Pentaconned spreads disinfo (ranke CIT disinfo )

[element]

I think witness Kelly Knowles saw the overshoot as well, but in her mind she has made it a second plane a few seconds behind the one that hit the Pentagon.

And the C130 plane then gets added to the confusion.

They saw a plane overshoot at the same time... it couldn't have been the C130.

Now have their minds made what they were told mould what they saw or are they part of the disinfo?

Who are these people?

Very good questions.  Now you are getting into the "second plane cover story" that is briefly mentioned in the epilogue of National Security Alert.

CIT had a detailed interview with Keith Wheelhouse.  He repeated the same "shadowing" claim:



This claim was highly suspect on its face since the official story has the attack jet flying over 500 mph and a C-130 has a max speed of 379 mph.

As I mentioned in my last post though we now know for a fact that this claim is totally bogus because the fact that the C-130 did not arrive until roughly three minutes later is proven by photos, video, multiple eyewitnesses, and even according to the pilot himself, Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien.

Not only that, when CIT asked Wheelhouse how long he watched the "two" planes approach for he said it was approximately 60 seconds!  From Wheelhouses alleged location he would have been able to seen the plane for a split second IF AT ALL.

So Wheelhouse is a proven liar.  Just after the attack his account appeared in the Daily Press article shown on screen in the Epilogue of NSA which claims that the C-130 pilot "SAW" the plane hit the building.  Again, this was not true, but the purpose of this false story was to serve as cover for any legitimate witnesses who saw a plane flying away immediately after the explosion.  Besides wheelhouse it was only a very small amount of media witnesses, most from USA Today/Gannett, who made similar claims.  One of them was USA Today reporter Joel Sucherman, who claims that he saw a plane "peeling off" after the explosion.



The timing of this was kept vague intentionally, but when CIT pressed him for a time frame he said it was 3-5 seconds after the explosion.

Another USA Today reporter, Vin Narayanan, was quoted as seeing a "second JET" "hovering in the skies" just after the explosion as well.

All of these accounts were slightly different and kept fairly ambiguous.  It was absolutely critical for them to have this bogus "second plane" story floating out there after the attack to convince the flyover witnesses that they had actually seen this second jet.  Roosevelt Robert's account illustrates how amazingly successful this was.  For years he was convinced that the large commercial airliner he saw "as clear as day" flying away from the Pentagon seconds after the explosion "like it missed the wrong target... like it missed the landing zone" must have been this non-existent second plane.  There is no doubt that it was successful at fooling many other people as well.

And even if it didn't fool you, what were you going to do... call 9-1-1 and tell them that the plane didn't actually hit the building and kept on going?  Well, even if you did, it wouldn't have mattered.  The 9-1-1 calls to this day have never been released, so we have no idea how many people were reporting something like what Erik Dihel's co-workers were saying, which was that a bomb had gone off and the plane had "kept on going", nor do we know how many people reported a "second plane" flying away afterwards like Roosevelt, which was actually THE plane.

I encourage everyone to familiarize themselves with the accounts of this small pool of lying USA Today witnesses.  They were the disinfo that you are talking about.

They were all allegedly on Route 27 in front of the Pentagon within a QUARTER MILE of each other!


All reporters or editors.  No janitors, receptionists, etc.   Most of them making ambiguous, fraudulent claims about a "second plane" which served as perfect cover for the flyover.   They were all allegedly on their way to work.  This was just after 9:30, so they were all apparently not only late, but the same amount of late, and coming from the same direction on the same road which just so happened to be the one tiny strip of the highway in front of the Pentagon where you could see the plane perfectly.

Just to further point out that these people are proven liars, another one that CIT has interviewed was John O'Keefe, who claims that he saw the plane was an American Airlines, even though we know many previously unknown witnesses -- ones that CIT found while canvassing the neighborhoods who were not part of the propaganda -- got a clear look at the plane and insist that it was white in color and did not look like an AA jet. 

CIT asked O'Keefe how long he watched the plane approach for and guess what he said?  Just like Wheelhouse he gives an insane number: FOURTY FIVE SECONDS!  From his confirmed alleged point of view he would only have been able to see the plane on the official flight path for 1-2 seconds tops, if at all!

As you can see in National Security Alert (and as common sense tells you) witnesses are not going to be get everything right down to the foot or down to the second.  But if you see a plane for one second (or not at all) you clearly DO NOT say that you saw it for 45-60 seconds.

It is very obviously not a coincidence that these proven liars also just so happen to be the only small pool of witnesses who supported this bogus second plane cover story.

All of this is explained in extreme detail with evidence (including the Wheelhouse and Sucherman interviews) in:
1. The Pentagon Flyover: How They Pulled It Off
2. The 2nd Plane Cover Story

Even more evidence has been uncovered since those were released though.  I've seen Craig say that he plans to do a more concise overview video explaining the second plane cover story, but I'm not sure if he's started working on it yet or what.  I definitely recommend the two I just linked to for now.

[Voskhod3]

Just watched this.

This is film good.

http://www.thepentacon.com/PentagonFlyover.htm

[element]

Oh, another lying member of the "USA Today Parade" (as CIT calls it) was Mike Walter.

Walter now claims that he clearly saw the plane impact the Pentagon.  His memory apparently has gotten much more detailed since 9/11, when he said:

GUMBEL: Did you see it hit the Pentagon? Was the plane coming in horizontally or did it, in fact, go on its wing as--as it impacted the building?

Mr. WALTER: You know, the--the--the--there were trees there that kind of obstructed it, so I kind of--I saw it go in. I'm not sure if it turned at an angle. I've heard some people say that's what it did. All I know is it--it created a huge explosion and massive fireball and...

GUMBEL: Tell me, if you could, about the manner in which the--the plane struck the building. I ask that because, in the pictures we have seen, it appears to be a gash in the side of the Pentagon as if the plane went in vertically as opposed to horizontally. Can you tell me anything about that?

Mr. WALTER: Well, as I said, you know, there were trees obstructing my view, so I saw it as it went--and then the--then the trees, and then I saw the--the fireball and the smoke. Some people have said that the plane actually sent on its side and in that way. But I can't tell you, Bryant. I just know that what I saw was this massive fireball, a huge explosion and--and a--the thick column of smoke and then an absolute bedlam on those roads as people were trying to get away.

Of course we know that there WERE trees obscuring his view, exactly as he said on 9/11, and contrary to what he later tried to claim.




He also contradicts his proven-bogus, change-of-story impact claim when he mentions the same significant righthand bank that all of the other witnesses report.  This bank proves that the plane was on the north side flight path and NOT the perfectly straight official south side flight path, meaning that it did not hit the poles or the building.

[element]

Here is a screen capture from the C-130 approaching at a much, much higher altitude and not until approximately three minutes after the explosion.



Again, this jives perfectly with what the pilot himself says as well as many other witnesses, proves Wheelhouse and Sucherman to be liars, and proves that the C-130 was NOT the "commercial airliner" which Roosevelt Roberts saw approximately 50 feet off the ground "just above the light poles" only seconds after the explosion (the alleged "impact"), banking away from the Pentagon as though it "missed the wrong target... like it missed the landing zone".  Again, there was only one plane in the area... the same plane all of the witnesses in National Security Alert (video in the OP) saw approaching from the north side, proving it didn't hit the building.

[pcc]

not to beat a dead horse but..
the C130 pilot Obrian's comments..
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=steve_o_brien

[Freeski]

I didnt say the thirteen witnesses were lying... im saying the people they talked to may have planted the north side approach in their minds.

But wouldn't planting an idea like that require hypnosis, or drugs, or something? There's no way they're going to forget "where" the plane was, or where they were in relation to it that day. No way. You could do it with programming (media/NLP), but that takes time and repetition, something this situation doesn't have.

[pcc]

But wouldn't planting an idea like that require hypnosis, or drugs, or something? There's no way they're going to forget "where" the plane was, or where they were in relation to it that day. No way. You could do it with programming (media/NLP), but that takes time and repetition, something this situation doesn't have.

nope, simple "leading of the witness".. ever watch Perry Mason? 
steering the witness down a certain pre-destined path..
Sgt.LaGasse was rather pissed off in his email that I posted..

[Freeski]

nope, simple "leading of the witness".. ever watch Perry Mason?  
steering the witness down a certain pre-destined path..
Sgt.LaGasse was rather pissed off in his email that I posted..

Not in this case.

[TheCaliKid]

Sgt.LaGasse was rather pissed off in his email that I posted..

Link please?

[pcc]

Link please?

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=111666.msg704866#msg704866

[element]

nope, simple "leading of the witness".. ever watch Perry Mason?  
steering the witness down a certain pre-destined path..
Sgt.LaGasse was rather pissed off in his email that I posted..

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, pcc.  You're aware that this e-mail exchange was between Sgt. Lagasse and Dick Eastman, right?  Not CIT?  These e-mails were sent three years before CIT interviewed Lagasse.

The guys in CIT definitely aren't trying to hide from these important e-mail messages which is why they quote from them in National Security Alert.

Again, these e-mails were sent in the summer of 2003, less than two years after the event.  Lagasse tells Eastman: "I was on the Starboard side of the aircraft."   As pointed out in National Security Alert, the starboard side is the right side.  If Lagasse was on the starboard side of the aircraft that means that the aircraft was on the north side flight path.



This e-mail exchange proves that Lagasse is on record since long before CIT interviewed him supporting the north side approach.  Lagasse did not understand the implications of what he saw (i.e. that it proved a deception and proved 9/11 to be an inside job), which is why he was upset with Eastman for questioning the official story.  He still didn't understand it three years later when he gave CIT a detailed on site interview (excerpts of which are scene in National Security Alert), as evidenced by the fact that when Craig of CIT told him that what he was saying contradicted the official story Lagasse says that he is "trying to maintain an even strain".  Lagasse clearly wanted to support the official story and did not understand or want to believe that he was contradicting it.  This only gives more credibility to the north side claim, because Lagasse still completely stands by it to this day even after being told the implications and has never accused CIT of misrepresenting what he said and what he saw.

[element]

Here's what Lagasse said on February 28, 2007 (a few months after CIT interviewed him) when asked about the fact that his account contradicts the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report and the 9/11 Commission report.

Like I said before what I said contradicts the theories
of engineers that never asked me or Sgt Brooks or any Police
eyewitnesses what he-she or they saw. Obviously what I saw
happened, therefore the conclusions made by people who didnt
see it can be flawed...I accept the fact that there can be
miscalculations on my part, but NOT whether or not the plane
was on the North or South side of the gas station."

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=387

[Scootle]

element stop posting CIT propaganda ... when the CIT guys live up to the I in their name and interview some of the ACFD firefighters who were there picking up pieces of little girls from the plane then maybe i'll listen... until then I consider them nothing more than the Cabdriver Harassment Team.

[Mike Philbin]

I also wanna point out (to no-one in particular, as I'm watching The Pentagon Flyover documentary) that, on the day, there was a military exercise where Ptech INSERTED fake data into the NORAD setup and into the Flight Controller screens. So any Flight Controller observations must be ignored to a great extent.

Needs emphasising why EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY is key to getting to the TRUTH, be that as it may.

Re-open the investigation is all that's worth saying. Let the real evidence speak for itself, not edited-out public enquiry stuff like the omission of WTC janitor Robert Rodriguez from the COmmission hearing etc... etc.....  etc............

[Voskhod3]

ACFD firefighters who were there picking up pieces of little girls from the plane

You got any links?

[trailhound]

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1248677650819981509

[DVD]

element stop posting CIT propaganda ... when the CIT guys live up to the I in their name and interview some of the ACFD firefighters who were there picking up pieces of little girls from the plane then maybe i'll listen... until then I consider them nothing more than the Cabdriver Harassment Team.

you put on a '9/11 was an inside jobby job' shirt and make claims that you 'use to be a debunker' and then you come across as one of randi's kids from jref trying to pollute the information war and cast doubt on real evidence.

you post links to fema. you claim an engine was embedded in a support beam with no proof.

you post pictures of people who died inside the pentagon and claim this is proof a plane hit as if the pentagon section was completely empty.

do you trust fema? because if you do you should take off your '9/11 was a inside jobby job' shirt and stick to posting on jref.

what proof do you have that anyone was picking up pieces of 'little girls' from the plane? whats that? none?

you call the research of cit "propaganda" because you can't argue against it.

every talking point you raised so far is from jref. i see right through your poor disguise.

and i can promise you now that i'm here i will pick apart every single argument you make and expose you for what you really are doing.

people watch the presentation. they see it with their own eyes. they hear it with their own ears. no fake truther operative is going to persuade them with mark roberts talking points. i guarentee you that.

you have no proof cit is disinformation or spreading propaganda.

you and pcc claim to have done more research than cit.

where's the proof?

who have you talked to?

who have you interviewed on film and released to the american public for their viewing?

who have you recorded conversations with and released it to the american public for their examination?

what have you done besides putting on a t-shirt to prove 9/11 was an 'inside jobby job'?

let's see how long my account lasts.......

[Freeski]

I also wanna point out (to no-one in particular, as I'm watching The Pentagon Flyover documentary) that, on the day, there was a military exercise where Ptech INSERTED fake data into the NORAD setup and into the Flight Controller screens. So any Flight Controller observations must be ignored to a great extent.

Needs emphasising why EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY is key to getting to the TRUTH, be that as it may.

Re-open the investigation is all that's worth saying. Let the real evidence speak for itself, not edited-out public enquiry stuff like the omission of WTC janitor Robert Rodriguez from the COmmission hearing etc... etc.....  etc............

This made me think about the heart and soul of control. We prefer DNA over eyewitness accounts? They've trained us to distrust our fellow man. That they will protect us, yet it's they we can't trust. They get control over us AND the evidence. Think about that. Freaky.

[Scootle]

Yes every talking point i've raised so far is from JREF and SLC... u know why? ... because even tho when it comes to the world trade center these people seem to be in mass thermite denial... when it comes to pentagon research, the JREFers put david ray griffin to shame... i've now been promoted to administrator of a blog devoted to debunking the debunkers... I go on the JREF forum and SLC blog every day to see what the shills are talking about... i dont post, I just read... most of their posts are filled with ad-hominem attacks and pseudo-science but when it comes to quotes and facts their research is top notch. Mark Roberts may be a piece of trash who's betraying humanity but the man sure know's his stuff when it comes to first responder testimony. They debunked the recent "revelation" that the planes didnt fly for 9 months prior to 9/11 in seconds... do u know why? coz they actually bothered to cross check it with the records on the site. 90% of what most truthers consider evidence has been debunked...

In a weird way the debunkers help us ... the truth movement wouldn't be where it is today without them...

[Freeski]

So true ^

[DVD]

Yes every talking point i've raised so far is from JREF and SLC... u know why? ...

yes. because you're one of them wearing a "9/11 was an inside jobby job" shirt for credibility.

because even tho when it comes to the world trade center these people seem to be in mass thermite denial... when it comes to pentagon research, the JREFers put david ray griffin to shame...

who cares about drg? i don't. this isn't about him.

 

i've now been promoted to administrator of a blog devoted to debunking the debunkers...

link?

 

I go on the JREF forum and SLC blog every day to see what the shills are talking about... i dont post, I just read... most of their posts are filled with ad-hominem attacks and pseudo-science but when it comes to quotes and facts their research is top notch.

your true colors are showing. so far you fired off a bunch of ad-homs at cit and pilots. even going as far as to say that pilots are wtc no-planers which is an outright lie.

 

Mark Roberts may be a piece of trash who's betraying humanity but the man sure know's his stuff when it comes to first responder testimony.

because he's a spook. name the tour company he works for. you can't. there isn't one.


 

They debunked the recent "revelation" that the planes didnt fly for 9 months prior to 9/11 in seconds... do u know why?

so did i. because it was crap like most 911 blogger stuff.
 

coz they actually bothered to cross check it with the records on the site. 90% of what most truthers consider evidence has been debunked...

and you're a truther, right?

In a weird way the debunkers help us ... the truth movement wouldn't be where it is today without them...

true. the arguments you've provided so far have helped cit's credibility from the exploding before impact plane to the missile claim to pilots being no planers.

using the fema death camp people as a source. why don't you use nist for the wtc if you use fema for the pentagon?

[Scootle]

Take ur divide and conquer BS elsewhere troy. Ur the debunker pretending to be a truther.

[DVD]

Take ur divide and conquer BS elsewhere troy. Ur the debunker pretending to be a truther.

my name isn't troy. my name is domenick dimaggio.

btw, whats your name? is it troy?

my shanksville work speaks volumes for itself.

now that i have said what i have done for the 9/11 truth movement its your turn to answer my previous post jref'er.  

[Scootle]

No planers are disinfo ... FACT

Pilotsfor911truth founder Rob Balsamo defended the no-planers of his group ... FACT

Therefore its likely that either pilotsfortruth is disinfo... or they've been duped by disinfo... either way it harms their credibility.

“Mark Roberts deserves to die a traitors [sic] death for trying to suppress 9/11 families from seeking the Truth.”–"Pilots for Truth" founder, and ex-commercial pilot, Robert Balsamo

...And a few months later:


"Mark Roberts does deserve to die a traitors death....

I will not apologize for it this time. I will be there for his death should America fall into Civil War. That is not a threat. .that is a promise.
If he gets in my way of defending our Constitution.. it will be my pleasure to put a bullet in his head to defend our Constitution from enemies foreign or domestic." –"Pilots for Truth" founder Robert Balsamo, panicking after I challenged him to a debate. (Punctuation left as is.)

He sounds like a sane man doesn't he

[DVD]

No planers are disinfo ... FACT

you can type FACT all day long jref'er but it doesn't make it so. FACT FACT FACT FACT FACT.

sorry for you that commercial airliners can't do 600mph or close to it at 700 feet agl. there's a reason planes fly way high in the sky when they achieve those kinds of speed. if you have an ounce of honesty you'll figure it out.

Pilotsfor911truth founder Rob Balsamo defended the no-planers of his group ... FACT

he defeneded john lear's right to have an opinion.

who are you again that you get to pick and choose who can be a member of pilots for 9/11 truth?

why won't you reply to my previous posting? do you have something to hide?

are you waiting for a mod to show up to save the day?

Therefore its likely that either pilotsfortruth is disinfo... or they've been duped by disinfo... either way it harms their credibility.

no it doesn't. pilots credibility rests on their presentations. so post some videos of pilots pushing no planes or tv fakery or admit that you are slandering this organization like a real jref'er does.

He sounds like a sane man doesn't he

so you don't think spook mark roberts is doing the families injustice by reciting a report from a commission religiously who half the members admit they didn't get it right?

mark roberts is your hero, isn't he scootle?

come on take off the '9/11 was an inside jobby job' shirt and show your true colors. come out of the closet. you'll feel so much better.

now please have the decency to reply to my post you ignored and called me troy for posting.

your credibility is riding on it.

everyone is looking.

p.s. don't bother calling me a wtc no planer either, because you're wrong.

[DVD]

yes. because you're one of them wearing a "9/11 was an inside jobby job" shirt for credibility.

who cares about drg? i don't. this isn't about him.

 
link?

 
your true colors are showing. so far you fired off a bunch of ad-homs at cit and pilots. even going as far as to say that pilots are wtc no-planers which is an outright lie.

 
because he's a spook. name the tour company he works for. you can't. there isn't one.


 

so did i. because it was crap like most 911 blogger stuff.
 
and you're a truther, right?

true. the arguments you've provided so far have helped cit's credibility from the exploding before impact plane to the missile claim to pilots being no planers.

using the fema death camp people as a source. why don't you use nist for the wtc if you use fema for the pentagon?

quoted for troy, i mean "scootle".

[DVD]

Here's what Lagasse said on February 28, 2007 (a few months after CIT interviewed him) when asked about the fact that his account contradicts the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report and the 9/11 Commission report.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=387

great stuff element!

don't listen to people who call evidence and research "propaganda" and talk about missiles and exploding before impact planes. 

[Scootle]

No i'm not waiting for a mod to save me... i find it amusing... I'm probably one of the most passionate 9/11 truthers on this forum and your calling me a debunker...

Here's a video I made and narrated ... u can tell from my voice I'm not troy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NrASZxGu_o&fmt=18

[DVD]

No i'm not waiting for a mod to save me... i find it amusing... I'm probably one of the most passionate 9/11 truthers on this forum and your calling me a debunker...

Here's a video I made and narrated ... u can tell from my voice I'm not troy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NrASZxGu_o&fmt=18

are you going to reply to post#349 or not?

[Freeski]

This is fascinating stuff.

[DVD]

Take ur divide and conquer BS elsewhere troy. Ur the debunker pretending to be a truther.

i thought i'd take a second to point out to all the members and lurkers how orwellian you are.

cit releases a presentation based on eyewitness testimony that shatters the official government lie.
it is corroborated again and again and again.
cit even presents a flyover witness in the presentation.

this is evidence admissable in a court of law. this is acceptable.

those who watch it talk about how amazing this presentation is. the truth movement has something they can come together on.

then you come along talking about no planes at the wtc, missiles on different flight paths, planes exploding before impact all of which is unsubstantiated garbage and then call cit disinfo and propaganda and then accuse me of trying to divide the movement for calling you out on your bullshit.

it doesn't get anymore 1984 than that my friend.

like i said, come out of the closet.

90% of 9/11 truth has been debunked by jref & slc, right?
mark roberts is an amazing researcher, right?

pilots and cit are disinformation, right?

[Scootle]

The presentation, right or wrong, is good up until the point they start harassing Lloyd... in the full version of the Lloyd interview they got kind of forceful with him - frustratingly saying "tell us what happened" at one point... they recorded him without his consent and they accused him of being part of a coverup when it could just be sinility or something ... I find this particularly disturbing ... In a few months time it wouldnt suprise me if he was killed by "a loony truther no-planer" and Glenn Beck goes on air defaming us more... I just think what they did was too far... they should have just have not gone there and waited for a real investigation...

I think Michael Hess, the debunkers and that witness who seemed like an operative (the one who said "then i watched both towers collapse, first one then the other, mostly due to structual failure coz the fire was just too intense") have some questions to answer ... but I wouldn't record them without permission and accuse of them of being part of a plot to commit mass murder ... I'd wait until we got an investigation to subpoena these people, then question them.

[DVD]

The presentation, right or wrong, is good up until the point they start harassing Lloyd...

you sure you're not a jref'er? only jref'ers use this claim and they use it to try to discredit cit's work.

no one waterboarded lloyde.

in the full version of the Lloyd interview they got kind of forceful with him - frustratingly saying "tell us what happened" at one point...

is that forceful?

should they has said "pretty pretty please with an ice cream sunday, will you tell us what happened?"

would that be more to your liking?

they recorded him without his consent

oh so if someone recorded dick cheney bragging about planning 9/11 without dick cheney's consent you would be opposed to that being released to the american people?

and they accused him of being part of a coverup when it could just be sinility or something ...

could be this or could be that. jref slc jref slc jref. you're a mockingbird.

it is what it is.

lloyde says what he says.

his wife works for the fbi.

lloyde attended "conspiracy classes" in the months before 9/11.

keep making excuses for this evidence that shatters the official story with your '9/11 was an inside jobby job' shirt on.

I find this particularly disturbing ...

i find what i outlined in my previous post about your orwellian tactics to be 'disturbing'.

In a few months time it wouldnt suprise me if he was killed by "a loony truther no-planer" and Glenn Beck goes on air defaming us more...

wow that's so relevant to the over the navy annex and on the north side of the citgo eyewitness statements.

i wouldn't be surprised if a duhbunker pretending to be a truther murdered him in order to defame us. how about that one?  

I just think what they did was too far...

oh yeah they should just post on the internet and speculate and make up conspiracies about missile on different flight paths and planes exploding before impact. that would be much more productive to getting a new investigation than tracking down the eyewitnesses and recording them on location documenting their accounts.

again you further illustrate to everyone reading which side of the fence you truly reside on.

they should have just have not gone there and waited for a real investigation...

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!

THATS GOLD!!!!!!

don't investigate 9/11 everyone!!!!

just speculate and invent theories on the interwebs until a real investigation happens!!!!!

LMAO!!!!!

I think Michael Hess, the debunkers and that witness who seemed like an operative (the one who said "then i watched both towers collapse, first one then the other, mostly due to structual failure coz the fire was just too intense") have some questions to answer ...

again you bring in so much off topic stuff into the conversation.

you're just slinging shit at the wall now and hoping something sticks.

but I wouldn't record them without permission and accuse of them of being part of a plot to commit mass murder ...

no why would you do that when you can read jref and slc and speculate and theorize about missiles and planes exploding before impact?

I'd wait until we got an investigation to subpoena these people, then question them.

how do we get the f**king investigation einstein?

it's 2009.

the only people i see doing anything for 911 truth right now in order to try to get a new investigation is cit and pilots. and you call them disinfo.

no wonder you ignore all my responses.

i outted you on my first post here.

[element]

The presentation, right or wrong, is good up until the point they start harassing Lloyd... in the full version of the Lloyd interview they got kind of forceful with him - frustratingly saying "tell us what happened" at one point...

That actually was not a member of CIT.  I asked Craig about this at the time Eye of the Storm came out.  It was just a member of the local 9/11 truth group there who volunteered to come along with him to video tape.

[DVD]

i thought i'd take a second to point out to all the members and lurkers how orwellian you are.

cit releases a presentation based on eyewitness testimony that shatters the official government lie.
it is corroborated again and again and again.
cit even presents a flyover witness in the presentation.

this is evidence admissable in a court of law. this is acceptable.

those who watch it talk about how amazing this presentation is. the truth movement has something they can come together on.

then you come along talking about no planes at the wtc, missiles on different flight paths, planes exploding before impact all of which is unsubstantiated garbage and then call cit disinfo and propaganda and then accuse me of trying to divide the movement for calling you out on your bullshit.

it doesn't get anymore 1984 than that my friend.

like i said, come out of the closet.

90% of 9/11 truth has been debunked by jref & slc, right?
mark roberts is an amazing researcher, right?

pilots and cit are disinformation, right?

are you going to ignore this one like you did #349?

[Scootle]

Guess I aint a JREFer!

[Freeski]

Scootle, can you recap your "conclusion" on flight 77 and the pentagon, like in a nutshell? Thanks in advance.

[DVD]

please see posts #349 & #359.

p.s. here's my youtube channel.

[Scootle]

The majority of the evidence at the scene points towards it hitting... with some anomolies that may indicate additional foul play ... CIT's alternate flight path and Pilotsfortruth's mathematics, if correct, prove it couldn't have hit in which case we have a conundrum ... the Arlington County Firefighters can fix that ... and have ... it hit! Until CIT interviews a firefighter who says otherwise, that's where I stand.

[Freeski]

The majority of the evidence at the scene points towards it hitting... with some anomolies that may indicate additional foul play ... CIT's alternate flight path and Pilotsfortruth's mathematics, if correct, proves it couldn't have hit in which case we have a conundrum ... the Arlington Country Firefighters can fix that ... and have ... it hit! Until CIT interviews a firefighter who says otherwise, that's where I stand.

So the jury's still out?