Was the scene with Lloyd England's taxi staged?

The Citizen Investigation Team have interviewed 13 witnesses to the Pentagon attack on 9/11 who are adamant the plane approached from the north side of the Citgo gas station. Because this flight path is inconsistent with the damage path there are three implied conclusions to their alleged findings:

1. The plane did not hit the building.
2. The plane flew over the building.
3. The light poles were planted and the scene with Lloyd England's taxi was staged.

9/11 researchers such as Arabesque, Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley and jimd3100 have critiqued the first and second of their implied conclusions, as well as CIT's method, this post however will focus on the third conclusion.

At 9:37 AM on 9/11, Lloyd England was driving his taxi down Route 27, heading south. When Flight 77 flew over, it knocked down five light poles. The first one of these speared itself through Lloyd's windshield, almost killing him. The below diagram was drawn by Lloyd himself.



Lloyd claims an unnamed stranger helped him remove the pole without saying a word. His account is a critical pillar supporting the official story of what happened at the Pentagon. If his story is true, it proves the plane hit. If false, it proves the Pentagon must have been damaged some other way.

It is not surprising therefore that many 9/11 researchers are attracted to Lloyd's story. His account has been questioned for a number of reasons. Ignoring CIT's north of Citgo witnesses, perhaps the main reason is the apparent physical impossibility of a 40 foot light pole sticking out of a car, with the heaviest end on the outside, while causing no damage to the hood of the car.

To that I would like to say that I have never seen a light pole be knocked over by a 500mph plane into the windshield of a taxi going the opposite direction, so I have no idea what's going to happen, no one does. Do I think it's strange? Yes. But from studying things like plane crashes, building collapses and explosions, I've learnt that strange things can happen. And I've seen enough air cannon experiments in tornado documentaries and things to have a rough idea what will happen. If someone were to actually launched a metal pole into a car windscreen and document their findings I may take an interest. But simply saying "that doesn't look right so it must be staged" isn't very scientific.

After CIT "proved" that the plane approached from the north side, they deduced that Lloyd's scene must have been staged. Much like their flyover hypothesis, there is no direct evidence to support this, it is rather an implied conclusion based on questionable circumstantial evidence. However that didn't stop CIT from publicly accusing him as "the first known accomplice".

The biggest problem I have with this is the same problem I have with the flyover theory. I'm a pretty imaginative guy and I can come up with all kinds of imaginative theories for how they rigged the towers up and flew the planes into the buildings in a compartmentalized fashion, theories ranging from simultaneous video games that are actually controlling a real plane to explosive fireproofing! But even I have a hard time thinking of a way they could stage a phony road accident in broad daylight.



CIT argue that the other four light poles could have been planted during the night and hidden from view. But Lloyd's scene would have to have been staged either shortly before the impact or after. Considering the amount of traffic that was on Route 27 when the Pentagon was hit it is unlikely that it could have been staged in advance. The following picture was taken by Steve Riskus (who, by the way, saw the plane hit the building) less than 1 minute after the impact.

Note how many cars are on the road. Imagine you are one of these motorists. You're driving up Route 27, heading north. As you approach the bridge, you see a taxi on the other side of the road with a smashed light pole next to it. You would assume there's been some kind of road accident. Then the plane flies over and appears to crash into the Pentagon. You then go home or to work to watch TV and you see this taxi driver talking about how his cab was hit by a pole that was struck by the plane. You're gonna think to yourself "Wait a minute, I was there, the plane didn't do that, it was already there!"

No witness has come forward saying they saw the damaged cab before the plane hit. It is therefore unlikely that it was staged in advance. So CIT argue that it was probably staged AFTER the attack, when agents had control of the scene. This theory is perhaps even more absurd and is contradicted by the account of Don Fortunato, who arrived shortly after the attack. In his account he describes stopping next to the cab. But I guess CIT will argue that he's just another mass murdering operative.



Loyd's scene was staged. The idea that the officials would even attempt such a thing in broad daylight is about as absurd as the idea that they would attempt a flyover in broad daylight. Maybe at night on a quiet road, but not in the early morning on an open highway during rush hour.



On the 7th of July 2005, another suspected black-op was carried out on three trains and a bus. One of the survivors, Daniel Obachike, describes seeing police officers, agents and a bandaged actor at the scene within seconds of the blast. If his account is true then that is pretty damning evidence that the attack was a classic false flag operation. However that does not change the fact that the bus was blown up! They did not just cart in some pre-damaged bus and take pictures of it. That would be a crazy thing to do in broad daylight. The bus did explode, there were passengers on board, many were injured and 13 were killed.



On August 30th/31st 1997, Princess Diana was killed in a car crash. Many people now suspect the crash was not an accident. While there is debate as to what actually caused the car to crash, one thing is certain ... The car did crash! And she was inside it when it did! They did not just shoot her and then plant some wrecked car in the Alma tunnel and say she died in a car crash. Could they have done that. Possibly. It was late at night after all. But it would have been a waste of time, effort and an unnecessary risk to the entire operation. Why go through all the trouble of making it look like there was a car crash, when you could just crash a car?

The above picture is of the man Daniel Obachike claims to have seen in Tavistock Square on 7/7. This guy was probably an actor taking part in a simultaneous terror drill. He was not interviewed by the news and to this day no one knows his name. In black-ops, the operatives generally don't give out their names. Lloyd England gave out his name and he willingly let Craig and Aldo into his home and took them to see his cab, even after they accused him of being an accomplice. He does not fit the MO of an operative. He's just a regular guy who reads David Icke books and questions 9/11 as we all do. He's one of us! The guy is a patriot simply trying to help and CIT crucified him. It's the sort of thing I would expect from Glenn Beck. Publicly accusing ordinary citizens of being accomplices without evidence crosses a line and will no doubt come back to bite the truth movement in the ass later.

In Lloyd's recollection of the event, he puts himself in a different place to where he obviously was. CIT of course tries to twist this and claim it as proof he was an operative, but the only thing it really proves is that memories can be vague after several years - which is exactly what we are saying. If Lloyd honestly believes he was in a different place to where he was, how can we be sure CIT's 13 other witnesses aren't equally mistaken?

Related Info...

The CIT Deception - Mock Trailer!

A Ranke Perspective

CIT DISINFO/Smoke and Mirrors!

Recently 911Debunkers blog did a very thorough debunking job regarding no plane theories.In this Debunking of no plane theories JM and Scootle included the Citizens Investigation Team more commonly known as CIT. JM and Scootle took this "No Plane" nonsense on in a very in depth manner.
In my opinion they did an excellent job.
I thought they did such an excellent job, that it did not need my input at all.
I did not watch the CIT movie at the time,
I did not want to waste my precious time.
But I did read the numerous articles That JM and Scootle wrote regarding this subject.
I became concerned when Richard Gage and others who have supported us in our long quest for 9/11 Truth, jumped on board the CIT dis-info, smoke and mirrors, no plane hit the Pentagon, theory train.
So I watched the CIT Movie.
(OMG!)
I can't believe I watched this! (it took forever to load)
In the first part of the movie CIT swears that they are going to prove that the 9/11 Pentagon attack was a Black-Ops., False Flag operation.
My first thought was "Ya Think???"
This is not news or at the very least it is not news to me.
I and others have been saying 9/11 was a False Flag operation for years.
I am glad that more people are now agreeing with the concept.
However I have a real problem with people who are claiming that yes 9/11 was a False Flag Operation while subtly promoting no plane theories.
The CIT People subtly allude by images and dialog that no plane hit the Pentagon.
They do this right in the beginning of the movie.
They are showing the support columns of the Pentagon explosion impact site.
The columns allegedly (according to the movie) do not show impact damage consistent with the official story claims of a plane hitting the Pentagon.
(pay no attention to the fact that the impact damage zone outline they keep showing on the Pentagon in red, looks exactly like the outline of a plane)
They go along in a few more frames and subtly place images that they claim show how the government's story and flight path is a lie.
These images are designed to place a doubt in the minds of the viewer.
The images and graphs they show of the Pentagon plane crash site are linked with dialog that subtly insinuates that it is impossible for a plane to have done this.
(again ignore that red outline that exactly matches the wing span of a plane on their graphs )
Then they spend most of the movie interviewing people who "remember clearly" that they saw THE PLANE coming in on the North side instead of the South side as the "official story" claims.

I have to say this.
ALL Of THOSE EYE WITNESSES THAT THE CIT REPORTERS INTERVIEWED claim they SAW A PLANE FLYING ULTRA LOW and SCREAMING (was the word their eyewitnesses used) IN THE DIRECTION OF THE PENTAGON!
Now the CIT people would like you to believe that the plane could not have done the aeronautical maneuvers required to come in on the South side and hit the Pentagon.
The CIT people laid claim from their movie that Pilots for 9/11 Truth said this type of South Side maneuver was impossible for this type of plane.
OK- I'm no Pilot and everything I know about flying a plane could be placed in one sentence.
But my mind just kept screaming SO WHAT!
North Side, South side I do not care what side the plane came in on, the eyewitnesses all showed the same impact site on the maps!
The (CIT reporters) gave the eyewitnesses maps and a pen to draw the flight path of THE PLANE on.
ALL THE CIT's EYEWITNESSES who drew a line on the map of the PLANES FLIGHT PATH DREW A LINE TO THE "OFFICIAL STORY" IMPACT SITE AT THE PENTAGON!

Now how about those light poles they kept yammering about in the movie?
I am going to play Devils advocate for a minute.
Lets just say that the plane flew in on the North Side and the light poles falling down were not caused by the direct impact of the planes wings (or any plane contact) but were caused by the wind-sheer force of the planes, 500 plus MPH speed and jet engine out put force as it blew by..
This is not inconsistent, nor does it invaladate the fact that a PLANE hit the Pentagon.
Note that Plane is the operative word in those sentences.
Believing that a plane came in on the South Side (as many eyewitnesses and the official story said it did) does not invalidate the supposition that the 9/11 Pentagon Attack was a Black-OPs.False Flag Operation.
But just in case the official story of the flight path is wrong, and the eyewitnesses that saw the plane hit the Pentagon are wrong, and the plane flew in on the North side after all and something else hit the Pentagon I have to say this......
ALL EVIDENCE INCLUDING CIT's OWN EYEWITNESSES, IN THEIR OWN MOVIE, CLAIM THE PLANE THEY SAW HIT THE PENTAGON!
At no time in any eyewitness testimony did any person say,
"I saw the plane fly over/hop over/pull-up/ and/or miss the Pentagon."
I found myself asking these questions of the CIT's movie.
If indeed the plane flew over the Pentagon with-out impact as they allude to...
then where is flight 77?
Where did the passengers go?
Where did the Black box come from?
If our military shot the plane out of the sky with a missile after it supposidly hopped/ flew over the Pentagon --- how is it there is no impact site or debris field somewhere else?
What about the families of the passengers who died on the plane?
Were they all just illusions and they all lied to cover up the governments Black-Ops moment?
As they say in my part of the world...
Honey PULLLEASE!
Don't even get me started regarding the statement in the movie about our, government "quietly releasing proof", documents to the CIT people.
I can sum up the CIT dis-info no plane theory in one word.
BullShit.

Related Info...

A Clarification on Disinfo

9/11-a Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Pentagon Attack Photos

The CIT Virus

By: ScootleRoyale and John-Michael P. Talboo

"The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth - persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
~ John F. Kennedy

Browsing the Screw Loose Change blog earlier we were somewhat alarmed to learn that David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage are endorsing the work of the Citizen Investigation Team. A post on 911Blogger includes their endorsements:

“This new film by CIT is far more professionally produced than their previous efforts. It is also more convincing, given the addition of more witnesses, so that they now have a total of 13 witnesses reporting that the actual flight path of the plane that approached the Pentagon was drastically different from the official flight path (which would have been needed if the plane was to knock over the felled light poles and to strike the Pentagon at the designated spot and angle). This part of the film's thesis is now established beyond a reasonable doubt. The film does not establish its related claim---that the airliner pulled up and flew over the Pentagon---as clearly, but it does make a good case for it. One of the film's most valuable parts is a scene in which cab driver Lloyde England, who otherwise gamely tried to maintain the truth of his testimony supporting the official story, admitted that the Pentagon operation had been planned by powerful people with lots of money. I am pleased to be able to recommend this important film with enthusiasm."

~ David Ray Griffin, Author of The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé

"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."
~ Richard Gage, AIA, Architect, Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Now we weren't so much surprised by David Ray Griffin, he has after all been making a case for Pentagon no-plane theories for years, but Richard Gage, like many other researchers, has always remained neutral when it comes to the Pentagon so it was very surprising to learn he was endorsing them.

In all fairness however, we admit that years ago, we too were convinced by the Pentagon no-jetliner claims, and even 9/11 researcher and Pentagon no-jetliner claim debunker Jim Hoffman admits the same, while also pointing out these ideas have "tremendous intuitive appeal." The apparent lack of large plane debris would seem to support such theories, and again Hoffman points out that this is "reasonable given the fact that other jetliner crashes have left large pieces." Not to mention the fact that ideas such as these have been popularized in many films, such as the earlier versions of Loose Change. However, when one learns that the plane that hit the Pentagon was traveling at 500 mph, and in the words of Loose Change film maker Dylan Avery, crashed into the "only section that was renovated to withstand that very same kind of attack," a different picture emerges. The renovations included exterior walls reinforced with steel, exterior walls backed with Kevlar, and nearly two inch thick blast-resistant windows.

In the video below the narrator informs us that "the US government wanted to test what would happen if a plane crashed into the concrete walls of a nuclear power station." As we see the jet take off towards the wall in the video we are informed that it is traveling at 500 mph, watch and see the results...

As the narrator stated, "the plane disappeared into dust!" In light of these facts the physical evidence becomes far less puzzling and in fact becomes clear as being consistent with a jetliner crash.

In a previous post it was argued that CIT & Pilots for 9/11 Truth are promoting disinformation and after a long debate on the Prison Planet forum it is clear that some uninformed judgments were made, and arguments put forward that they had already countered. However, we are now even more convinced that they are disinformation artists.

In an article by H. Michael Sweeny entitled "Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation", the author outlines 25 techniques used by promoters of disinfo. The article is essential reading for anyone genuinely interested in the truth. Some of the most notable are:

"4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively."

The author also outlines 8 common traits of disinformationists. The two most interesting are:

"3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength."

To anyone who has ever debated a "debunker" or no-planer, these traits and techniques will seem very familiar. We have noticed that supporters of CIT's work seem to exhibit the two traits highlighted and use some of the above techniques. During the Prison Planet forum debate, four new users coincidentally signed up to post exclusively to that thread. They worked as a team and complimented each other. They ignored testimony of first responders, photographs and video of the heavily damaged Pentagon interior and people who actually SAW the plane hit the building. They instead focused on weaker arguments, attacked peoples characters, and questioned motives. Some even went as far as to accuse Scootle of being an undercover debunker!

Even Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog, who is famous for his ad-hominem laden commentary, recently pointed out that CIT supporters claim to be just arguing the "evidence," but "throw around ad hominems like frisbees."

What was especially worrying though is that until the moderators showed up Scootle was pretty much on his own. Virtually all of the participants in the thread sided with the CIT trolls...

"Hey, Scootle, just F**K OFF ALREADY - I've been very patient with you, but that's it. F**K YOU AND YOUR IDIOCY. You're EXACTLY like those billions of sheeple who refuse to WAKE UP. You deserve your New World Order. I'm sorry it's come to this but you're a twat."
~ Mike Philbin

This is the frustrating beauty of the Pentagon no-plane theories - unlike the World Trade Center no-plane theories they are worryingly convincing. In rule 20 above we highlighted the sentence "This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications." This is because we believe the Pentagon attack was specifically designed with this very purpose in mind - to muddy the waters and promote pointless debates amongst researchers.

The Pentagon attack is shrouded in mystery: there is no clear video of the attack, witness accounts are so varied and conflicting and photographs are inconclusive - and that's the way it was designed! The whole thing is a psy-op to trap researchers.

CIT have 13 witnesses who all recollect a different flight path from the official story. To counter claims of fuzzy memory, CIT will argue that because they correlate with each other it proves they are all correct because they couldn't all be mistaken the same way. If they were the only 13 witnesses then we would agree. But they weren't the only 13 - they were 13 out of more than 100. When you have that many witnesses you are bound to have some correlation of incorrect recollections. That being said, the preponderance of reports supports a plane hitting the pentagon. This fact is not lost on debunkers, the government, or the media; always eager for easy ammunition against the 9/11 truth movement. Ludicrous objections of witness fraud and witness contamination are commonly used to explain away this overwhelming body of eyewitness testimony.

Ockham's razor dictates that indeed a Boeing 757 did hit the Pentagon, but who needs simple logic when by cherry picking witness statements and photographs we could probably build a strong case for a theory that a flying saucer hit the Pentagon if we wanted to.

We might start with the photograph showing a "small, round hole" and the video footage of UFOs over Washington in 1952, then pick out witness quotes that mention hearing strange sounds (or no sounds) while ignoring all the people who saw a commercial airliner, then interpret the "It is not a part from any Rolls-Royce engine that I'm familiar with" quote to mean it is a part only people at Area 51 would be familiar with and claim this photo is of officials removing the advanced alien technology from the scene and finally analyse the photos of burnt human remains, picking out every small anomoly and insensitively claim that they are actually alien remains.

There are witnesses who saw the plane come in from the south side, such as the four "operatives" CIT interviewed, there are witnesses who actually saw the plane hit the building such as Penny Elgas, who is also an operative according to CIT...

"Penny Elgas has a significant position in government and a very high profile highly publicized account so should be instantly considered suspect."
~ Craig Ranke CIT

...And Steve Anderson, who was in the perfect position in relation to the Pentagon to actually see a flyover, but didn't!



If CIT would actually interview someone from the Arlington Fire Department who was in there fighting the fires then maybe we'll start taking notice of them. But there's no need, it's already been done. For the book "Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11," the authors interviewed more than 100 Pentagon first responders...

"They walked closer. At the mouth of the third hole they saw a piece of a wheel and countless shards of wreckage. Some of them looked like pieces of seats." ~ Firefight, Page 149.

"For the first time, Regan's team saw something they had expected to see all along but had been scarce until then: recognizable airplane parts. They all thought they would find big pieces of the airliner laying everywhere, the way car parts end up strewn across a highway after a crash. But the physics of an airplane crash were obviously different: Mostly there was just tons of shredded metal and melted plastic.

Finally, they found several airplane seats, piled among the usual mounds of upturned office furniture and random wreckage. A couple of the seats still had bodies belted into them, which had already been found and marked for the FBI. Most of the workers inside were conscientious about not gawking, yet the seats attracted a lot of attention. They were the first objects the nonaviation experts had seen that unmistakably belonged to an airplane." ~ Firefight, Page 373.

"The airplane had nearly disintegrated, but Dan Fitch's group found several huge cogs, bent and blackened, that weighed a couple hundred pounds each; it took a couple of workers to handle each one. Other objects nearby looked like large gears, and strips of metal that appeared to be fan blades. Workers realized that they were pulling apart the remnants of one of the aircraft's two engines. The aluminum cowling that had encased it all had been torn away, but the guts of the engine were there.

FEMA crews used a blowtorch to free the core of the motor from the column in which it was embedded. Then Fitch and several others used pieces of six-by-six to pry the motor loose from the column and push it off the pile. With the help of some Old Guard troops, they rolled the heavy piece of machinery onto a dolly and finally managed to push it outside. The whole effort took the better part of an entire shift." ~ Firefight, Page 425.

"As crews dug deeper, unmistakable remnants of a passenger plane were everywhere. Wallets, shoes, jewelry, and the everyday items that had been stuffed into dozens of suitcases were littered throughout the debris." ~ Firefight, Page 426.

Tell those people a commercial airliner didn't hit the Pentagon!

Now that we have addressed the eyewitnesses, the physical evidence, and the different scenarios in which the propaganda machine may be at work, what are we left with? We are left with CIT's sister organization Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and their study of the Flight 77 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report. First off, let's look at Pilots for 9/11 Truth; from the Debunking the Debunkers blog "CIT Stuff Is Disinfo - Wake Up!":

"A number of Pilots for 9/11 Truth's members promote World Trade Center no-plane theories - arguing that the speeds at which the planes were travelling were aerodynamically impossible at the altitudes they were flying at. Rob Balsamo, the head of the group, has defended these people's opinions, saying they are qualified to have them. This was all debunked recently using a simulator. This fact alone is enough to raise serious questions about the credibility of Pilots for 9/11 Truth."

Now, what do they gather from their study of the NTSB report? Here it is in a nutshell from their founder Rob Balsamo:

"The flght data recorder raw file that we have just decoded ... it's still showing too high for the Pentagon. ... It shows the radar altimeter at 273 feet. That means 273 feet above the ground. OK? The Pentagon only gets up to 77 feet."

In essence, they believe it supports the flyover theory, which we have demonstrated is not supported by the preponderance of eyewitness testimony, or the physical evidence. Might the propaganda machine be at work here also? Well, the NTSB report does come from the government after all. Even their own press release on the matter was headlined "OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11 FLIGHT CONTRADICTED BY GOVERNMENT’S OWN DATA."

As one commenter pointed asked:

"Designed to confuse us?

I think we should be careful with any evidence that the government supplies. The 'five frames' and the black box data come from the government. Both were in the hands of the government for weeks and months before release to the public.

Do people here agree that this alone renders those two sources of evidence suspect? That's how I view it. Why base theories on such suspect evidence? To me it looks as though these two pieces of evidence, which contradict each other, are meant to confuse."

The largest problem in this whole ordeal is not the fact that Pilots for 9/11 Truth raise these issues, without any such commentary of their own, but that they almost exclusively focus on such issues, while much more concrete facts pointing towards complicity, of which pilots would have keen insight, are almost totally glossed over.

Another glossed over issue is an inherent contradiction in the Pilots for 9/11 Truth premise recently brought to our attention by Michael Wolsey of the website Visibility911.com, who states:

"You can't contend that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon and then use the flight data recorder that was found in the pentagon to bolster your argument that it didn't hit!"

All that being said, it's important to note that there is other research indicating that the flight data recorder of Flight 77 actually supports the official flight path, and that instead, the animation is wrong!

The Pentagon no-plane theories have taken on near religious preportions. It's as if believing a plane didn't hit the Pentagon somehow comforts people. On 9/11, planes crashed! That's what 9/11 was all about, planes crashing! We're interested in finding out who crashed the planes - not whether or not they did. The CIT/Pilots for 9/11 Truth theory is the only 9/11 theory that we actually laugh at...

"Yeh thats right ... We crashed two planes into two skyscrapers... And completely demolished those towers killing thousands ... And we ALMOST crashed a third plane into the Pentagon ... Except we didn't! ... What we actually did was fly the plane low enough above the Pentagon to make it look like it hit and high enough above the building to not be caught on the Doubletree Hotel security camera... then we landed the plane, killed all the passengers and crew and disposed of the plane... We hired operatives to plant some light poles and stage the scene with the taxi to make it seem like the plane came in from a different direction ... just for fun! ... Some operatives also posed as fake witnesses... they all used their real names and were friendly to independent investigators to make it seem like they had nothing to hide... the best part was ... we didn't have to pay them! ... they just wanted to be involved in a mass murder plot ... Finally, we bribed the forensic officials and first responders to say they found and identified the burnt bodies of all of the passengers at the scene..."



"... And we would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling CIT kids!"

Related Info:

A Clarification on Disinfo

CIT and Eyewitness Testimony