Pentagon - CIT's flyover theory busted

Richard Gage has now withdrawn any support for the flyover theory :-

911truthnews.com...

Surely, taken together with last months paper by prominent truther Dr Frank Legge and Warren Stutt about AA 77's flight data recorder, this is the end of the line for any semi-rational Pentagon no-planer.

reply to post by Alfie1


Was I seeing things or was there just a post up from "shure" with a letter from Gage about the CIT stuff?

Also, as so many of the believers are apt to tell anyone who will listen, Newton advised that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This applies just as aptly to the die-hard conspiracitst.

For every debunking there will be an equal and opposite re-bunking.

When there is a will and a never ending supply of imagination, there will be a way.

reply to post by hooper


No, you weren't seeing things. I tried to post on it when it vanished ,don't know why.But I thought it was an important announcement so started this thread.

reply to post by Alfie1


Thanks, I thought I managed to post one response and then it disappeared. That's funny. I was able to read it, kind of nailed the CIT boys and just about anyone claiming that no plane hit the Pentagon.

It's no secret that people have been feeding Gage disinformation for a long time now behind the scenes trying to get him to retract his long-standing praise for CIT, which (as of right now) can still be read here (Gage has now asked for CIT to remove it):
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...

Here is some back story that Craig Ranke published last year when Gage "clarified" his endorsement:
z3.invisionfree.com...

Gage's endorsement was not "quick", it was vetted and modified by his board of directors before publication.

The heavy pressure and disinfo campaign behind the scenes from the same cast of characters has continued for over a year since then, and recently David Chandler joined the party. Chandler has openly admitted that he had been pressuring Gage to issue a statement like this, and he himself released an unbelievably shoddy article denouncing CIT and supporting a 757 impact (which he thinks may well have been AA77) last month.

"I literally went to bed one night wanting [Richard Gage] to make a bold statement that would be a definitive rejection of the conclusions, methodology, and divisive tactics of CIT. I was at a loss for how to persuade him to do this. It occurred to me as I got up the next morning that I was wanting him to do something I had not done myself. I have never made a public statement on this subject, so I decided it was time to "come out." -David Chandler

(Note: He had put "--------" in place of Richard's name, but it was obvious who he was referring to, and he admitted it elsewhere)

CIT released an extreme thorough response/rebuttal to Chandler and Cole just five days ago. Check it out:
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...

Richard's statement just repeats a lot of the same bogus talking points and recommends the same bogus disinfo articles that were in Chandler and Cole's article, which are refuted in the CIT response to Chandler/Cole.

Read CIT's response to Chandler and Cole and then read the Richard Gage statement and things will become much more clear to you.

Again here is the link:
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...

Originally posted by Alfie1
Richard Gage has now withdrawn any support for the flyover theory :-

911truthnews.com...

Surely, taken together with last months paper by prominent truther Dr Frank Legge and Warren Stutt about AA 77's flight data recorder, this is the end of the line for any semi-rational Pentagon no-planer.

edit on 8-2-2011 by Alfie1 because: (no reason given)

Hmm, it seems as if you only consider somone authoritative when they say something which agrees with your view, and only in regard to such issues, whereas when they disagree with you they are somehow not an authoritative source. Thats convenient.

It may be the mindset of OS advocates to believe or disbelieve things simply because a 'prominent' figure
tells them to, but such fallacious 'appeals to authority' don't play among those who question the OS, so why
do you imagine that telling us that a few 'prominent truthers' have changed their opinions means that we will, herd like, automatically fall in line behind them, as if they were our 'clergy' or something? Your appeal to authority is to claim that only the irrational would disagree with these 'prominent truthers' despite the fact that you dispute almost everything else they say. That seems rather self serving and disingenuous.

You and Gage certainly differ on this issue at least, as he also says in the letter you link to:

'I strongly recommend that people who care to research what happened at the Pentagon take personal responsibility for forming their own conclusions by acquainting themselves with a wide range of analysis done by people who have come before them rather than jumping to conclusions based on a skewed selection of evidence and argument, or being unduly influenced by any type of authority figure.'

Yet you want to invoke Gage as an authority figure and attempt to claim that his words must mean its the the 'end of the line' for those who question the OS that flight 77 struck the Pentagon.

Sorry, I think most here wont fall for that illegitimate tactic and logical fallacy and will continue to think for themselves and form their own opinions, as Gage suggested, even if they disagree with some of his conclusions.

reply to post by Ligon


Whatever. Neither side has any moral, intellectual or ethical legs to stand on. One side posits that Flight 77 flew - believe it or not - over the Pentagon and that everyone was "tricked" into thinking it crashed by some special pyrotechnics. The other side (gage) at first pronounced his endorsement for their fantasy, but now rejects the CIT magic. Anyone gullible enough to believe that stuff or unethical enough to endorse it to begin with and present themselves as a "professional" does not rate very high.

Personally, I think the two are simply fighting over the few attention scraps that may be left in a tiny subculture of conspiracist.

Originally posted by Malcram

Hmm, it seems as if you only consider somone authoritative when they say something which agrees with your view, and only in regard to such issues, whereas when they disagree with you they are somehow not an authoritative source. Thats convenient.

It may be the mindset of OS advocates to believe or disbelieve things simply because a 'prominent' figure
tells them to, but such fallacious 'appeals to authority' don't play among those who question the OS, so why
do you imagine that telling us that a few 'prominent truthers' have changed their opinions means that we will, herd like, automatically fall in line behind them, as if they were our 'clergy' or something? Your appeal to authority is to claim that only the irrational would disagree with these 'prominent truthers' despite the fact that you dispute almost everything else they say. That seems rather self serving and disingenuous.

You and Gage certainly differ on this issue at least, as he also says in the letter you link to:

'I strongly recommend that people who care to research what happened at the Pentagon take personal responsibility for forming their own conclusions by acquainting themselves with a wide range of analysis done by people who have come before them rather than jumping to conclusions based on a skewed selection of evidence and argument, or being unduly influenced by any type of authority figure.'

Yet you want to invoke Gage as an authority figure and attempt to claim that his words must mean its the the 'end of the line' for those who question the OS that flight 77 struck the Pentagon.

Sorry, I think most here wont fall for that illegitimate tactic and logical fallacy and will continue to think for themselves and form their own opinions, as Gage suggested, even if they disagree with some of his conclusions.

Very well put Malcram. Gage himself admits that he is not and has no intention to become a Pentagon researcher. CIT never claimed that just because Gage had publicly praised their work and encouraged people to check it out that THAT somehow proved the north side approach and flyover. Likewise, Gage now retracting his previous statements doesn't disprove it. It has always been about the evidence and still is. Any rational person can see this.

The evidence is here:
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...

And here again is CIT's response to David Chandler, which was just published 5 days ago, before Richard came out repeating the same talking points that CIT just got done refuting:
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...

Watch CIT's videos, especially National Security Alert, then read that Chandler Cole response, then read Richard's statement, and see what you think. (I don't mean you Malcram, I'm sure you've probably already done this. I'm just talking to people in general reading this thread.)

CIT's sensless theory was busted fairly quickly as it was written, modified, rewritten, adjusted, re-rewritten, re-explained, and re-re-rewritten. It was astoundingly contrived and technically out of touch with reality. The desperation tapdance of these guys trying to keep their monster alive is the stuff of legend and they deserve an award for providing entertainment for the rational.
Most of the CTer's realized fairly quickly how the CIT group was trying to manipulate the gullible and found other imaginative conspiracies to promote but CIT did manage to catch a few souls who really wanted to believe. After a while, it seemed that even CIT realized that their 15 minutes of fame was up and so faded into the truther woodwork, where they may await a new "generation" of CTer's to appear as a target audience. I am curious as to how the theory will evolve in its next incarnation.

reply to post by Malcram


You are way over-analysing as far as I am concerned. I have never doubted that a Boeing 757 as Flight AA 77 crashed into the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11 2001. The evidence is overwhelming and I have never considered Richard Gage to be any sort of " authority figure ".

What I find interesting though is that, in just a few weeks , we have had the AA 77 flight data recorder paper by Frank Legge and Warren Stutt in support of the crash into the Pentagon and now Richard Gage disengaging from CIT's loopy theory.

There is hope that, as truthers themselves often say, the truth will out.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Malcram

 

I have never doubted that a Boeing 757 as Flight AA 77 crashed into the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11 2001.

Never doubted means never questioned. You are a believer. How can you open mindedly question and evaluate what you have believed without the slightest doubt from the morning of 9/11?

I have doubts. I question. So does that make me 'irrational'?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Ligon

 

Whatever. Neither side has any moral, intellectual or ethical legs to stand on. One side posits that Flight 77 flew - believe it or not - over the Pentagon and that everyone was "tricked" into thinking it crashed by some special pyrotechnics. The other side (gage) at first pronounced his endorsement for their fantasy, but now rejects the CIT magic. Anyone gullible enough to believe that stuff or unethical enough to endorse it to begin with and present themselves as a "professional" does not rate very high.

Personally, I think the two are simply fighting over the few attention scraps that may be left in a tiny subculture of conspiracist.

Hooper, can you show me an image, or a video showing a 757 hitting, or withing yards of hitting the pentagon?
I hear this arguement that a plane did hit. I hear this arguement that a plane didn't hit.

For now, the no plane one may be winning, since they can show me nothing hitting it. whereas those who believe a plane did hit, for some reason cannot show it hitting. even though there were cameras and stuff....

Originally posted by Malcram

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Malcram

 

I have never doubted that a Boeing 757 as Flight AA 77 crashed into the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11 2001.

Never doubted means never questioned. You are a believer. How can you open mindedly question and evaluate what you have believed without the slightest doubt from the morning of 9/11?

I have doubts. I question. So does that make me 'irrational'?

Actually, there are aspects I do question e.g. intelligence failure, how did some of the hi-jackers who had been under German Security surveillance in Hamburg get into the US, did Pakistan intelligence provide finance and support etc.

But I have never believed in 9/11 as an inside job by the US administration, or parts thereof, because it has never made any sense to me. There are silly allegations such as it was an insurance scam on behalf of Larry Silverstein , and more sober ones that it was to provide a casus belli for war in the middle east. But the latter doesn't make any sense either because most of the hi-jackers were Saudi and the link was to the terrorist training camps of Afghanistan rather than Iraq, which I have no doubt GWB wished to attack. The alleged scenario also ignores the fact that the administration was left looking negligent and ineffectual by the attacks.Surely, if they had orchestrated it themselves, they would have arranged to intervene at some point which would still have provided a casus belli but would have toned down the mayhem and not portrayed them as useless. If GWB knew it was coming, couldn't he have arranged somethin a bit more commander-in-chief'ish than reading a story book to kids ?

So far as the details of the attacks is concerned, I have many times been directed by truthers to what they considered to be important points i.e. fighters stood down, $2.3 trillion dollars missing day before 9/11, sniffer dogs removed, phone calls faked etc but, without exception, all these things have fallen apart as soon as I have started to look into them.

On the other hand, there isn't really an OS as is often alleged. There is a mishmash of all sorts of reports and news items and the " government" hasn't actually put out a story at all. But, unlike the truther theories, I have consistently found that the "OS, for convenience," does bear scrutiny and the Pentagon is a prime case in point. The Frank Legge/ Warren Stutt paper I referred to in the OP is about the decoding of AA 77's flight data recorder which was recovered from the Pentagon. The last few seconds had not been decoded by the NTSB because there were apparently problems with the final uncomplete frames. These last seconds have now been decoded and the final radio altimeter reading is 4 feet at the same time as off the scale decelaration.

The undecoded data from AA 77's flight data recorder was obtained by a New Zealand computer expert in Australia under the FOIA act. So there had been no attempt to push this data forward in any way and it might never have seen the light of day. But everything in it says it is AA 77's fdr ( it includes 11 previous flights known to have been made by that aircraft ) and it confirms impact to the Pentagon that Richard Gage now seems to accept.

Originally posted by Myendica

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Ligon

 

Whatever. Neither side has any moral, intellectual or ethical legs to stand on. One side posits that Flight 77 flew - believe it or not - over the Pentagon and that everyone was "tricked" into thinking it crashed by some special pyrotechnics. The other side (gage) at first pronounced his endorsement for their fantasy, but now rejects the CIT magic. Anyone gullible enough to believe that stuff or unethical enough to endorse it to begin with and present themselves as a "professional" does not rate very high.

Personally, I think the two are simply fighting over the few attention scraps that may be left in a tiny subculture of conspiracist.

Hooper, can you show me an image, or a video showing a 757 hitting, or withing yards of hitting the pentagon?
I hear this arguement that a plane did hit. I hear this arguement that a plane didn't hit.

For now, the no plane one may be winning, since they can show me nothing hitting it. whereas those who believe a plane did hit, for some reason cannot show it hitting. even though there were cameras and stuff....

Do eyewitnesses, plane wreckage, dna identified body parts, personal effects, radar tracks, air traffic control records, phone calls from the flight, mean nothing to you without video ? Was there video of you getting out of bed this morning ? If not, didn't happen I suppose.

Originally posted by Alfie1
and now Richard Gage disengaging from CIT's loopy theory.

Richard Gage never was "engaged" to CIT's "theory". All he said was that CIT's eyewitness accounts deserved serious attention:

"The exhaustive effort by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of Citizen Investigation Team to contact, record, document, and analyze numerous first-hand eyewitness accounts of the actual flight path of the airliner at the Pentagon on 9/11 has been long overdue, but worth waiting for. The evidence they have uncovered and compiled in their DVD "National Security Alert" deserves serious attention - particularly in light of what we now know about the explosive destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises that day."

The above was not an "endorsement" by Gage, but it was taken as such by CIT. Here's Richard's clarification of the above statement:

"Earlier this year I wrote a review of CIT's "National Security Alert" in which I recommended that we all take a closer at the eyewitness accounts supporting the "North path" of American Airlines Flight 77 at the Pentagon. CIT's investigation includes detailed in-person interviews which appeared quite compelling. As AE911Truth's focus is the destruction of three buildings at WTC, I didn't perform an exhaustive review of CIT's material and methods. My quick statement (see below) should not be portrayed as an endorsement of CIT's conclusion that the airliner "flew over" the Pentagon."

Source 1, Source 2

That clarification was back in December of 2009. There never was an endorsement, engagement, whatever. And Gage never believed in the fly-over theory.

I hope everything is clarified now.

The eyewitness accounts of the North of Citgo flight path are extremely powerful and persuasive evidence. If you have not seen the video you should check it out.

No matter how much Craig insists we have no other choice but a flyover, the evidence for a flyover is not as strong. Personally I find his tone overheated regarding the "flyover". Being insistent is not convincing, frankly it has the opposite effect. I wish he would simply say that this is a theory based on the evidence to date.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


BoneZ, as a member of AE 9/11t I understand your wish to distance Richard Gage from this debacle but he did say in respect of CIT that their work was " long overdue ", " worth waiting for " and " deserves serious attention ".

Sounds like endorsement to me but it is all water under the bridge now.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Myendica

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Ligon

 

Whatever. Neither side has any moral, intellectual or ethical legs to stand on. One side posits that Flight 77 flew - believe it or not - over the Pentagon and that everyone was "tricked" into thinking it crashed by some special pyrotechnics. The other side (gage) at first pronounced his endorsement for their fantasy, but now rejects the CIT magic. Anyone gullible enough to believe that stuff or unethical enough to endorse it to begin with and present themselves as a "professional" does not rate very high.

Personally, I think the two are simply fighting over the few attention scraps that may be left in a tiny subculture of conspiracist.

Hooper, can you show me an image, or a video showing a 757 hitting, or withing yards of hitting the pentagon?
I hear this arguement that a plane did hit. I hear this arguement that a plane didn't hit.

For now, the no plane one may be winning, since they can show me nothing hitting it. whereas those who believe a plane did hit, for some reason cannot show it hitting. even though there were cameras and stuff....

Do eyewitnesses, plane wreckage, dna identified body parts, personal effects, radar tracks, air traffic control records, phone calls from the flight, mean nothing to you without video ? Was there video of you getting out of bed this morning ? If not, didn't happen I suppose.

Actually, there is video of me getting out of bed today! I'd show you, but its a matter a national security, so you don't have access..

though, your first example, eyewitnesses.. well do those Pentagon officers still have their jobs? you know, the 2 in the CIT video...

reply to post by Myendica


Well, if you can't post the video of you getting out of bed this morning I am forced to conclude you are still festering in it .

Still, as regards the police officers. Sgt Lagasse, interviewed by CIT years after the event, couldn't actually remember where he was at the Citgo gas station and had to be reminded. I don't hold this against him, it is what you expect from witnesses. Nonetheless, he and Sgt Brooks were both emphatic that the plane crashed into the Pentagon so I have always thought it was rather absurd that CIT used them in support of their flyover theory.