Joined: 11 Jul 2009 Posts: 13 Location: N. California
Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 8:57 am Post subject: Top 9/11 Truthers endorse Citizen Investigation Team
All those who have been attacking CIT and attempting to smear them with claims that they are a "hoax", etc., will now have to eat their words. The list of endorsements gives lie to the claim by certain armchair critics that they are not a credible or serious research group or that they have not provided anything of value for the movement.
1. Richard Gage, AIA, Architect, Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
2. Peter Dale Scott, Former Canadian diplomat, Professor Emeritus of English at the University of California, Berkley, Author, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America.
3. Edward Asner, Emmy Award Winning Actor, Former President of the Screen Actors Guild.
5. Kevin Barrett - Scholar, Author, Radio Host
Co-Founder, Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance for 9/11 Truth.
6. Sander Hicks, Author, The Big Wedding: 9/11, the Whistle-Blowers, and the Cover-Up.
7. Aidan Monaghan, Researcher.
8. Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford, Pilot, United States Marine Corp. (Ret.) 10,000+ Hours Total Flight Time, 303 Combat Missions.
9. Sheila Casey, Washington DC based journalist whose work has appeared in The Denver Post, Reuters, Chicago Sun-Times, Dissident Voice, Rock Creek Free Press, and Common Dreams.
10. Scott McKinsey, Award-Winning Television & Film Director.
11. Commander James R. Compton, III, United States Navy (Ret.)
12. Steve Martin, Host, The Aroostook Watchmen Radio Program
WXME-AM Monticello, Maine.
13. Chris Meagher, Concerned citizen.
The truth is that those who continue to attack and smear CIT are a small and dwindling fringe of the movement who have completely lost their credibility over their transparent failed attempt to unfairly demonize and discredit the CIT researchers who have proven the OCT of the Pentagon Attack to be absolutely false. The position in support of Flight 77 having crashed into the Pentagon is the real hoax, and those who continue to peddle it have exposed themselves as the real fringe (and probably a disinformation op) who are about to be forgotten and left in the dustbin by the mainstream truth movement. The truth has won, and those standing on the wrong side of truth have been caught with their pants down. Perhaps they would like some egg with their dish of crow and leave CIT and their brother organization P4T alone so that they can focus on real work without being constantly harassed by those who sit safely behind their computer screens and have an agenda that seems more like gatekeeping than exposing the truth. It would only be the polite thing to do if they don't want the wrath of the mainstream movement to come down on them for the disruptive and divisive behavior that has been tolerated for way too long. _________________ www.wtcdemolition.com/blog - a blog for anti-gatekeepers
CIT Have pinned themself to Loyd Englands some what confused statements. This old guy , who my ,may not been part of the cover up. Is this going anywhere no , even if he spilled the whole story nobody would believe him. My 2pence worth
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 12:41 pm Post subject: Re: CIT endorsed by most mainstream 9/11 leaders/researchers
keenan wrote:
The truth is that those who continue to attack and smear CIT are a small and dwindling fringe of the movement who have completely lost their credibility over their transparent failed attempt to unfairly demonize and discredit the CIT researchers.
As has been amply demonstrated by arabesque's and victronix's increasingly shrill and uncompromising behaviour both during and subsequent to Stefan's recent banning. They've even succeeded in making Shillclown's ridiculous and paranoid forum for paranoids look tolerant in comparison.
The one thing we can be sure of is that arabesque will never, ever interview Sgt. Lagasse himself to verify if his loopy spins on the man's first-hand evidence bear any relation to reality. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:01 pm Post subject:
illeagalhunter wrote:
CIT Have pinned themself to Loyd Englands some what confused statements.
The confusion arises from Lloyde's contradictory statements; yet he does not appear to be a confused or flustered old man. The usual method for clarifying such confusions is cross-examination under oath.
illeagalhunter wrote:
This old guy , who my ,may not been part of the cover up. Is this going anywhere no , even if he spilled the whole story nobody would believe him. My 2pence worth
So they try to say, but Nixon was impeached and convicted (even if pardoned by Ford) as a consequence of an apprehended burglar's statement. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 11 Jul 2009 Posts: 13 Location: N. California
Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:34 am Post subject: Re: CIT endorsed by most mainstream 9/11 leaders/researchers
chek wrote:
As has been amply demonstrated by arabesque's and victronix's increasingly shrill and uncompromising behaviour both during and subsequent to Stefan's recent banning. They've even succeeded in making Shillclown's ridiculous and paranoid forum for paranoids look tolerant in comparison.
No doubt. It will be absolutely hilarious watching these desperate and flailing fake activists finish their self-destruction in a huge implosion if they decide to try to attack and smear all of the endorsers of CIT now.
chek wrote:
The one thing we can be sure of is that arabesque will never, ever interview Sgt. Lagasse himself to verify if his loopy spins on the man's first-hand evidence bear any relation to reality.
Exactly. There are at least two obvious reasons why Arabesque can never verify and investigate in-person any of the witnesses:
1) The anonymous entity "Arabesque" is obviously not a genuine activist and has never emerged from cyberspace in the 4 years that he/she/it appeared out of nowhere, and he must remain safely behind a computer screen at a hidden location unbeknownst to any real activists, allowing Operation Arabesque to remain anonymous and unaccountable. Such limitations make first-hand research out in the real world out of the question.
2) Arabesque's whole strategy is based on getting people to not question or investigate the witness statements - "Nothing to see here, move along!...Don't look too closely at the witness statements and DEFINATELY DON'T TRY TO VERIFY IF THE MEDIA QUOTES MATCH WHAT THEY REALLY SAW, BECAUSE THAT IS DISRESPECTFUL AND JUST MAKES US 9/11 ACTIVISTS LOOK LIKE CONSPIRACY KOOKS, AND HOW DARE YOU EVEN THINK TO QUESTION THE ACCURACY OF ANY OF THESE MEDIA-MINED SNIPPETS AND (MIS)QUOTES! OF THESE 103 WITNESSES THAT PROVES THAT FLIGHT 77 HIT THE PENTAGON (but any witnesses found to report facts that contradict the OCT are fair game to attack, dismiss, or have their credibility automatically questioned)! _________________ www.wtcdemolition.com/blog - a blog for anti-gatekeepers
Some of the comments on 9/11 Blogger are fascinating. Paragraphs from Victronix when asked about the witnesses who describe a North of Citgo flightpath.
Quote:
Yes, I believe that they believe they are describing where they saw the plane. Does that make it true?
I tend to think it does not. Why? Because many more witnesses describe a South path. Do you believe them?
I would tend to assume you do not.
But I also tend to not believe the veracity of the statements by the North witnesses because of the dynamics of the location (note that witnesses were not broadly spread around, but are in a fairly limited wedge) -- it's a very small wedge of space between "North" and "South" so that if someone was turned one way while the roaring jet went over one shoulder, by the time they turned the other way, it's over the other shoulder. This could be confusing for *some* people, particularly if these were people who have dyslexia or tend to lose their car in a mall parking lot.
Now that is a particularly pathetic attempt to dismiss all these witnesses.
But wait, there's more ...
Quote:
Roosevelt Roberts describes the plane he saw making approximately the same motions that a C-130 made. When they ask him to describe it, he describes approximately a commercial jet, but it's a little murky, most likely because that's what he expected to see, but it's likely he didn't, since there wasn't one -- it already hit. He came out after the plane hit and saw a plane flying and provides aspects of the description fit both planes. I can explain why he probably describes a commercial jet, but can you describe why he describes the C-130 flight path? He couldn't have expected a plane to fly on that particular path, but he did describe it. So to say that misrepresents him is just untrue. He describes the C-130.
Right, so he came out straight after the blast and saw a plane that didn't arrive until 2-3 minutes later. I don't even understand the point being made there.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:37 pm Post subject:
KP50 wrote:
Some of the comments on 9/11 Blogger are fascinating. Paragraphs from Victronix when asked about the witnesses who describe a North of Citgo flightpath.
Quote:
Yes, I believe that they believe they are describing where they saw the plane. Does that make it true?
I tend to think it does not. Why? Because many more witnesses describe a South path. Do you believe them?
I would tend to assume you do not.
But I also tend to not believe the veracity of the statements by the North witnesses because of the dynamics of the location (note that witnesses were not broadly spread around, but are in a fairly limited wedge) -- it's a very small wedge of space between "North" and "South" so that if someone was turned one way while the roaring jet went over one shoulder, by the time they turned the other way, it's over the other shoulder. This could be confusing for *some* people, particularly if these were people who have dyslexia or tend to lose their car in a mall parking lot.
Now that is a particularly pathetic attempt to dismiss all these witnesses.
But wait, there's more ...
Quote:
Roosevelt Roberts describes the plane he saw making approximately the same motions that a C-130 made. When they ask him to describe it, he describes approximately a commercial jet, but it's a little murky, most likely because that's what he expected to see, but it's likely he didn't, since there wasn't one -- it already hit. He came out after the plane hit and saw a plane flying and provides aspects of the description fit both planes. I can explain why he probably describes a commercial jet, but can you describe why he describes the C-130 flight path? He couldn't have expected a plane to fly on that particular path, but he did describe it. So to say that misrepresents him is just untrue. He describes the C-130.
Right, so he came out straight after the blast and saw a plane that didn't arrive until 2-3 minutes later. I don't even understand the point being made there.
Indeed it is fascinating how over a dozen well-placed witnesses interviewed in depth, on location and drawing diagrams can be so similarly "mistaken" fooled, and goshdarn just plain mixing up their rights and lefts, while the abbreviated press reports that constitute the preferred majority of hearsay from the "hundreds" (the number seems to be increasing every day, especially if we also take into account the possible additional thousands of undocumented witnesses she's taken to alluding to now) are certainly not mistaken.
After all, the multiple-explosion, Corley-approved crime scene proves it, they seem to think. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
I saw some rubbish they produced a while ago. I think they are enthusiastic idiots. If they ever come up with something interesting, they'll need someone to point it out to them... The lloyd England business is where they really showed themselves up, and unfortunately by association they embaress us all, like a retarded relative or something.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 8:18 pm Post subject:
mr freedom wrote:
I saw some rubbish they produced a while ago.
Hey snap!
I saw some rubbish you produced just now!
Amazing!
mr freedom wrote:
I think they are enthusiastic idiots. If they ever come up with something interesting, they'll need someone to point it out to them...
Because producing first hand primary witnesses that unanimously affirm that what we've been told happened didn't happen isn't ...interesting???
mr freedom wrote:
The lloyd England business is where they really showed themselves up, and unfortunately by association they embaress us all, like a retarded relative or something.
See my previous comment.
And yes indeed, embarrassments are everywhere you look, make no mistake. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
chek, you may think my opinion is rubbish, fair enough. However, I do not present my opinion as fact, nor as break through analysis, nor am I dishonest. I cannot say the same for these CIT morons.
I'll give you an example. The video I watched some time ago, it was suggested that Lloyd England had a sharp mind, or was a smart cookie, or something like that..... I notice that above you also wrote "yet he does not appear to be a confused or flustered old man". Now, I think its pretty hard to make these statements about Lloyd and be honest. The statements are made without justification. Of course, the trouble is, Lloyd appears to be prcisely that, a confused and flustered old man, which makes him rather unreliable, and to place weight on this mans gibbering, is embaressing.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 9:17 pm Post subject:
mr freedom wrote:
chek, you may think my opinion is rubbish, fair enough. However, I do not present my opinion as fact, nor as break through analysis, nor am I dishonest. I cannot say the same for these CIT morons.
Firstly, if anything I think your opinion is merely misguided.
CIT do not make the case - the testimony of their witnesses does that for them.
You either find the statements by their sample of proven witnesses to be truthful or you do not. While you might allow a few degrees of latitude for each person's credibility and powers of recall, they nevertheless collectively paint a very different picture to the Official Myth.
mr freedom wrote:
I'll give you an example. The video I watched some time ago, it was suggested that Lloyd England had a sharp mind, or was a smart cookie, or something like that..... I notice that above you also wrote "yet he does not appear to be a confused or flustered old man". Now, I think its pretty hard to make these statements about Lloyd and be honest. The statements are made without justification. Of course, the trouble is, Lloyd appears to be prcisely that, a confused and flustered old man, which makes him rather unreliable, and to place weight on this mans gibbering, is embaressing.
But in my view Lloyde exhibits none of the symptoms of confusion or senility that is sometimes seen in older people. In fact, he has explicitly stated he's a small part of a bigger picture. Don't you agree that he could be a bit more forthcoming about what he means exactly? However CIT have no power to compel nor did they claim to have. We get only what all these people are prepared to state freely.
Until such time as he has no fear of speaking openly, we can only speculate on what his reasons are for his baffling yet stubborn denial of being photographed at the very spot that the Official Myth relies on, or anything else he might say.
And that's without even trying to make sense of the actual chronology of events between 9.32 and 9.50 at the location, or taking witnesses such as April Gallup's statements into account. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
chek, I don't know how many flight path witnesses CIT have "produced" as you put it. Perhaps they have uncovered new witnesses, ok, thats effort, and is commendable, but I don't know if its true...
My CIT concern is with their treatment of Lloyd England. If you think Lloyd does not appear confused or senile, then ok, but I think many would disagree with you, and strongly too.
Quote:
Until such time as he has no fear of speaking openly, we can only speculate on what his reasons are for his baffling yet stubborn denial of being photographed at the very spot that the Official Myth relies on, or anything else he might say.
Now, you call it a baffling and stubborn denial, I would say that this is a excellent example of a confused Lloyd England. That CIT and yourself read more into that is hard too for me to understand.
Quote:
And that's without even trying to make sense of the actual chronology of events between 9.32 and 9.50 at the location
Not sure what you mean here. It is my understanding though, that there is no meaningful evidence which explains what happened to those lightpoles and to Lloyd England and his cab. We just don't know, I don't think Lloyd knows either. This uncertainty appears to have got the better of the CIT types, and they appear to start wild speculation and accusations.
Now, you call it a baffling and stubborn denial, I would say that this is a excellent example of a confused Lloyd England.
Hardly. Denying that you were on the bridge near the Pentagon even after being shown photos that clearly indicate that you were there is not an example of confusion. If Englande had been merely confused, he would have admitted that his memory was faulty when shown the incriminating photo. Instead, he continues to deny he was there and says that he cannot explain why he appears in the photo amongst other people on the bridge. That is not confusion - it's a blatant and dumb attempt to assert he is still right after he has just been caught in a lie! If he lied about that, then it is reasonable to conclude that he was also lying about seeing a light pole being knocked over by Flight 77 and hit his car.
Your unwillingness to accept the findings of CIT distorts how you assess this new exposure of Englande's lack of veracity, for you realise that it would remove a vital piece of evidence supporting the official fairy tale about what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11.
Hardly. Denying that you were on the bridge near the Pentagon even after being shown photos that clearly indicate that you were there is not an example of confusion. If Englande had been merely confused, he would have admitted that his memory was faulty when shown the incriminating photo. Instead, he continues to deny he was there and says that he cannot explain why he appears in the photo amongst other people on the bridge. That is not confusion - it's a blatant and dumb attempt to assert he is still right after he has just been caught in a lie!
OK, got it. Had he been confused, he would have realised he was confused, and therefore would nolonger have been confused. Brilliant Micpsi, in fact I think you qualify for Micpsi CIT! Congratulations.
Quote:
If he lied about that, then it is reasonable to conclude that he was also lying about seeing a light pole being knocked over by Flight 77 and hit his car.
Right. So if a person tells one lie, then it is reasonable to conclude that all that a person has ever said, must be a lie. Brilliant! Although I'm not sure Lloyd has said that he saw the plane hit the lightpole, I forget. Ah, but hang on, if he says he didn't see the plane hit the lightpole, then that means that he did, right?
You choose to see Lloyd as something other than a confused/slow old man trying to remember events of nearly 10 years ago, and doing a bad job of it. I don't agree. I see a group of immoral morons taking advantage of an old man and his wife.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2009 9:35 pm Post subject:
I see a bunch of various more or less irrelevant impressions being bandied about as if they meant something, when proper, detailed questioning under oath (as being a material witness implies a civic duty, whether asked for or not) is the correct course of action.
You're last paragraph characterisations of CIT's etiquette rather gives your game strategy away. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
