me at first)? Absolutely.

If you want to talk about double standards and special pleading, CIT opposers seem to take such offense at the thought of Lloyd England being part of a disinformation program of false witnesses. How dare we insinuate that this nice old man is part of a disinfo campaign? Yet the "frustrating fraud" blog cited over and over in "refutation" to CIT's research is written by a man who insinuates that all 13 north side witnesses, plus the CIT boys, plus the findings of Pilots for Truth, are a huge disinfo campaign.

Craig Ranke debated Adam Larson of the "frustrating fraud" blogspot cited ad nauseum by the anti-CIT people on this thread. Ranke debunks Larson in a very decisive fashion, much like Greg Jenkins' debunking of Judy Wood. Within the first two minutes, Larson concedes that the 13 north side witnesses can't be wrong by accident, and insinuates that the 13 witnesses are part of a massive disinfo campaign. But, on the other hand, CIT supporters are supposedly making truthers look insane by suggesting that one nice old cab driver might be part of a psyop disinfo campaign.

Here is Craig Ranke in debate with his no. 1 critic, "Caustic Logic."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=738504907226237721

We now have witness to a "commercial airliner" flying just above light poles, "ten seconds tops" after the explosion at the Pentagon. His claim was first documented at the Center for Military History just weeks after the event, and confirmed independently by CIT in 2008.

We even have ANOTHER flyover witness. Erik Dihle was at Arlington Cemetery in his office right across from the Citgo station. he told the Center for Military History only weeks after the event that just after the explosion, he ran outside and the first thing he heard people say was that, "...a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going!” You can hear the 2001 interview here: http://www.thepentacon.com/neit426.mp3

While "Caustic Logic" and "Arabesque" have spent countless hours trying to nitpick away at CIT's eyewitnesses, coming up with some incredible red herrings in the process, the CIT boys have been diligently investigating and finding more and more witnesses who mutually corroborate the flight path, to the point of redundancy.

And I hear desperation in the tone of those who insist on defending the official flight path.

I would also like to remind everybody that DRG has referenced CIT's work in two book, "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" and "New Pearl Harbor Revisited." This lays waste to the charge that "no serious 9/11 researcher takes CIT's work seriously." Unless, of course, you'lre now going to nitpick at DRG's credibility, just as you have done with Craig, Aldo, and every one of their witnesses.

[kameelyun]

The way people tend to "debunk" CIT follows the same MO as that of the "debunkers" of 9/11 truth in general including CD at the WTC. Back in 2006, when Amy Goodman moderated the Loose Change - Popular Mechanics debate, she challenged Dylan and Jason: "Name just one structural engineer who believes the planes didn't bring the buildings down!" So back then, before ae911truth came on the scene, she would have been satisfied with "just one."

In other words, the general message was "CD can't be true because no experts have gone on the record to support it."

However, ae911truth was a death blow to this argument.

So when ae911truth blossoms, the "debunkers" spend inordinate amounts of time trying to nitpick at the credibility of the petition signers, how prestigious the college was where they got their degree, the fact that Richard Gage has never designed a skyscraper like the WTC, and other nonsensical red herrings.

...And they also now use the "numbers defense" argument like this: "The 640 people who have signed Gage's petition are 0.00001% of the hundreds of thousands of a's and e's in the country who haven't signed it." Of course, that doesn't mean that every a and e who hasn't signed it has looked at the claims and disagreed with them.

This the same modus operandi that south side defenders at the Pentagon use. It doesn't matter how many corroborating eyewitness accounts CIT harnesses: the south side defenders will try to nitpick at the credibility at each and every single one, while at the same time, their (in print, not on camera) south side witnesses (who merely make statements which ss defenders interpret to be a south side approach) possess airtight credibility.

[Arcterus]

Please look at the previous posts in this topic for a proper rebuttal.

Thank you.
_________________
http://arcterus911.blogspot.com

[element]

[Arcterus]

You know, as I was reading through your response to Julian, I had a long list of deceptive tactics/flawed logic/etc... that I would see in your post that I intended to respond to. But what's the point? This sentence is good enough:

[element]

[element]

[element]

[Midnighter]

[Midnighter]