It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Response to Arabesque's latest personal attack hit-piece against CIT

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 09:11 PM
link   
There are those in the movement who work relentlessly to provide evidence proving 9/11 was an inside job and ironically there are others who work relentlessly attacking those who provide this evidence.

Just as CIT was unaware of blogger Caustic Logic's existence until he wrote a hit-piece article on us calling us "Pentagon sponsored disinformation" we were completely unaware of the other new-to-the-scene blogger Arabesque's existence until he came out with a piece attacking our research shortly after.

Neither of these individuals have conducted their own investigation or provided a single piece of independently obtained data helping to uncover the crimes of 9/11.

Both are unified in their relentless and continuous hounding of CIT and borderline obsession with casting doubt on us personally and the evidence we present.

While I will agree that we respond harshly to these types of attacks.....we are never the original aggressors against others in the movement.

Our aggression is intensely focused on the perpetrators of 9/11 and we simply address deceptive attempts to cast doubt on us direct.

Arabesque has taken this doubt casting effort to new heights with what can only be described as the most extensive, complex, targeted yet convoluted, and deceptive attempt to personally cast doubt on any 9/11 researcher that I have ever seen.

This virtually ignores our extensive amount of PUBLISHED data/research/evidence available on our website and is based entirely on quote mining from many different internet forum debates spread out over the past year taken out of context!

Arabesque hasn't even participated in most of the wide variety of forum discussions he is quoting from which gives his blog a stranger stalker-like quality.

If he spent half as much time compiling evidence against the 9/11 perpetrators as he has digging for forum snippets he could use out of context to try and make CIT look bad the movement would be a lot further along.

There is so little said in this obsessive and incredibly long neutralization attempt that I'm not the least bit worried about it as a substantive threat against our work and the hard evidence we provide proving 9/11 an inside job.

But Arabesque doesn't care as he can only hope to spit on our good names to cast doubt on the groundbreaking work we have done.

How anyone could sign their name to such an empty, blatant, and transparent personal attack I will never know.

Oh yeah.......he won't sign his name to it or anything he publishes.

Anonymous attack blog available here:
CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy

Response to follow in the coming posts over the next couple of days.

Yes his hit-piece is that long.

I regret that I have to temporarily divert my attention from compiling and releasing the additional groundbreaking smoking gun data we obtained on our recent trip to Arlington the other week but the quicker this deceptive attack is dealt with the better.




posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 09:24 PM
link   


CIT and the Origin of their PentaCon Flyover Theory

Craig Ranke (a.k.a “Lyte Trip”) and Aldo Marquis (a.k.a “Merc”) are part of Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), a group of researchers primarily devoted to investigating the Pentagon attack on 9/11. Significantly relying on their original eyewitness testimony research, their Pentagon flyover theory formed the basis of their PentaCon ‘smoking gun’ documentary. In late August 2006, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis along with the Loose Change Filmmakers and Pentagon researcher Russell Pickering visited Arlington and the Pentagon on a research trip which included interviews of 9/11 witnesses. After the trip, Ranke commented in a thread about the many cameras pointed at the Pentagon, “great work Russell. It's looking more and more like a ‘fly-over’ scenario every day.” A few days later a thread by Ranke explained, “We've Narrowed It Down To 2 Possible Scenarios... Impact or Fly-over?” While Dick Eastman was the original creator of the Pentagon flyover theory and his name appears in the credits of the PentaCon documentary, Ranke explained the origins of their theory: “We were trying to figure out if people REALLY saw a plane in Arlington and where it flew. We figured it out. As a result of THAT investigation we established the fly over theory. Not the other way around. We did not believe in a fly over until we had evidence for it.” However, the CIT researchers apparently began their research trip with the built-in assumption that no plane hit the Pentagon.


All investigations begin on the basis if a suspicion or even a hunch on the part of the investigator but we had a lot more to go on in this case. Certainly CIT was not the first to question the official 757 impact hypothesis based on the anomalous physical damage to the building, lack of debris, signs of a cover-up by confiscating video and 911 tapes, amongst many other suspicious and questionable details.

Arabesque is deceptively characterizing this as an "assumption". Nothing was assumed at all which is why we actually took the initiative to GO there and TALK to eyewitnesses in order to find out the truth in the first place and exactly why we refused to accept what the media told us out of hand. All facts we report are backed up with hard evidence mostly on video tape so it can not be denied.

By using deceptive rhetoric and referring to our thought process as involving "assumptions" Arabesque is asking the reader to believe he can read our minds.

He has no basis whatsoever to make that claim.

But he takes his deception further by insinuating we pushed a flyover theory before conducting our investigation.

Obviously the quotes he is referring to were posted AFTER we had already conducted the first trip and found out about Robert Turcios seeing the plane on the north side.

Did we question the official story before conducting our investigation?

OF COURSE! Why would we bother investigating if we didn't?

Does that prove we "assumed" anything at all?

Certainly not.

The fact that we INVESTIGATED proves that we did NOT assume our beliefs and sought legitimate evidence and proof just like Arabesque has refused to do.

This is only the first paragraph but is a perfect example of the backwards reasoning and deceptive framing that goes on through the entire blog.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Our aggression is intensely focused on the perpetrators of 9/11 and we simply address deceptive attempts to cast doubt on us direct.


Craig, I admire you and your associates desire to get "into the field" and conduct first-hand research. 999 out of 1,000 so-called "9/11 researchers" rely completely on material found online, which very often can be of questionable quality. And you know I've felt compelled to offer you this forum on AboveTopSecret.com based almost entirely on that. I firmly believe your efforts provide an overall positive influence on the entire body of 9/11 conspiracy-related research.

However, that being said, the criticism you've received for the attitude of persons associated with your group, and even yourself, is not off-base. From that vantage point, members of your team have done your efforts an extreme disservice by engaging your detractors with anger, sarcasm, and name calling. Responding in-kind to those who would cast harsh dispersions does not demonstrate conviction, it betrays uncertainty. It's not just you, but many in "9/11 Truth-Seeking" who have attracted this type of criticism as a result of impertinence.

The credibility of the results of anyone's research into theories of conspiracies has as much to do with eloquence as it does with accuracy. I hope you and your associates take these "attacks" as an opportunity to adjust your style and strengthen your delivery.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 09:39 PM
link   


What was this evidence for a plane flying over the Pentagon instead of impacting it on 9/11? CIT found four witnesses claiming that the plane flew in a direction that would place it north of the CITGO gas station on 9/11. Ranke explains what he believes to be the significance of this evidence, “[nobody] directly refutes the north side claim. NOBODY! …until you can counter this evidence with stronger evidence there is a much higher probability that north side claim is accurate.” However, three of these same witnesses strongly suggested that the plane impacted the Pentagon, which is in direct conflict with the claim that the plane flew north of CITGO gas station since the physical damage could only be explained by a south approach.


Arabesque has failed to address the claim direct and provide a single account that directly refutes the north side claim and has instead chosen to resort to circular logic. This logical fallacy is the entire basis for his argument against the north side evidence an is therefore invalid since it does not follow scientific reasoning or critical thinking principles.

The fact that the witnesses all saw the plane on the north side proves a military deception. Even if you choose to accept their claim that the plane hit the building after flying on the north side of the gas station a military deception has STILL been proven because the light poles could not have been hit and the ASCE report would have to have been fabricated.

Refusting to accept the flyover hypothesis does not change or diminish the fact that the north side evidence proves a military deception.

So Arabesque has not provided a single account or single piece of evidence that refutes the north side claim.

Faulty logic does not negate hard evidence.

It's very important to understand the difference between a hypothesis and evidence in this discussion because there is a concerted effort to treat them as one in the same which is really just a straw man approach to dismissing the evidence.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Craig,

I doubt if very many are going to slog through Arabesques post.

I did just to see if he had anything of importance and he didn't.

I wouldn't waste your time or your talent addressing Arabesque.

There are those of us who appreciate your hard work and investigative methods and I, for one, would hate to see them side tracked.

Keep up the good work.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Am I breaking the rules?

Is this thread out of line?

Let me know if it is because it seems to me like you are making generalized statements out of context while failing to address the OP or even anything specific mentioned in Arabesque's blog.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


You are absolutely right once again John.

I agree that very few other than those who already have an agenda against us will be able to get through much of it.

Because of the extensive nature of this particular piece and because it can be so easily shown to be based on faulty logic and deceptive tactics I simply can not let it go unanswered for the record.

His arguments are thin and the thread they are hanging by will ultimately be broken by the sheer weight of the evidence we will continue to present regardless of my response but I suppose it's not in my nature to remain silent about these types of attacks.

Thanks for your support.

It is certainly appreciated.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   
BTW S.O.,

I avoid sarcasm and name calling.

Not to say I have never slipped on this but it's rare.

Anger, however, is unavoidable when dealing with a crime of this nature.

I don't do this for fun.

I don't have enough passion to risk my life conducting this investigation because it's interesting or something that I enjoy.

I do this because I am ANGRY with this disgusting deception.

I do this because I am ANGRY with the countless 10's of thousands dead and dying every day based on this lie.

The people who died today in this fraudulent war didn't have time for civility.

If there is a single individual who understands the crimes of 9/11 and isn't angry or is afraid to express it then I worry for that individual and for the success of this movement.

The Vietnam anti-war movement wasn't effective because they debated "civilly".

It's going to take that effort x1,000 for the "war on terror".



[edit on 26-11-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The Vietnam anti-war movement wasn't effective because they debated "civilly".


Different era, different cause... and don't forget... I was there at the time.


The activism of anti-war protests of the Vietnam era were the culmination of a perfect storm of influences, none of them related speculation of conspiracy theories involving government complicity in massive-scale attacks on U.S. soil.

While the conspiracy theorist will define the 9/11 attacks as the pretext for invasions and a war economy, for the purposes of productive research, anti-war activism should be divorced from conspiracy research. Instead, look to the lessons of history as it relates to Iran Contra and Watergate.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

While the conspiracy theorist will define the 9/11 attacks as the pretext for invasions and a war economy, for the purposes of productive research, anti-war activism should be divorced from conspiracy research. Instead, look to the lessons of history as it relates to Iran Contra and Watergate.



I wholeheartedly disagree.

"Conspiracy theorist"?

Weren't the people who decried the gulf of tonkin resolution conspiracy theorists?

Frankly I take offense at that characterization as there is PLENTY enough evidence across the board proving a deliberate military deception on 9/11.

We are NOT relying on "speculation" and that is the point.

If that is not your belief and you choose to revel in "theory" I can't stop you but I see that approach as imminent failure and that belief as flat out wrong in light of the evidence.

There will be no successful official inquiry into the crimes of 9/11 and the media has done NOTHING in the way of investigative reporting into the events.

Absolutely nothing.

There was no citizen investigative effort required into watergate or Iran/Contra.

The media did their job.

THAT is the difference in the eras requiring a much more drastic and radical citizen movement this time around.

This is way different, more serious, much bigger, and with infinitely more devastating implications if you consider the ultimate power they receive from keeping the brainwashed global mindset of fearing this shadowy uncatchable non-existent enemy with the constant threat of another "attack" looming at all times.

If you factor in D.U. poisoning we are talking about MILLIONS of future lives lost.

Not to mention the TRILLIONS of dollars already spent.

I'm sorry S.O. but I have to respectfully call out your civil approach to uncovering the fraudulent war on terror as futile.















[edit on 26-11-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 10:35 PM
link   
You see whether or not it was a "perfect storm" that enabled the anger it was in fact the mass anger that was ultimately effective.

If the people aren't mad about 9/11 the data proving a deception will be easily spun in the media as it has been.

If the conditions aren't right for a perfect storm we need to create them because it's the ONLY way we are going to see action.

I do not advocate a violent response but mass expression of anger is a must.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Craig,

I doubt if very many are going to slog through Arabesques post.

I did just to see if he had anything of importance and he didn't.

I wouldn't waste your time or your talent addressing Arabesque.

There are those of us who appreciate your hard work and investigative methods and I, for one, would hate to see them side tracked.

Keep up the good work.


Thankfully, your opinion is the minority.

Almost no one believes the PentaCon. The poll on the Loose Change Forum revealed a 10-1 difference with most of the votes coming from the filmmakers.

I don't object to people having theories. They can waste their time fooling around on the internet all they want with not a shred of evidence. They can play make-believe with the facts all they want. I don't have a problem with that. Go waste your life all you want.

Just don't attack people. And calling my review a personal attack is a JOKE. The only personal attacks in that review are coming from Craig Ranke, and a few people who were offended by these outrageous attacks. Craig Ranke is the one who got himself banned from the LC forum for his behavior. Craig Ranke is the one who engages in personal attacks. Craig Ranke is the person who insinuates that anyone who disagrees with him is an agent. And not just a few people, but EVERYONE.

He says my article is a "personal attack" when I did not personally attack him one single time in the article.

If you want my opinion, Mr. Ranke does not believe what he promotes. He uses pseudo-arguments. He says: "Look at that Tree in front of the Pentagon, it blocks the view of the Pentagon!" Well guess what--if your THEORY is a flyover, and the TREES don't BLOCK that, then this is a bogus argument. Hello?

Mr. Ranke is NOT stupid. He knows this is a BS argument, and yet he promotes anyways. He knows that Lagasse said the light poles were in a different location and yet he pretends this makes his theory MORE credible. Now, why would he promote these arguments? Because he cares about the truth? Give me a break

Thankfully, most people are smart enough to figure this out. For the rest of you, knock yourselves out "debating" the flyover theory. And be to sure to check out that footage I have 15 seconds after the attack by someone on the I-395. arabesque911.blogspot.com...

Respect for people. Civility. Why is it so hard?

[edit on 26-11-2007 by Arabesque]



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Back on topic:



CIT on Theories, Speculation, and Truth

Craig Ranke explains CIT’s philosophy on 9/11 research: “we lay out heavily researched facts and back them up with evidence and let the chips fall where they may.” CIT claims to “loath ‘theories’”, and that they “do not speculate. We certainly hypothesize based on solid evidence and since we have evidence that proves the plane flew on the north side of the station the only logical alternative is that it flew over the building.” He further explains that “we don't beat around the bush, sugarcoat, or kiss ass for ‘movement politics’. You get nothing but the cold hard truth from CIT regardless of how difficult it is to accept.”


This is all quite true.

In fact this is the only section of this blog where Arabasque makes no attempt to comment on my factual statements.

Upon re-reading them I stand by each and every word 100%.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
We are NOT relying on "speculation" and that is the point.

Apparently you're so accustomed to confrontation that you're extending my comments into areas of unintended discourse. The original point remains and is somewhat proven out here, that a confrontational style will harm your credibility and attract those who would attack.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arabesque
The poll on the Loose Change Forum revealed a 10-1 difference with most of the votes coming from the filmmakers.

Well I'm not so sure that's an accurate gauge... it's not dissimilar to saying 90% of the visitors to PrisonPlanet.com believe the police state is setting the stage for the New World order... so it must be happening.


The point we've always tried to drive home here on ATS is that it's possible to disagree without being disagreeable, and through our disagreements we can find the path that leads to the discovery of truthful information.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arabesque


Almost no one believes the PentaCon. The poll on the Loose Change Forum revealed a 10-1 difference with most of the votes coming from the filmmakers.


Proof?

Link?

Why are you LYING?


You were not there. You have 31 posts total on that forum even today.

Why don't you post the wording and results of this scientific "poll"?

Perhaps because it has nothing to do with who believes in the north side evidence ?

The moment we released our information the Pentagon section exploded and most were jref'ers who had been wait for the release.

IVXX the moderator kept banning them and he said that the polls were clearly skewed by socks and that he could tell by the traffic.



I don't object to people having theories. They can waste their time fooling around on the internet all they want with not a shred of evidence. They can play make-believe with the facts all they want. I don't have a problem with that. Go waste your life all you want.


Huh?

The official story is a theory.

The north side claim is evidence.



Just don't attack people. And calling my review a personal attack a JOKE. The only personal attacks in that review are coming from Craig Ranke, and a few people who were offended by these outrageous attacks.


Getting a bit mad there?

This is so transparent it's funny.



Craig Ranke is the one who got himself banned from the LC forum for his behavior. Craig Ranke is the one who engages in personal attacks.


You are GOSSIPING about things you know nothing about.

That is not research and does not help prove 9/11 was an inside job.

Why are you so passionate about it?




Craig Ranke is the person who insinuates that anyone who disagrees with him is an agent. And not just a few people, but EVERYONE.


Prove it.

You are lying.

I am only suspicious of bloggers who all of the sudden showed up over the past year with a clear agenda to directly attack us and our info with convoluted and deceptive hit-pieces.

Go figure.



He says my article is a "personal attack" when I did not personally attack him one single time in the article.


It's addressing me personally and not the evidence.

Our names are in the title!

What else could you call it?



If you want my opinion, Mr. Ranke does not believe what he promotes. He uses pseudo-arguments. He says: "Look at that Tree in front of the Pentagon, it blocks the view of the Pentagon!" Well guess what--if your THEORY is a flyover, and the TREES don't BLOCK that, then this is a bogus argument. Hello?


Hello?

We never said the tree would block the flyover.

We have always said the explosion, fireball, and smoke.

The trees block the view of the alleged impact from the USA Today Parade.

This is simply you misrepresenting our claims AGAIN.



Mr. Ranke is NOT stupid. He knows this is a BS argument, and yet he promotes anyways. He knows that Lagasse said the light poles were in a different location and yet he pretends this makes his theory MORE credible. Now, why would he promote these arguments? Because he cares about the truth? Give me a break


Because my claims are based on scientific reasoning and true critical thinking principles as opposed to logical fallacies.

He did not see the poles.

He says so in the interview more than once.

He simply knew of the poles but their exact placement would not have been a significant enough detail that ANYONE would recall and make a special note of in the chaos of that day.

It makes perfect sense that he would insist they line up with where he saw the plane. Why wouldn't he?

To suggest this has a bearing on where he and everyone else saw the plane does not even follow any sort of logical train of thought at all let alone scientific reasoning.

Yet it's pretty much all you ever cite against the north side evidence!

What about all the other witnesses who saw it on the north side?

Why do you always forget about Chad, Robert, Edward, Levi, and Sean?

How can you attempt to discredit all of them Arabesque?




Thankfully, most people are smart enough to figure this out. For the rest of you, knock yourselves out "debating" the flyover theory. And be to sure to check out that footage I have 15 seconds after the attack by someone on the I-395. arabesque911.blogspot.com...


Even if it was 15 seconds that's enough that the decoy jet would be plenty out of view as it went the complete opposite direction upriver in a steep ascent just like the departures. BUT you have no proof that it's 15 seconds!

You made that up.

Plus there IS a plane in that video.

Whether it was the C-130, E4B, flyover, or a different plane nobody will ever know for sure and if there was another plane that was the flyover that was similarly caught in the shot it STILL would not matter.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
We are NOT relying on "speculation" and that is the point.

Apparently you're so accustomed to confrontation that you're extending my comments into areas of unintended discourse. The original point remains and is somewhat proven out here, that a confrontational style will harm your credibility and attract those who would attack.



I believe that 9/11 is 100% proven to be an inside job even without the evidence CIT presents.

I also believe it's proven with only the evidence we present.

As long as people call it a "conspiracy theory" it will be relegated to being ignored, ridicule, marginalized, and demonized.

I want this solved and we need action now.

The more time that goes by the less chance anything will ever be done about it.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 12:00 AM
link   


“Debating” CIT Style

CIT is infamous for their “take no prisoners” debating style best explained by Aldo Marquis, “I hate to say it, but unless anyone here can provide any new information and not their OPINION to effectively refute any of the evidence we have obtained, they should politely keep their comments to themselves, sit their [sic] quietly, and LEARN… This is not a debate club. This is war. Either you believe 911 was an inside job or you don't.” Craig Ranke explains similarly, “I am not here for debate. Sure I can debate with the best of them and I may come off as heavy handed or even arrogant… but… I have done the work and came back with proof.” When challenged about peer review of his flyover theory Ranke replied, “Peer reviewed! Sure! We want the entire world to review it.”



Arabesque is now attempting to further frame the debate by taking random statements out of context to create a personal impression of me. Clearly this has nothing to do with the evidence and is entirely a personal attack. In fact by choosing to analyze my "debate style" at all he is deliberately taking attention away from the evidence and focusing it on me personally. Naturally this approach has no bearing on the facts, truth, evidence, or what happened on 9/11.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 12:07 AM
link   


Circular Logic and the “Proven” North of CITGO Gas Station Flight Path

As Ranke explains repeatedly while dismissing evidence that is presented to counter his theory, “the north side claim is not a theory. It is evidence. In fact it is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and is therefore proof.”


What "evidence" was "dismissed"? Arabesque does not say because he is lying to deceive the reader with baseless claims.

No evidence was dismissed.



What is the basis for this “proof”? Craig Ranke correctly explains the value of evaluating evidence through corroboration:

“Everyone knows that eyewitness accounts are fallible but as they become corroborated the claim becomes exponentially validated. With enough corroboration, ALL claims can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. When we are talking about a simple right or left claim of this magnitude this is particularly the case. To get the side of the station wrong for people who were literally on the station's property would be a ridiculously drastic and virtually impossible mistake to make that would require hallucinations. For all of them to hallucinate the same exact thing is simply not a viable consideration.”

Corroboration of witness accounts is clearly important for determining their validity, but Ranke completely contradicts his own argument for corroborating statements when he claims that the plane approaching the Pentagon was “used as an instrument of deception during a perfectly timed military sleight of hand illusion.” So much for not believing in mass hallucination!


Hallucinations have absolutely nothing to do with deliberate deception or professionally executed illusions. An audience at a David Copperfield show is not experiencing mass hallucinations.

By exchanging words that have completely different meanings Arabesque is once again misrepresenting our claims with lies to erroneously frame us as having contradicted ourselves.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 12:44 AM
link   


While correctly pointing out that “nobody saw a global hawk… Nobody saw a missile,” no one saw a flyover either, as admitted by Ranke, “we have never claimed that we have a witness that claims they saw ‘the’ plane fly over.” While CIT admits that corroborating facts are an important basis for evaluating evidence, they “have never claimed that the citgo witnesses didn’t believe the plane hit the building. The claim we make is quite clear. Their independently corroborated placement of the plane proves they were deceived… The plane was used as a psychological tool during a military sleight of hand illusion in order to FOOL people into believing it hit the building.” Not only does CIT acknowledge that their own witnesses claimed to have witnessed the plane hitting the Pentagon, they admit that they do not have a single supporting witness to corroborate the flyover theory. In summary, CIT claims the following:


Arabesque is deceptively interchanging the flyover theory with the north side evidence as if they are one in the same. CIT has proven with hard evidence that the plane flew on the north side of the CITGO station. Any theory must incorporate this evidence if nothing is produced to refute the evidence. Simply dismissing theory does not make the evidence go away as much as Arabesque would like it to.



1. Nobody saw a Global Hawk or Missile hit the Pentagon [true]
2. Nobody claims a commercial airliner flew over the Pentagon [true]
3. ALL Witnesses who claimed to have seen a plane strike the Pentagon were simultaneously “fooled”. The evidence for this is that four witnesses gave accounts years after the attack that the plane flew north of the CITGO gas station, but still hit the Pentagon. [The “PentaCon” Eyewitness Hypothesis]


1. agreed.

2. This is a total mischaracterization of our claims. Nobody knows what people really saw and/or reported because all of the 911 calls were confiscated and permanently sequestered. The fact that mainstream media did not report information that proves the official story incorrect does not prove the official story true or disprove a deception. It does not prove that no witness saw a plane fly over the Pentagon on 9/11.

3. Arabesque is being very deceptive by using the word "ALL" which has NEVER been our claim. While certainly many were deceived, others were embellishing, deducing, or deliberately lying to support the official story some innocently but certainly many with malicious intent as planted operatives. And then there are many more who are simply misreported or have quotes taken out of context as Arabesque is doing to me. By referring to unconfirmed media reports with zero investigation, analyzing, or scrutiny Arabesque is simply spreading official story propaganda at the peril of 9/11 truth.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



new topics




 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join