View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

New Film Reveals Smoking Gun in Pentagon Crash, MUST SEE!

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

New Film Reveals Smoking Gun in Pentagon Crash, MUST SEE!

Postby Scepcop » 10 Sep 2009, 03:42

I just found watched an incredible groundbreaking film that is a MUST SEE! (in addition to the "9/11 Blueprint for Truth" film that you faith based believers still haven't seen yet)

It's an 81 minute film called "National Security Alert" produced by the Citizen Investigation Team ( that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the official story of the Pentagon Crash on 9/11 cannot be true. Using animation, maps, trajectories, eyewitness interviews, etc. in an easy to understand step by step format, it proves that the plane that the eyewitnesses saw, which they swear was NORTH of the Citgo gas station, could NOT have been the same plane that flew from the SOUTH trajectory and knocked over all those light poles!

The smoking gun is that when you actually interview the witnesses to the Pentagon Crash, they unanimously tell you that they saw the plane flying on the North side in a completely different trajectory from the NTSB's south side where the downed light poles were. Two of the witnesses included Pentagon policemen who say they are 100 percent sure of where they saw the plane and that they would "bet their life on it"! Therefore, there were either two different planes involved or the downed lightpoles were staged. Plus, one eyewitness even reported seeing the plane fly AWAY from the Pentagon! Remember, none of them reported seeing the plane actually hit the Pentagon, so it's probable that the plane flying toward it that the witnesses saw never hit it but pulled up, since they reported seeing it bank too! Just watch the film and you'll understand. It all makes perfect sense.

It's pretty much irrefutable and you gotta see it! No excuses this time! Here's the link. Watch the whole 81 minute film. It's an 81 minutes that will change your perspective completely!

Near the end, there's a revealing interview with a cab driver whose car got hit by one of the downed light poles from Flight 77. At first, he denied that he was on the south side where the bridge was, even though the photos showed him there and the only bridge that existed in the area was on the south side, perhaps cause his wife worked for the FBI. But then, when he thought he was off camera (but he really wasn't), he admitted that the whole thing was faked and planned out! It's so revealing!

For more info, see:

Here are some raving praises of this groundbreaking film!

Praise for Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) and the video National Security Alert

"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

“Citizen Investigation Team has produced an important documentary video that, using numerous independent witness accounts, successfully rebuts the official account of Flight 77’s flight path on 9/11 as it approached the Pentagon. It constitutes a further compelling reason for this country to investigate properly, for the first time, the full story of what happened on that day."

Dr. Peter Dale Scott
Former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley
Author, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America

"A conventional fixed wing aircraft, 757 or otherwise, cannot maneuver from north of the former Citgo gas station to cause the physical damage to the light poles, generator trailer, or the Pentagon without structural failure of the airframe itself. The maneuver would require G forces exceeding aircraft capabilities and that of the human body. Physics and math do not lie. If you accept the placement of the plane as independently and unanimously reported by the witnesses presented in CIT's video National Security Alert, science proves that it did not cause the physical damage at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001."

Robert Balsamo, FAA Certified Pilot
Founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth

"Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke are often quick to point out that they are ordinary citizens who are not investigative journalists by trade. Be that as it may, what these citizen investigators have done is true investigative journalism, and what they have accomplished is anything but ordinary. Their video National Security Alert does not present conjecture. It presents carefully documented eyewitness evidence which establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that American Flt. 77 did not fly into the Pentagon on 9/11. Citizen Investigation Team’s landmark research joins the scholarly work of Harrit, Jones, et al. in destroying the widely-held myth that 9/11 was masterminded by foreign terrorists. Government and media figures who dare ignore evidence this conclusive do so at their own peril, and the peril of us all. 9/11 is a stain upon our honor as a nation and it is imperative that justice is done."

Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford
Pilot, United States Marine Corp. (Ret.)
10,000+ Hours Total Flight Time, 303 Combat Missions

"The entire body of work from CIT is a testament to the tremendous power of dedicated citizen journalists to uncover the truth behind a government story. Using thousands of dollars of their own money and thousands of hours of unpaid time, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis have performed a significant public service. They have created a body of work that definitively shows the government story about the Pentagon to be a lie."

Sheila Casey, Washington DC based journalist
Her work has appeared in The Denver Post, Reuters, Chicago Sun-Times, Dissident Voice, Rock Creek Free Press, and Common Dreams

“Citizen Investigation Team have presented a reasoned, and methodical look at witness testimony the day the Pentagon was attacked on Sept. 11th. As stated in their presentation National Security Alert, it behooves every citizen of conscience to question the official story after viewing CIT's labors toward seeking the truth of what happened that day in 2001.”

Edward Asner, Emmy Award Winning Actor
Former President of the Screen Actors Guild

“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."

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

"I support the work of the Citizen Investigation Team. They have uncovered an important body of evidence proving that the official version of the attack on the Pentagon is false, and that the attack must have been a deceptive military operation, not the kamakaze crash of a hijacked commercial jet. I urge everyone to watch their video National Security Alert and then help bring this information to the attention of the media and elected officials."

Kevin Barrett, Ph.D.
Scholar, Author, Radio Host
Co-Founder, Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance for 9/11 Truth

“I strongly recommend National Security Alert to everyone concerned about the veracity of the attacks on 9/11/2001. Citizen Investigation Team has assembled the most compelling documentary evidence I have viewed to undermine the official story regarding the attack on the Pentagon. The DVD offers no theorizing or speculation; only corroborated eyewitness evidence contradicting the official flight data to support an overwhelming argument that a plane did not slam into the Pentagon on 9/11. If you have time for only one video about the Pentagon, National Security Alert needs to be your choice."

Scott McKinsey
Award-Winning Television & Film Director

"Citizen Investigation Team did an outstanding job of finding witnesses and putting the facts together. It's the best reporting I've seen in a long, long time. This video is a must see for every citizen in our country."

Commander James R. Compton, III
United States Navy (Ret.)

"The Pentagon on 9/11 is still a big mystery. We've had a lot of theories, and we've had the enervating withholding of video evidence by the Pentagon. But until now, no one has tried to assemble real forensic evidence, and a collection of eyewitnesses, in order to build a credible explanation for what might have happened. Based on actual on-the-ground reporting, Citizen Investigation Team has produced a startling body of new evidence. They present interviews with Pentagon police officers at the former Citgo gas station, groundskeepers at Arlington National Cemetery, and several others. These eyewitnesses consistently point to a flight path for the plane that day that is directly at odds with the official story. If these independently corroborated witness accounts are accurate, then the plane did not hit the light-poles, and everything we thought we knew about the Pentagon is wrong. Their pioneering work deserves more serious attention from the government and media, both of whom would prefer we forget our need for justice."

Sander Hicks
Author, The Big Wedding: 9/11, the Whistle-Blowers, and the Cover-Up

"I think the work of Citizen Investigation Team is among the most critical that has ever been done with regard to establishing clearly the fact that the official explanation for the attack on 9/11 is false. Going to the primary that's what I call REAL journalism."

Steve Martin
Host, The Aroostook Watchmen Radio Program
WXME-AM Monticello, Maine

"I was initially skeptical of CIT's findings. But after closer review of the numerous interviews contained in their documentaries, a strong case has been made for an approach trajectory for the plane said to be American Airlines Flight 77 that is hundreds of feet from the official trajectory. The on-scene physical evidence attributed to the official trajectory is incompatible with the trajectory repeatedly described by the witnesses presented and is arguably suspect. Aircraft speeds described in the interviews are also much lower than those alleged by official sources. CIT's documentaries provide the viewer with the transparency and real-time detail regarding events at the Pentagon on 9/11, not provided by accounts offered by the federal government or major media."

Aidan Monaghan

"I watched your video about the Pentagon (National Security Alert). Oh, my God. It made me shake and almost cry. I have known for awhile that 9/11 was undoubtedly an inside job, but this is the best evidence yet - indisputable in my mind. I had been on the edge of being involved in the 9/11 Truth Movement, and now, after seeing your video, I am on board completely and plan to devote every non-working hour of my life to bringing about the truth. It's scary. I'm scared about where this all will lead, but I can't help but act. I can't thank you all enough for having done the investigation that you have done. May the truth prevail."

Chris Meagher
Concerned citizen

"I love the CIT video National Security Alert. It's clear that Flight 77 never made it near the Pentagon. The plane that flew over the Pentagon, on a trajectory just north of the gas station was not a commercial airliner. It's refreshing to see citizens investigating for themselves, and doing a darn good job at it. I highly recommend watching National Security Alert."

Bruno Bruhwiler
We Are Change LA

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: New Film Proves Pentagon Crash False, Smoking Gun, MUST SEE!

Postby ProfWag » 10 Sep 2009, 05:19

Quantum, I hope you treat Scepcop's post like you have mine.
User avatar
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: New Film Proves Pentagon Crash False, Smoking Gun, MUST SEE!

Postby Hamlyn » 12 Sep 2009, 04:11

The last thing I want to think is that the Washington government falsified any information about the 9/11 attacks, and the last group I would want to be associated with is "truthers." That's why I've avoided the subject for 8 years. The "Truth movement" is either wrong, or I don't want to hear it. That's been my attitude.

So I watched this video hoping there would be nothing to it, and I could laugh at it and go on with my life.

Instead, the evidence and eyewitness testimony presented here add up to a decisive invalidation of the official story. Furthermore, I don't see any way around the allegation that the whole event had to be officially staged.

This proposition is much like some of the other ones that this forum discusses. I have no inclination to entertain them seriously, much less believe them. I would in fact be much more comfortable dismissing them out of hand. It is just not possible to do so in full view of the facts.

I will keep an eye out for a point by point refutation of the argument presented there, but it's hard to imagine what form that could possibly take.

I am not interested in generalizations or ad hominem bluster, especially from anyone who has not considered all of the evidence presented in the video and is not attempting to fit it into a competing explanation. But I imagine I will hear the bluster anyway. Another reason I would rather not engage this subject at all.
User avatar
Posts: 6
Joined: 11 Sep 2009, 06:21

Re: New Film Proves Pentagon Crash False, Smoking Gun, MUST SEE!

Postby soldiergirl » 12 Sep 2009, 11:17


Why don't you show a little respect on this date. Is it that hard for you to be respectful to people who have lost loved ones and to those still making sacrafices in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posts: 61
Joined: 08 Sep 2009, 13:40

Re: New Film Proves Pentagon Crash False, Smoking Gun, MUST SEE!

Postby Nostradamus » 12 Sep 2009, 14:05

Another stupid lying video - how crass.

Numerous blazing lies in the video:
1. no parts identified as pieces of the commercial plane - huge LIE
2. plane crash examples that did not hit reinforced structures - huge misrepresentation
3. lack of damage to foundation - huge LIE
4. math - huge LIE

The film does make one truthful claim. Earlier on it states that its so-called facts are dubious.

How interesting to see that fraud Gage listed as someone giving thumbs up to this garbage video.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: New Film Proves Pentagon Crash False, Smoking Gun, MUST SEE!

Postby Nostradamus » 12 Sep 2009, 14:17

Even the twoofers think the video is garbage:
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: New Film Proves Pentagon Crash False, Smoking Gun, MUST SEE!

Postby Nostradamus » 12 Sep 2009, 14:57

The statement of Sean Boger, one of the witnesses in the CIT video:

And so I am looking out at the road, and I see the traffic has liked stop, and I look out the window and I just hear a --- I just see like the nose and the wing of an aircraft just like coming right at us, and he didn't veer.

And then you just heard the noise, and then he just smacked into the building, and when it hit the building, I am watching the plane go all the way into the building.

So once the plane went into the building, it exploded, and once it exploded, I hit the floor and just covered up my head.

For fun read this argument of twoofer against twoofer:
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: New Film Proves Pentagon Crash False, Smoking Gun, MUST SEE!

Postby Nostradamus » 12 Sep 2009, 15:05

The overall substance of the film is that there is hard evidence and then there are a handful of selected witnesses and since the witness accounts that are chosen do not match the hard evidence then then throw out the hard evidence in favor of witnesses. :lol:

They also admit to cherry picking the witness accounts. The dopes from CIT state, "we have determined that he likely reacted as anybody would and hit the deck as soon as he realized there was a plane headed right towards him". They dismiss the eyewitness account of Sean Boger, because it conflicts with the other eyewitness statements. So in fact they found a witness that disagrees with their position and they claim it is wrong.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: New Film Proves Pentagon Crash False, Smoking Gun, MUST SEE!

Postby Nostradamus » 12 Sep 2009, 15:31

What is even more interesting is that the statement by officer Lagasse has him describing the events from a position which does not match the video tape from the gas station. The video shows him at a different location when the plane flew overhead. It seems that eyewitness reports are unreliable.

This whole flight path issue is a straw man argument. What the video does not ask is, "Did you see the plane hit or pass overhead?"

If you want to hear the original interviews with the 2 police officers check below. I have typed a few comments from the interviews.

"plane flying awful low" "nose down into the Pentagon" "full throttle" "plane clip the lamp poles" "soon as the impact"
"plane hit the building" "heading to the crash site" "going into the building like that"

"100 feet off the ground" "400 miles an hour" "wind blast knocked me into my vehicle"
"began methodical recovery of evidence from the aircraft" "image of the airplane flying into the building has never left me"
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: New Film Proves Pentagon Crash False, Smoking Gun, MUST SEE!

Postby Nostradamus » 12 Sep 2009, 15:46

An email from Sgt Lagasse wrote to the Apfn web site

Subject: 9-11
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:11:40 -0400
From: "Lagasse, William" <...@...>
To: "''"

"Dear Sir rest assured it was a Boeing 757 that flew into the building that day, I was on duty as a pentagon police sgt. I was refueling my vehicle at the barraks k gas station that day adjacent to the aircrafts flight path. It was close enough that i could see the windows had the shades pulled down, it struck several light poles next to rt 27 and struck a trailer used to store construction equipment for the renovation of the pentagon that was to the right of the fueselage impact point. The fact that you are insinuating that this was staged and a fraud is unbelievable. You ask were the debris is...well it was in the building..I saw it everywhere. I swear to god you people piss me off to no end. I invite you and you come down and I will walk you through it step by step. I have more than a few hours in general aviation aircraft and can identify commercial airliners. Have you ever seen photos of other aircraft accident photos...there usually isnt huge amounts of debris much did you see from the WTC?...are those fake aircraft flying into the building. I know that this will make no diffrence to you because to even have a websight like this you are obviously a diffrent sort of thinker."

"...The barracks k gas station is were the press set up after the attack, approx 500-600m west-south west of the pentagon.

The aircraft struck the poles in question, they were not blown down, the aircraft passed almost directly over the naval annex splitting the distance between the ANC and Columbia pike, and was approx 100-150ft agl when it passed over the annex and continued on a shallow-fast decent and literally hit the building were it met the ground.

There was no steep bank, but a shallow bank with a heavy uncoordinated left rudder turn causing a severe yaw into the building with the starboard side of the cockpit actually hitting at about the same time the wing was involved with the trailer,

Because of the Doppler effect no one could have heard the plane if they were on rt 27 until it was already in the building, identifying its position and trajectory from that angle would have been difficult if not was not over Arlington National Cemetery but closer to Columbia pike itself, there is a small grove of trees that would have shielded anyone on 27 from seeing the aircraft until it was literally on top of them...

again not much time to make the assessment. I identified it as American Airlines almost as soon as I saw it and radioed that it had struck the building.

I was on the Starboard side of the aircraft.

There was very little wake turbulence that I can recall, which was surprising to me. The aircraft DID NOT have its landing gear or flaps extended. whoever said the landing gear comes out when its that low forgets the aircraft was exceeding the speed that would allow gear to be extended.

How and where the trailer was struck I cant speak of because rt 27 blocked my view slightly to the right because it is elevated. I did however see it in person BEFORE any EMS/Fire arrived and it was fully engulfed in flame 30-40 seconds after impact literally torn in half.

you can see in a few AP photos a tower workers 300zx on the left side of the impact point that was struck adjacent to the fire truck that was hit. 3 fireman were there at the tower as well as two persons in the tower that watched this entire process and are luck to be alive.

There was almost no debris to the right/south of the impact point but I found a compressor blade and carbon fiber pieces over 3/4 of a mile away to the north on 27 when we were collecting evidence. The biggest piece of debris I saw was one of the engines smashed...but intact in the building. I saw the building from the inside and outside..before during and after the collapse and rest assured that it was indeed an American airlines 757 that struck the Pentagon that morning.

no photos clearly show the size of the original was at least 10-12 feet high and 20-30 feet wide not than size persons who weren't there claim.

I don't know what else I can say to convince you. I hope your search for the truth will end with this e-mail as I have nothing to gain by lying or distorting facts.. I live with what I saw everyday of my life, It has taken a long time to deal with the images, screams and anger I felt that day, to be honest your website angered me to the point I wanted to just curse and rant and rave but I decided this would be much more helpful in quelling misconceptions"
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: New Film Proves Pentagon Crash False, Smoking Gun, MUST SEE!

Postby Hamlyn » 13 Sep 2009, 01:37

Sgt. Lagasse's rebuttal is a good one.

I am new to this whole mess because honestly it's so full of absolute crap from both sides that it has made the issue both supremely difficult and supremely distasteful. The signal to noise ratio is very low, and the invective is nauseating.

Therefore, Sgt Lagasse's 6-year-old rebuttal is new to me. It should not be, even at this preliminary stage of my interest in the subject. If groups like CIT were being honest and exhaustive in their treatment of the facts and testimony, they would include it in their video here and perhaps attempt to account for it. Instead, they ignore it. As pointed out elsewhere, selective attention to the evidence is a hallmark of pseudo-skepticism.

I still have some questions. I emphasize that they are questions about things I don't fully understand. The fact that I don't understand something does not prove to me that somebody's pet theory must be true. They are just things that I don't understand and would like to have explained.

The main thing is, if the plane flew in the path that Sgt. Lagasse and others described, how is it possible that it clipped the light poles, as he also described?

I do not pose this as a rhetorical question. I am inclined to think that I simply lack information here.

I also wonder about other mutually corroborated aspects of the witness testimony: the flyaway, the description of the plane, the banking and course corrections, and the nosing up.

I also would like to know what the hell that cab driver thinks he is doing. But God knows it is not hard to find a weird and erratic character driving a DC cab around by the airport. If that proves a US government conspiracy, then it was proved to me the second I set foot in that town.

In short, a mental DC cab driver does not require any explanation other than the fact that DC cab drivers are often mental. But I would still like to know what the guy is trying to accomplish.

I had seen arguments before about the size and shape of the entry hole in the Pentagon and all that stuff, and how it appears strange, and it never impressed me. It is not every day that you take a large jetliner and smash it into a modern fortress at hundreds of miles per hour. If the results appear strange, that's because it is a strange event. If there were more to that line of argument than speculation about what it "should" look like, then I might be more impressed. I haven't noticed that there is, and I don't know what it should look like because I've never seen it happen before, and neither have they.

To me, it is very persuasive to see the testimony of people like Sgt Lagasse. He was there at the impact site, and he saw what he saw, and it convinces him absolutely that a large jetliner hit the Pentagon. That weighs heavily enough in my estimation that I would lean substantially toward his account of it, and if there are odd or misfit facts, then those alone don't prove that something entirely different happened. They are just facts that may or may not be fit into our theory of what happened.

I don't have a dog in this hunt. I would just like to decide what is the best explanation for what happened that day.

I do want to say that if large numbers of people distrust the government in Washington this deeply, it is not all the people's fault. We have a lying, lawless, violent state. But most of its crimes are right out on the table, and in scale, they tend to dwarf even the horrendous crimes of 9/11/2001. That is why people like Noam Chomsky say "so what?" Not because mass murder is trivial, but because our government (among many others) has routinely inflicted such harm on innocent people.

And it is definitely true that the US government at least had a hand in creating and nuturing the very groups that it blames for the catastrophe and against whom it has therefore gone to war. This too has its precedents.

These are the kinds of facts that make wild 9/11 inside-job theories appear not so wild to some people. Is it so difficult to imagine a Rumsfeld or a Bush or a Cheney engineering such a crime? Why? Certainly not because it's evil. My answer is because it's too elaborate and unnecessary and unpredictable. But some people don't see that, and if you think about where they're coming from, it's not that hard to understand.

I am talking about people who entertain these "Truth" theories, not about the ones who engineer them. It seems to me that by throwing out the parts of Sgt Lagasse's (among others') testimony that do not suit their pet theory, they've dishonored and insulted him, and they've distorted the truth to serve their own purposes. It's a sin of omission that I think is unconscionable, no matter what the Truth happens to be.
User avatar
Posts: 6
Joined: 11 Sep 2009, 06:21

Re: New Film Proves Pentagon Crash False, Smoking Gun, MUST SEE!

Postby Hamlyn » 13 Sep 2009, 02:39

While I have a few minutes to kill, here are a few more of my so-called thoughts.

That video fooled me. It did so skillfully but simply, the way a magician does, by showing you some things while not showing others-- but giving the appearance that it is showing everything.

I came away with the impression that if what the witnesses were saying was true, then some evidence at the scene must have been staged, and some of the records must have been falsified. Very effective argument. I was still not convinced that no plane hit the Pentagon, but the flyaway sighting and lack of a second plane in other witness accounts seemed a point in favor of that argument. What seemed ironclad to me was that something about the official story was profoundly fishy.

But then a thing that they hid is revealed, and the carefully wrought appearance of an ironclad case falls apart.

It reminds me of how easy it is to be fooled if you consider only the evidence in favor of a proposition. This is not a good test for truth. The real test of a proposition is whether or not it stands up to evidence aimed at proving it false. In the philosophy of science, this is called the Popperian criterion, and it is essential to the practice of true skepticism.

The mark of a pseudo-skeptic is the refusal to employ it. So I am comfortable at this point labeling CIT pseudo-skeptical, given their omission of crucial testimony that casts severe doubt on their theory.

I'm told that this is typical of "troofers," and now I have experienced it for myself. And furthermore, I can understand some of the vitriol. Nobody likes being deceived, especially about something this serious. Bullshit me about a car you want to sell me, fine, but don't bullshit me about thousands of innocent people being incinerated at a single stroke.

Now... what I think does nobody any favors is rebutting such bullshit with ideology, and that is mostly what I see. If anything, waving a flag and playing the national anthem and showing an eagle with a tear in its eye is a response that arouses suspicion. To be honest, it is really just more bullshit.

I love our soldiers, too. But when Washington wages war, it is just like any other state waging war. It is not all eagles weeping and we are the good guys and we go kill all those bad guys and the Baby Jesus will be happy up in Heaven. That is all a load of complete bullshit. Yes, a lot of our soldiers have died. That is what happens when you go to war. A lot of innocent people over there have died, too. Some say we have destroyed several countries with this thing. So yes, fine, let's salute our war dead, but let's not confuse that with the idea that Washington and its wars are sacred.

All that crap gets mixed up together in this field.

Don't feed into it, if you can help it.

I keep coming back to the Popperian criterion. A rational mindset, a truly skeptical one, is one that exercises doubt in order to see what propositions can withstand it. It says, on the one hand this, but on the other hand that, and on yet a third hand, such-and-such. It tends toward ambiguity and ambivalence. And so I am suspicious of any argument that is too sure of itself, which lacks ambivalence, and we all should be, I think. Certainty is the mark of ideology, and I think that most ideologies should be vigorously resisted.

That includes the kind of ideology that waves a flag in support of starting a war. Especially that kind.
User avatar
Posts: 6
Joined: 11 Sep 2009, 06:21

Re: New Film Proves Pentagon Crash False, Smoking Gun, MUST SEE!

Postby Hamlyn » 13 Sep 2009, 02:48

Soldiergirl, getting at Winston by insulting the appearance of his girlfriends is morally repugnant.

Insulting a woman's appearance is what bullies and lowlifes do.

And these women are not even your target by reason of anything they did. You are just using them.

As a person who did not know that Winston Wu existed until this past Thursday, I'll tell you that the impression you give me by posting this video is that he has enemies who will stoop to anything to insult him, and that you are a lowlife for repeating this garbage.

Way to strike a blow for truth and reason. Disgusting.
User avatar
Posts: 6
Joined: 11 Sep 2009, 06:21

Re: New Film Proves Pentagon Crash False, Smoking Gun, MUST SEE!

Postby Nostradamus » 13 Sep 2009, 06:06

The main thing is, if the plane flew in the path that Sgt. Lagasse and others described, how is it possible that it clipped the light poles, as he also described?

It seems that Lagasse was captured on video by the surveillance camera at the gas station. In the CIT movie he is at a different location. After several years he was wrong about where he exactly stood at the gas station.

Eyewitnesses make mistakes about many things. That's just how we are wired together. Nothing wrong with it - it's just the way people are. The lesson of the CIT video is that people make mistakes in recalling events. A low flying plane is only of interest when it involves a crash. Did all of these people witness the crash or did they recall the importance of the low flying plane at a later time?

One of the interesting things in my mind is caving. I recall the caves well lit as my mind has put the cave together in my mind. But that's not the way it was. My recollection is a reconstruction of a set of events.

In the CIT video we see what I think is a huge difference in flight paths by the various eyewitnesses. For all of the reconstructed flybys of the plane that are shown, there is no video showing all of the flight paths at once. The sky would be covered by all of the planes flying as a squadron instead of the nice single line shown in the video. Take a look at the video and see that someone on the ground would see planes spread across a 90 degree arc across the sky. It just shows a lack of agreement amongst the eyewitnesses. That just reinforces why hard evidence trumps eyewitnesses.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: New Film Proves Pentagon Crash False, Smoking Gun, MUST SEE!

Postby Nostradamus » 13 Sep 2009, 06:21

If anyone has doubts about the crash of a jetliner into the Pentagon please read here:

Here are dozens of witnesses. Read Sean Boger's statement here and then read the CIT comment that he was probably hiding, not watching. Notice that Lagasse is listed here, but not as a main witness.

End of story on the CIT claims - just more rubbish.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08


Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot] and 2 guests