Saturday, February 12, 2011

Richard Gage on the Pentagon & CIT: Our Reply

As long time readers of our blog and websites know, there has for years now been a concerted campaign by a relatively small clique of individuals who purport to be members of the "9/11 truth movement" to marginalize and vilify Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) and dismiss our findings.

It seems that the more evidence we obtain and publish proving that the official story is a farce and that the Pentagon attack was a black operation the more aggressive and brazen their campaign becomes.

These same individuals have also worked very hard to convince people who have offered formal praise for our work and our presentation National Security Alert to not only retract their statements of support and praise but to publicly denounce us. This targeted campaign has been largely unsuccessful until the other day.


Continue reading: "Richard Gage on the Pentagon & CIT: Our Reply"

39 comments:

Barrie Singleton said...

The bizarre nature of the whole 9/11 event, was such as to strongly suggest it was ALWAYS INTENDED to be an 'Alice in Wonderland' operation. I suspect confusion was its primary goal; confusion intended to reign long enough to get to PHASE TWO.

You 'do the math'.

John Scrivener said...

In their attempt to discredit CIT, the 911blogger clique has blithely dismissed the eyewitness testimonies recorded and presented by CIT, resorted to ad hominem attacks, petty partisan tirades and in the process, discredited themselves and provoked discord and animosity within the ranks of the 9/11 truth activist & research community.

The truth movement, if there is such a thing, has arrayed against it, the full might of the US govt, mass media and a clueless, incurious public ... as if these are not enough obstacles for the truth movement, we now have to contend with petty, ego-driven infighting and partisan point-scoring.

Having said that, let me make clear, I appreciate the work CIT has done and I applaud their efforts to defend their work against unreasonable and unwarranted abuse.

lv911truth said...

This story is PUBLISHED at 911NewsCentral.com.

herb said...

Personally I never had a good feeling about Gage and I thought Chandler getting NIST to admit free-fall was a bit too good to be true.

It's obvious the powers that be want to keep the focus on the WTC buildings because they think they can weasel out of it somehow.

To me this also calls into question the whole thermite/nano-thermite hypothesis.

Dutty said...

Don't be surprised at anything the agents of disinformation do, any more than we should be surprised at anything agent provocateurs would do. The name of the game is to sew confusion. That way the "inner circle" remains untouchable. I don't think the masses are incurious; rarely do I meet anyone who accepts the official story. The apparent apathy seems to be related to what can I do without getting squashed by Big Brother--or is there anything I can do that will make a difference. In a very real sense we are powerless in the face of a soft dictatorship. We have the right to free speech until we're effective. We just have to keep truckin' in the belief that reason and facts will eventually weigh in as the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Steve said...

@John Scrivener:

"we now have to contend with petty, ego-driven infighting and partisan point-scoring"

Please give an example of what you mean.

@Dutty:

"rarely do I meet anyone who accepts the official story"

WOW!.....I live in Los Angeles, and I must say, the "climate" is different here.
I don't know what neck of the woods you're from, but I find your statement EXTREMELY difficult to believe!

Steve said...

@CIT:

I'm glad to see that 911blogger.org supports your work.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20753

Hopefully that forum will grow to eclipse 911blogger.com.
It's a good place to expose the 911 disinfo agents.

John Scrivener said...

@Steve: For examples of "petty, ego-driven infighting and partisan point-scoring", peruse the comments on this blog entry ...

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-08/citizen-investigation-team-creators-pentacon-and-national-security-alert-tour-europe-september

Steve said...

@John Scrivener:

Thank you for the link, John!
I read your comments; they were very rational, and enlightening; especially this one:

"do YOU believe the witnesses who place the plane on the north side?

If no, I'd like to know why not.

If yes, then you can not also believe the plane hit the light poles, especially the one that allegedly speared the cab without damaging the hood.

When faced with mutually exclusive claims, honest investigators are eventually forced to make a choice as to which claim is the credible one.

You can either choose to believe the 13 north side witnesses or Lloyde, but you can not believe both. Lloyde's story is clearly questionable on its face yet he supports the OCT. However the 13 north side witnesses are clear, concise, and corroborate each other while contradicting the OCT.

I think it's obvious which mutually exclusive claim a reasonable 9/11 skeptic would choose to accept"

That's what it all boils down to, and that's why I see 911blogger, Jim Hoffman, David Chandler, Jonathan Cole, and many others, not as "infighters", but as "infilTRAITORS", agents saboteur, and disinfo agents who are working for the perpeTRAITORS.

An example of "infighting" would be, "arguing with your wife"; not "wrestling with a burglar"!

Keep up the fight for Truth, John!

Citizen Investigation Team said...

Great comment Steve and awesome new avatar!

David Farr said...

Investigate all of 9/11. Period. (please stop the bullshit people and let's focus on getting the word out on all of these questions and work together to do it)

Steve said...

@David Farr:

"Investigate all of 9/11. Period"

Is that code-speak for:

"Let's don't focus on the Pentagon; the evidence is so crystal clear, and easy to understand, that you're liable to wake up the Sheeple. Not to mention the fact that the evidence that CIT has presented is way too damning of the perpeTRAITORS!
Rather, let's talk about "stand-down orders", "cell-phone calls", "magic passports", and "pet goats"; that way the Sheeple can stay asleeple, and have something to keep them busy on their train ride to Tyranny"

"please stop the bullshit people"

OK, Daddy!
I'm willing to do that, if everyone else is; but first you have to do us a real big favor, and point out the "bullshit" on this page(just use the copy and paste function in your response).

"let's focus on getting the word out"

Well, what are you doing here, wasting your time posting idiotic comments; you should be on your rooftop with a bull-horn "getting the word out"!

"and work together"

Who do you suggest we work together with?.....Jim Hoffman?.....911blogger?.....Larry 'Pullit'?.....Michael Chertoff?

Who has CIT refused to work with?

Citizen Investigation Team said...

To be fair I've exchanged a couple of emails with David Farr in the past and I think he's a good guy.

David,
I understand how frustrating it is to see "infighting" going on and I can guarantee whatever frustration you feel is multiplied by 1000 for me. But please understand we have not picked a fight with anyone here. We have only supported the work of AE911truth so this hostile action on their part is completely unprovoked.

It's absolutely shameful particularly since it's based on lies that they have been told about us during a very aggressive campaign to get Richard to retract his statement of support.

Unfortunately it's Richard's completely unnecessary action that is dividing the movement right now over this so if you want to help us work together I recommend that you ask Richard Gage to "please stop the bullshit" and "work together" because that is all that CIT is asking for here.

Steve said...

@CIT:

OK, Craig!
Since I don't know who David Farr is, I couldn't tell whether his comment was full of frustration or criticism.
He struck me as the "Big Boss Man", so I looked at his profile to see if he was a moderator of this forum or something.
When I was satisfied that he wasn't a "moderator", I answered him in the best way I knew how.

To me, it doesn't really matter whether a person is naive, frustrated, or a psy-op agent; I try to show their lack of logic and common sense with logic and common sense.

You're more of a diplomat than I am, Craig; Sorry about that! :)

Chris Sarns said...

Summary and analysis of CIT/NSA

http://csarnsblog.blogspot.com

Chris Sarns said...

Craig,

You said Maria de la Cerda is a flyover witness but she said: "I saw the impact, I saw a fireball."

Is English your first language?

Citizen Investigation Team said...

Chris,

Really? I did? Please provide the quote or admit that you are lying.

Craig

Chris Sarns said...

That will take some time. I the mean time.

Are you now saying that she is not a flyover witnesses? yes or no

Is Erik Dihle a flyover witness? Yes or no

Is Roosevelt Roberts a flyover witness? Yes or no

Citizen Investigation Team said...

Why should it take more than a few minutes? It should be easily found in National Security Alert since that is what you were supposedly writing about while telling this lie.

Funny how you had no problem publishing a formal article making accusations you can't even support with a quote.

I recommend you don't post here again unless you can come up with a quote to back up your fraudulent claim which is just one example of many in your shoddy attack blog. Provide the quote or admit you lied.

Chris Sarns said...

I will look for the quote where you say she is a flyover witness in our "debates" but in the meantime:
Disinformation: intentionally misleading or false information.

You are trying to give the impression that her statements support flyover. She said "I saw the impact, I saw a fireball." That is a clear statement that saw the plane hit the building. Later she said "I actually saw the impact" Leaving those statements out so you can use her other statements to support your flyover theory is intentionally misleading.

Chris Sarns said...

North side flyover part 2
22:40
Craig: She describes the plane as closer to the cemetery. . . . she describes how she thought the plane hit the other side. So what this means is that she basically saw the plane flyover the building.

Citizen Investigation Team said...

So you admit you lied about me allegedly stating that she is a "flyover witness" which would suggest that she BELIEVED the plane did not hit and which is why you did not quote me to support your bogus accusation. That is just one of many lies in your deceptive attack piece. Now that you have actually quoted me the truth comes out regarding who was reporting accurately here and it wasn't you.

The plane can't hit "the other side" or "on top" and still hit the bottom floor of the west side of the building Sarns and you know it. So yes her account is EVIDENCE for a flyover unless you want to call her a liar too just like you do Roosevelt Roberts. But did I ever call her a "flyover witness" suggesting she did not believe the plane hit as you fraudulently implied? Clearly not since even in the quote you found I openly state that she "thought the plane HIT the other side" proving I reported accurately. Hitting the OTHER SIDE most certainly is "basically [seeing] the plane fly over the building." How else could it get to the other side Sarns? Notice how I used the qualifying word "basically" to make sure I am reporting accurately and to deliberately NOT suggest that she believed the plane flew away.

Not only that but in National Security Alert we QUOTE HER STATING THERE WAS AN IMPACT you liar. We even repeat the quote. "My sense of it was not that it was a side IMPACT but rather that it was on top".

That is not misleading. That is exactly what she told us and that does NOT support the official impact narrative. It can ONLY support a flyover. She was deceived just like millions others were deceived that day Sarns. There is nothing crazy about this notion for honest 9/11 skeptics. It's extremely simple and obvious logic particularly given the north side approach evidence. Your lies regarding what we have said about her account do not change that fact. We reported accurately by providing QUOTES to support our statements while you set up a straw man argument by lying about our claims.

John Scrivener said...

@Steve: Thanks for taking the time to peruse the comments on that 911Blogger post, Steve.

While I agree 100% with the quote you attributed to me, I must confess it was not one of my comments. I did post many comments on that page as johnscriv but most of them have been down-voted into oblivion or removed altogether.

That page, however, provides a case study in the tactics and objectives of cognitive infiltrators and 9/11 truth saboteurs.

John Scrivener said...

On his webpage, Chris Sarns admits he was "impressed with the Citizen Investigation Team video" when he first saw it but then he realized he'd been tricked into thinking the eyewitness testimonies confirmed a flight path north of the Citgo service station and that in fact CIT was an elaborate psyop designed to discredit the truth movement by cleverly insinuating a diabolical trojan horse in the form of a "flyover" hypothesis.

Upon realizing the dastardly nature of this devilish ploy by CIT, Chris Sarns has embarked upon a courageous and heroic crusade to expose the treacherous villains behind CIT and put an end to their subversive antics.

Steve said...

"Chris Sarns has embarked upon a courageous and heroic crusade to expose the treacherous villains behind CIT"

Yipee!.....You're my hero, Chris Sarns.

I think Sarns was Peter Sellers' mother's maiden name.....do you mind if I call you Inspector Clouseau?

Do you buy your straw by the bale, or by the wagon-load, Chris?
How many strawmen to you get to the bale?.....or do you recycle your straw like good environmentally friendly Disinfobot?

Hey, Chris!.....I have some riddles for you:

"How many South of Citgo 'witnesses' can dance on the head of a pin?"

"When polishing the hood of your Taxi; what leaves a better shine?:

(a) A terry cloth

(b) A forty foot light pole

Chris Sarns said...

"she BELIEVED the plane did not hit"
No Craig, she said SHE SAW the plane hit the building, but that fact did not make it thru your flyover filter.

"The plane can't hit "the other side" or "on top" and still hit the bottom floor of the west side of the building"
Correct, Maria saw the plane for a very short time before the impact. She told you twice that she saw the impact. The fact that her "mind's eye" did not record it correctly does not change the fact that she saw the plane IMPACT the Pentagon.

"George Aman, . . . . he thought he could see the people in the window. Now, does this discredit him? Does this make you think there's no way he could be an honest person? Well, you know, deduction and embellishment is just a typical eyewitness tendency for innocent eyewitnesses."

Witness accounts are not perfect as you have stated but seeing a plane hit a building is not a detail, it's the focal point that would be remembered the most.

" her account is EVIDENCE for a flyover unless you want to call her a liar too"
Craig, "I saw the impact, I saw the fireball." and "I actually saw the impact." cannot be construed as evidence for a flyover. ;-)

Failure to include these statements and implying her statement supports flyover is intentionally misleading.

Citizen Investigation Team said...

"Failure to include these statements and implying her statement supports flyover is intentionally misleading."

In National Security Alert we QUOTE HER STATING THERE WAS AN IMPACT you liar. We even repeat the quote. "My sense of it was not that it was a side IMPACT but rather that it was on top".

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Obviously WE published all those statements that you are referencing so we didn't fail to include them. Everything about the context of De La Cerda's quotes in NSA indicate that she believed the plane crashed since of course we quoted her saying as much.

The obvious problem is that she believed it crashed "on top" and even "on the other side" back in 2001 which physically necessitates the plane flying OVER the building. No honest person would argue this clear fact.

Yes witnesses are fallible, which is what explains why she and so many others were so easily deceived into thinking it crashed at all when we know it can't from the north side where Maria, George Aman, and so many others know that it flew.

NoC proves flyover Sarns. Your "fly into" theory was easily debunked two posts ago:

http://citizeninvestigationteam.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-analysis-required-low-and-level.html

Steve said...

No need to chime in on this one, Craig....I've got this one figured out.
I'm taking lessons from Chris "Clouseau" Sarns.

Here's the solution to the conundrum:

Maria de la Cerda really did see the plane impact the Pentagon at ground level, but she was standing on her head at the time, and THAT'S why she thought it hit the roof!
She was also looking in a mirror, and that's why she thought it hit "the other side".

C'mon, Craig.....fess up, dude!
Why did you cleverly neglect to ask her if she was standing on her head and looking in a mirror?....any competent investigator would have asked those simple and obvious questions!

Another example of shoddy(if not biased) investigation.

Citizen Investigation Team said...

Foiled again! Gosh darn it Steve.

Ok I'll come clean....

I DID ask her if she was standing on her head and looking in a mirror. I just failed to include that part in NSA!
;)

John Scrivener said...

Chris Sarns has clearly mastered the art of splitting hairs.

Chris Sarns said...

"In National Security Alert we QUOTE HER STATING THERE WAS AN IMPACT.
We even repeat the quote. "My sense of it was not that it was a side IMPACT but rather that it was on top". "

But her "sense of it" was incorrect. You left out the part where she says what she actually SAW with the eyes. Therein lies the intentional misleading.


"WE published all those statements that you are referencing so we didn't fail to include them."

You failed to include them in the NSA video. Had you been honest and included all the witness statements saying they saw the plane hit the building, no one would have endorsed it and you know it.


"Everything about the context of De La Cerda's quotes in NSA indicate that she believed the plane crashed since of course we quoted her saying as much."

Craig, saying she "believed" the plane hit the Pentagon is misleading. She SAW the plane hit the Pentagon.


The obvious problem is that she believed it crashed "on top" and even "on the other side" back in 2001 which physically necessitates the plane flying OVER the building. No honest person would argue this clear fact.

An honest person would include the part of the statements by Boger, Lagasse, Brooks and all the others that you had at the time, where they said the plane hit the Pentagon.


"Yes witnesses are fallible, which is what explains why she and so many others were so easily deceived into thinking it crashed at all"

They were not deceived Craig. The actually SAW the plane hit the Pentagon.

Chris Sarns said...

Your whole case is these witnesses. You cannot call them liars. ;-)

Sean Boger - Official interview 11-14-01
"I just see like the nose and the wing of an aircraft just like coming right at us and he didn't veer. You just heard the noise, and then he just smacked into the building, and when it hit the building, I watched 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 my head."

Sgt. Brooks
NSA Supplemental at 37:56
Craig Ranke: Were you actually able to see the plane hit the building?
Sgt. Brooks: Correct, from this location, where I'm standing right now, directly turning around and watching that plane literally go into...the Pentagon

Sgt Lagasse
NSA Supplemental at 42:38
And it flew into the building with very slight control movements. Yawed substantially into the building. It kinda made a, it kinda swooped into the building, which I guess is indicative but hitting the building, it kinda, you know, smashed into it.
49:40 Craig: Did you see the plane hit the building?
Sgt. Lagasse: Yes.

Penny Elgas
Interview with Jeffrey Hill - 2010
"It just flew in,. . . . . Just when it got to the wings I think, then there was an explosion which was all black smoke."

Terry Morin
Original interview
"As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. . . . . . . The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball.

North side flyover part 2 at 26:30
Maria de la Cerda: "Yea, I saw the impact, I saw a fireball."

Keith Wheelhouse
2nd plane cover story at 9:36
And then it just evaporated into the side of the building.

Dawn Vignola
2:00 "I saw the, it was an American Airlines 757 and it came in, it hit the side, it hit the heliport, it came down Columbia Pike and hit the heliport.

Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman
0:40 "And I saw it hit right in front, it didn't crash, it didn't appear to crash into the building. Most of the energy was dissipated hitting the ground."

Vin Narayanan
"At 9:35 a.m., I pulled alongside the Pentagon. With traffic at a standstill, my eyes wandered around the road, looking for the cause of the traffic jam. Then I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet. The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me as it headed straight at the Pentagon.
The hijacked jet slammed into the Pentagon at a ferocious speed. But the Pentagon's wall held up like a champ. It barely budged as the nose of the plane curled upwards and crumpled before exploding into a massive fireball."

Joel Sucherman
8:20 "I seen it coming across my windshield and then I'm looking out the side passenger window and that's where I see the collision with the Pentagon.
Craig "So did you see it impact or were there trees in the way?"
Joel "No, there were no trees in the way at all. I did see it impact."

Albert Hemphill
"He hit the Pentagon at about the second window level."
"He smacked right into the building"
"I saw one plane and I saw it hit."
"I saw the one plane and what I saw is, I saw it hit."
"All I can tell you is what I saw. I didn't see the plane clear the Pentagon."
"The plane that I saw from my vantage point, didn't pull up, didn't turn right, it didn't turn left, it went right into the Pentagon."

Citizen Investigation Team said...

"Your whole case is these witnesses. You cannot call them liars."

You know darn well that I don't call the witnesses liars. Honest 9/11 skeptics who look at the evidence objectively easily understand they were deceived. On the other hand you HAVE called Roosevelt Roberts a liar because you have to in order to hold on to your religious dedication to the official impact narrative and maniacal obsession to casting doubt on evidence that proves it false.

Nobody who has viewed National Security Alert comes away from it thinking the witnesses didn't believe the official story (since we openly state that they did) or that NONE of them could see the alleged impact point at all since of course most of them were filmed on location where they saw the plane fully revealing their POV.

I will debate you on this issue any time live (which you have already failed to step up to the plate to do) but I will not tolerate your lies and deceptive trolling methods in this blog.

The only people who your weak & deceptive blog is effective with are the ones who either haven't viewed NSA or have already succumbed to the the bully culture of groupthink that you and the 911blogger proponents/controllers dedicate your lives every day to enforce.

Steve said...

@Clouseau Sarns:

"They were not deceived Craig. They actually SAW the plane hit the Pentagon"

That's the best evidence you've come up with yet, Clouseau!
I think you've got Craig on the ropes, now.....keep digging in with those body shots, and he'll eventually buckle!

Yep!....."They were not deceived Craig. They actually SAW the plane hit the Pentagon"; and I was not deceived, either.....I actually SAW the magician saw the woman in half!
And to make matters worse.....I even saw it with my own eyes!!!

Most people think it's impossible to saw a woman in half and put her back together.....but those are the same crackpots who think it's impossible for a fixed-wing aircraft flying North of the Citgo, to do the directional damage to the Pentagon.
I know my eyes would never deceive me.....and neither would "my" Government.....uhh.....I think!?!?

Work 'im, Clouseau!.....I think Craig's knees are wobbling!

Happy shilling, Clouseau!

John Scrivener said...

I kinda feel sorry for Chris Sarns, it must be a frustrating and unrewarding business, trying to come up with credible criticisms of CIT's work ... I guess that's why he needs to invent and misrepresent points of contention.

Steve said...

@Chris Sarns:

"The so called "proof of flyover" is that a plane on the north flight path could not cause the directional damage (leading to and including the hole in the “C” ring)"

That's right, Chris; it's a physical impossibility.

"However, the CIT flyover theory assumes the directional damage was caused by explosives"

And what do you "assume" it was caused by?

"If the internal directional damage was caused by explosives in a flyover, then it could be caused by explosives if the plane hit the Pentagon"

That's right.....but there's no directional damage consistent with a NoC flight-path; so, how is your statement supposed to make any sense?
Is that a strawman for the ignorant Sheeple to scratch their heads over?

"The internal directional damage has nothing to do with whether the plane hit, and it does not prove that a plane on the north path did not hit the Pentagon"

Yes it does, Chris! and it proves it conclusively, and you KNOW it!
There is no damage consistent with a NoC flight-path, despite your comical graphics.

"A plane could fly over or to the side of the light poles and still hit the Pentagon"

Yes, but NOT at ground-level, and without damaging the foundation.

"Likewise, if the generator damage was staged in the flyover theory then it has nothing to do with the plane"

That's what is called "best of both worlds"; or a six demensional Strawman.

"There is considerable interior damage consistent with a "north of Citgo" (NoC) impact"

Now we're wading knee-deep in bullshit, aren't we, Chris?

"It would be impossible to determine exactly what the internal damage might have been if explosives were used"

You don't determine the damage by the explosives.....you determine the explosives by the dammage. There are all kinds of explosives; from firecrackers to hydrogen bombs.
Time to order another bale, Chris!.....you must be running out of straw by now.

You're a propagandist, Chris.
It's obvious that your whole blog is directed toward the unthinking masses, who are incapable of critical thought.
You know intelligent people laugh at it, but you don't care, because your job is to keep the Sheeple from waking up!

Steve said...

@John Scrivener:

"I kinda feel sorry for Chris Sarns, it must be a frustrating and unrewarding business, trying to come up with credible criticisms of CIT's work"

Yeah.....I feel sorry for him too; especially if he continues in his quest for Darkness, Falsehood, and Entropy, instead of Light, Truth, and Life.

Hey, Chris!.....don't sell your soul for thirty pieces of silver; tell your handlers to go get fucked, and follow us on the quest for Truth and Life!

John Scrivener said...

Chris Sarns has certainly won accolades from the 911blogger clique for his asinine attacks on CIT.

An abysmal blog entry by Chris Sarns entitled Summary and Analysis of National Security Alert elicited an outpouring of appreciation from the usual pseudonyms.

An indication of just how self-absorbed this clique has become can be found in the comment stream of the blog entry, where they congratulate Sarns on his masterpiece, noting triumphantly that no CIT supporters had responded to his diatribe, as if that were some sort of victory ... they never bother to mention that CIT supporters are summarily banned from that exclusive little blogspot.

Not that Sarns pathetic drivel deserves any sort of a response ... apart from sarcastic derision.

John Scrivener said...

I take back that bit about sarcastic derision ... I hate sarcastic derision

Post a Comment