Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

reply to post by downisreallyup


More than a dozen witnesses who independently corroborate a north of citgo flight path, which if true, would make it impossible for the plane to have caused the official story damage, and then there's all the anomalies in the official story damage to boot. At the very least, we need a new government sponsored investigation that investigates the possibility that the plane flew over the building instead of into it and whether or not explosives were used inside the building.

reply to post by pteridine

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish

 

It seems that you dismiss uncomfortable evidence with a "conflict of interest claim." If CIT is making money on their story, do they not also have a "conflict of interest?"

How much money do you think CIT is making? I hear they're selling their CDs at something like 5$ each. You know how many they've sold? I don't think they've made a whole lot of money on the whole thing myself.

Originally posted by pteridine
You claim plot involvement by the NTSB. At what level is the NTSB involved and who would be able to change or supress data from the FDR?

I think you might want to take a look at one of PFT's videos where they talk to the NTSB; why do you believe their PR rep no commented his way out of the conversation with PFT's representative?

reply to post by scott3x


Good responses scott, but I'm sorry to say that IF you are relying on P4T and CIT as a basis for your opinion regarding the FDR, you are backing the wrong horses.

When you have time, and can look at it dilegently, you will begin to see what I mean.

Basically, I can tell you from the outset, P4T is trying to sell balloons...a bill of goods...poppycock. Use whatever other idiom that works, their assertions have no merit whatsoever. This is becoming more and more obvious, despite their protestations to the contrary. They are getting more and more desperate, as well.

Originally posted by scott3x
I admit that the FDR data is a part where I'm not completely informed, yes. I believe that the rest of the data is sufficient to understand that the flyover theory is the most probable, but I'm certainly willing to discuss whether this is true or not with you...

Well, good. This IS the thread for it, but perhaps first when you have time you could review the CatHerder thread from a while past...2004! I will find it and link it below on edit. Here is the title, for now: "9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon"

while I don't always agree with CIT or PFT, I do agree with them on their north of Citgo flight path theory.

Again, that "theory" isn't. A 'theory', I mean. It may qualify as an hypothesis, but even then it is a poor one.

Now...once again, when you begin to study how a Flight Recorder works, the reason this statement is incorrect will begin to become clear to you:

Personally, I believe that the FDR data was fabricated.

Once you get into it you will see why that would not be supportable by any stretch of imagination.

I believe they showed that most of the witnesses were consistent with a North of Citgo flight path; there were a few that weren't, but I believe their credibility is highly suspect.

No, the bamboozling has occurred by the CIT cult. THEY are the ones with highly suspect credibility, due to their blatant mis-use of 'interview' techniques, up to and including, asking leading question, and/or steering the witness until the answer they wish is forthcoming. AND, ignoring anyone who doesn't say what they want to hear.

Those tactics have been much discussed already...which is why the OP of this very thread needs to be dismissed, as it is based on disinformation.
____________________________________________________________
CatHerder's thread.



[edit on 16 December 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by scott3x

I think you might want to take a look at one of PFT's videos where they talk to the NTSB; why do you believe their PR rep no commented his way out of the conversation with PFT's representative?

Oh, you mean the ambush phone call?

I've heard it. Proves only that the government is a bureaucracy, and that they (either a P4T or CIT representative, can't remember who) have no scruples whatsoever.

reply to post by scott3x

How much money do you think CIT is making? I hear they're selling their CDs at something like 5$ each.

This was addressed earlier, either in this thread, or possiblyin aonther related thread.

The previously brisk sales of CIT's DVDs at around $20 a pop have dwindled...hence the fire sale price today. (If they are actualy selling for $5, I haven't actually looked, because I have no interest in buying any of their junque).

I would, however, be very interested in an investigative journalism study into the connections between three groups: "Pilots for 9/11 Truth", "Citizen's Investigation Team", and "Loose Change Forum".

They appear to all three be in bed together. SO, anyone looking for an actual conspiracy of some sort may wih to begin there.....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I would, however, be very interested in an investigative journalism study into the connections between three groups: "Pilots for 9/11 Truth", "Citizen's Investigation Team", and "Loose Change Forum".

They appear to all three be in bed together. SO, anyone looking for an actual conspiracy of some sort may will to begin there.....

I posted links showing how even hardcore Truther organizations have outed CIT for their blatantly deceptive methods.

A major legal concern is their practice of publicly accusing named American citizens of being accessories to government co-ordinated mass murder. A good lawyer could sue CIT for millions.

Anticipating this they are registered as a Limited Liability Corporation of the State of California. Still, it's criminal code and directors could be sued. They would never be able to pay out anything significant, but a company they are linked with, some think fronting for, Melissa Data Corp, might be worth pursuing.

Some aggressive litigation lawyer could have a lot of fun with this. Someone should alert the profession to this fat litigation fee and profile opportunity.


M

reply to weedwhacker's post #2583

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by scott3x

 

Good responses scott, but I'm sorry to say that IF you are relying on P4T and CIT as a basis for your opinion regarding the FDR, you are backing the wrong horses.

I have seen no evidence for that assertion :-)

Originally posted by weedwhacker
When you have time, and can look at it dilegently, you will begin to see what I mean.

Well, I have some time, so let's see what you have to say ;-)...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Basically, I can tell you from the outset, P4T is trying to sell balloons...a bill of goods...poppycock. Use whatever other idiom that works, their assertions have no merit whatsoever. This is becoming more and more obvious, despite their protestations to the contrary. They are getting more and more desperate, as well.

Waiting for the evidence part...

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by scott3x
I admit that the FDR data is a part where I'm not completely informed, yes. I believe that the rest of the data is sufficient to understand that the flyover theory is the most probable, but I'm certainly willing to discuss whether this is true or not with you...

Well, good. This IS the thread for it, but perhaps first when you have time you could review the CatHerder thread from a while past...2004! I will find it and link it below on edit. Here is the title, for now: "9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon"

Already saw the last 2 posts on that thread as I mentioned to pteridine in post #2578 in this thread; they don't reflect well on the thread starter's assertions.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by scott3x
while I don't always agree with CIT or PFT, I do agree with them on their north of Citgo flight path theory.

Again, that "theory" isn't. A 'theory', I mean. It may qualify as an hypothesis, but even then it is a poor one.

I disagree, but am interested in hearing why you think this, so continuing...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Now...once again, when you begin to study how a Flight Recorder works, the reason this statement is incorrect will begin to become clear to you:

Originally posted by scott3x
Personally, I believe that the FDR data was fabricated.

Once you get into it you will see why that would not be supportable by any stretch of imagination.

I'm out of my depth here, I'd probably have to go to the FDR thread to see what the truthers there are saying in order to properly respond...

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by scott3x
I believe they showed that most of the witnesses were consistent with a North of Citgo flight path; there were a few that weren't, but I believe their credibility is highly suspect.

No, the bamboozling has occurred by the CIT cult. THEY are the ones with highly suspect credibility, due to their blatant mis-use of 'interview' techniques, up to and including, asking leading question, and/or steering the witness until the answer they wish is forthcoming.

Can you provide an example wherein you think they are employing such a technique?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
AND, ignoring anyone who doesn't say what they want to hear.

I have seen no evidence that they have ignored anyone. Can you provide an example where you feel they have done this?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Those tactics have been much discussed already...which is why the OP of this very thread needs to be dismissed, as it is based on disinformation.

I'm still disagreeing with you on this. Hopefully with more discussion we will be able get closer to agreeing as to the validity of CIT's investigation.

reply to weedwhacker's post #2584

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by scott3x

 

I think you might want to take a look at one of PFT's videos where they talk to the NTSB; why do you believe their PR rep no commented his way out of the conversation with PFT's representative?

Oh, you mean the ambush phone call?

No, not the initial call, although I certainly think that call was interesting as well. I was referring to the NTSB call back that followed from that call.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by scott3x]

reply to weedwhacker's post #2585

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by scott3x

 

How much money do you think CIT is making? I hear they're selling their CDs at something like 5$ each.

This was addressed earlier, either in this thread, or possibly in another related thread.

Somewhere on ATS, gotcha :-)

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The previously brisk sales of CIT's DVDs at around $20 a pop have dwindled...hence the fire sale price today.

Do you have evidence that this is why they reduced their price?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
(If they are actualy selling for $5, I haven't actually looked, because I have no interest in buying any of their junque).

That's an interesting way of spelling junk; where you from? Anyway, I believe Michael mentioned that that's what they were selling for these days.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I would, however, be very interested in an investigative journalism study into the connections between three groups: "Pilots for 9/11 Truth", "Citizen's Investigation Team", and "Loose Change Forum".

They appear to all three be in bed together.

All 3 of those forums have members that are in the other forums. -I- used to be a member of all 3. Then I was banned from PFT and CIT. The PFT ban has expired, and I've made use of this by searching for things on their site, but the CIT ban is still in effect as far as I know. Anyway, PFT is an offshoot of the previous incarnation of the loose change forum, so it's no suprise that there's a certain level of camaraderie between the 2. As to PFT and CIT, I'm not sure how the connection first started, but Craig Ranke is a co-founder of CIT and a moderator over at PFT, so it's no surprise that their relationship is close as well. I personally believe that they also all share a bond of doing a heck of a lot of research. Unfortunately, I also think they're all a bit too distrustful, which is why I believe I was banned from 2 of them and had some difficulties over at the loose change forum after this; I was never banned from there, however.

reply to post by scott3x


If you like the NOC witnesses, do you like the fact that they say the plane hit the Pentagon? I saw the "rationale" for a flyover that you linked to and I have to say that it is contrived to the point of laughability. Your three, in-bred truther groups are populated either by technical idiots or sub-par con-artists. Some are likely both.
Keep asking about what happened to the plane and the passengers. Keep asking about where all the fuel came from inside the Pentagon and how explosives could account for the damage. Keep asking how the engines were planted, mashed inside the support structures, whenever you are told that all the pieces were small and lightweight. Keep asking how evidence was planted during the fires. Keep asking how the few NOC witnesses are claimed not be in error when all the impact witnesses are in error or have a "conflict of interest." What of the NOC people who also witnessed the plane striking the Pentagon?
Be sure not to ask them for any evidence or you will likely be banned, again. They only want true believers who have memorized their story and will suppress any thinkers....out of jealousy.

reply to post by scott3x


You have to admit I pretty much nailed the gist of the video you linked to that I wasn't going to use my limited (and expensive) bandwidth viewing. Seems I didn't even need to watch it. My challenge to you is to do some study on the dimensions of AA77, get overhead shots of the area in question and scale in the flight path over the locations of those poles to see what's possible and what isn't IE prove it for yourself, don't take anyone's word for it. What you quoted from RB is simply wrong.

Witness testimony is useful but it's definitely not physical evidence in any way. I need to see some tangible physical evidence supporting the hypothesised flyover, something more inflexible than words. The only evidence fitting those requirements refutes the NOC/flyover so the only course of action for making a flyover or alternate flight path believable is to make you think all that physical 'stuff' is somehow staged or fabricated but, I mean really? all of it? everything? even things that may not yet have become public knowledge? (FBI was on site for a month or more collecting and recording physical evidence).

The 'alphabet' agencies you have no trust in could, if they wanted, slap this NOC/flyover/whatever theory down easily if it was considered necessary yet that isn't happening. If you're in a conspiracy frame of mind, think about why they don't demonstrate a need to do anything about it
Is it because it's no threat to the actual truth coming out while you're expending all your energy in the wrong places making NOC, flyover, missile, no plane, wrong plane, holograms, space beams etc etc useful to them?

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The 'alphabet' agencies you have no trust in could, if they wanted, slap this NOC/flyover/whatever theory down easily if it was considered necessary yet that isn't happening. If you're in a conspiracy frame of mind, think about why they don't demonstrate a need to do anything about it

Is it because it's no threat to the actual truth coming out while you're expending all your energy in the wrong places making NOC, flyover, missile, no plane, wrong plane, holograms, space beams etc etc useful to them.

You've pretty much reiterated the thinking of America's most high profile critic, Noam Chomsky. He has lamented how a healthy activism, young people looking at what the US is doing, organizing, discussing and protesting, has been drained by the wild goose chasing of the Truth Movement.

Notably the generation of educated young liberal who started it have left now, seeing how the supposed evidence of the Inside Job is largely the domain of opportunists selling books, videos, personal appearances to a sub-culture that display few critical faculties.

A handy subversion of the questions still remaining on 9/11. The CIA and FBI are found wanting in their prevention of the attacks, the Bush admin hides collusion with Middle East powers, but the public is lead to look for non-existent WTC planted bombs and faked Pentagon crashes.

reply to post by scott3x


After a breather, I thought about it and think I neglected, in rush to type, mentioning another huge, gaping hole in their (CIT's) "theory" of the "flyover".

This was covered at great length in a long thread started by LaBToP about a year ago. It was back when CIT/P$T/LCF, et al, were all going on about the 84 RADES data being "faked". When that nonsense was roundly debunked, they moved on to these other red herrings, always flailing about with some distractions, but underneath it all they've invested so much on the "flyoever" that they seem to feel they must defend it at all costs, else admit defeat. I think it's their 'Waterloo'.

Anyway, back to the "flyover".

Even a casual glance at the area will show you that any airplane that approached the Pentagon from the West, and magically (unseen by ANYONE, mind you) "flew" over, would in just a few moments be right over the majority of downtown Washington, D.C. --- and aimed more or less towards the Prohibited Areas, P-56A and P-56B (have to refer to aeronautical charts for the depictions of those zones).

The counter 'argument' to that is...oh, and this is rich beyond measure...that the airplane that 'decoyed' and 'flew over' then made a sudden right turn and landed at Natinal Airport! More magical, fantastical stuff...stuff that good fantasy writers reject, but but fantasy theorists gobble up. Especially those who are not familiar with how airplanes fly, and the practical impossibility of any conventional jet that would be used a s a"decoy" for a Boeing 757 to accomplish such a feat.

Not to mention, besides, that any such imagined scenario would have had the magical mystical "decoy' landing opposite to the flow of traffic at the airport that morning...(even though a Nationwide Ground Stop had been issued at about 0930 EDT, airplanes still airborne were being vectored to airports to land ASAP. Of course, they weren't being sent to DCA, because of the proximity to D.C. and the White House and Capitol Building, to name just a few potential targets).

No...but, the fact that an airplane screaming into the airport, the wrong way, at low altitude, considering the events of the day that had unfolded; the fact that this mythical airplane went unnoticed by ANYONE seems to tell the entire story vis-a-vis the "flyover" fantasy.

Any questions?

Originally posted by mmiichael
Notably the generation of educated young liberal who started it have left now, seeing how the supposed evidence of the Inside Job is largely the domain of opportunists selling books, videos, personal appearances to a sub-culture that display few critical faculties.

I find it interesting that I have seen so much reference to this selling of books in the last month but I have admit my vast ignorance. I have been someone who doubted the OS since it happened and I never knew there were any videos or books for sale. I had no idea anyone was profiting. I am not sure what that says about them but it shows I am not lost in those trappings myself so not all of us.

reply to pteridine's post #2590

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by scott3x

 

If you like the NOC witnesses, do you like the fact that they say the plane hit the Pentagon?

CIT has explained how witnesses could have been fooled into thinking a plane that actually flew over the pentagon crashed into it instead. Essentially, the explosion would have probably blinded people from seeing anything but the explosion, letting the plane get away without anyone seeing it. This didn't work for someone who -didn't- see the explosion, though, named Roosevelt Roberts. He was persuaded that it was a "second plane", but the fact of the matter is that there was no other plane that was in that airspace at the time but the one that allegedly crashed into the pentagon.

Originally posted by pteridine
I saw the "rationale" for a flyover that you linked to and I have to say that it is contrived to the point of laughability.

Why do you feel that way about it? I felt it was quite compelling.

Originally posted by pteridine
Your three, in-bred truther groups are populated either by technical idiots or sub-par con-artists. Some are likely both.

I don't see it that way. Can you explain why you feel this way about them?

Originally posted by pteridine
Keep asking about what happened to the plane and the passengers.

It's a good question, and certainly one that's been asked at Pilots for 9/11 Truth. As a matter of fact, they pinned a thread with this very question. Here's the thread in question:

About Passengers...? Didnt Hit Pentagon?, Then where are they?!?

Originally posted by pteridine
Keep asking about where all the fuel came from inside the Pentagon and how explosives could account for the damage.

I decided I'd bring up the question you made in a recent post over at the loose change forum:
s1.zetaboards.com...

Originally posted by pteridine
Keep asking how the engines were planted, mashed inside the support structures, whenever you are told that all the pieces were small and lightweight.

I better ask one question at a time; don't want to get into difficulties there again :-p.

Originally posted by pteridine
Keep asking how evidence was planted during the fires.

From a safe distance from the fires, I don't see how it'd be much trouble...

Originally posted by pteridine
Be sure not to ask them for any evidence or you will likely be banned, again.

Laugh :-). I may never ask anything again over at PFT. But the loose change forum has never banned me, even if things got a bit prickly for a bit.

Originally posted by pteridine
They only want true believers who have memorized their story and will suppress any thinkers....out of jealousy.

I don't agree with that. I -do- think they can at times be overly distrustful. In another thread here, one of the admins over at the loose change forum said that he felt that I was banned from PFT because I asked the same questions frequently. I don't think I did, but I imagine that he felt I did something of this nature at -his- forum. I think the real thing that bothers them is the fact that I ask them so many questions that -they- may have seen before, and they simply don't realize that it's not the same person who's asking it. Regardless, however, I'm still a member at the loose change forum and like I said, I've decided to end my rather long hiatus from it to bring up one of your questions.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by scott3x]

reply to Pilgrum's post #2591

Originally posted by Pilgrum
You have to admit I pretty much nailed the gist of the video you linked to that I wasn't going to use my limited (and expensive) bandwidth viewing. Seems I didn't even need to watch it. My challenge to you is to do some study on the dimensions of AA77, get overhead shots of the area in question and scale in the flight path over the locations of those poles to see what's possible and what isn't IE prove it for yourself, don't take anyone's word for it.

I'm sorry, but there's a limit to how much time I want to spend on this and I just don't feel that motivated to do what you ask. I don't just take anyone's word for things. I've given many reasons why I go for the flyover theory. This being said, this doesn't mean that I've stopped asking questions on the whole issue, as my last response to pteridine demonstrates.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
What you quoted from RB is simply wrong.

I disagree, but if you'd like to tell me why you feel this way, I'm all ears.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Witness testimony is useful but it's definitely not physical evidence in any way.

Witness testimony can cast doubt on alleged physical evidence though, and the NOC witnesses have cast a great shadow of doubt over the alleged physical evidence.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I need to see some tangible physical evidence supporting the hypothesised flyover, something more inflexible than words.

Don't you find it revealing that all the videos that would have shown the event were quickly confiscated by the FBI? Oh, I know that they now claim that those same videos don't show anything of interest (interestingly, they make no mention of the pentagon video cameras in this list), but you'll forgive me if I don't trust them. Why won't they let us see them for ourselves? Are they afraid that they might make a mistake or 3 that would reveal that the videos have been tampered with? As you may know, in the case of the only video that has been officially "released" to date, the 5 frame video, has a time stamp of "September 12". Why do you think that is? Perhaps even more importantly, why do you think that no mention of this has been made by the mainstream media?

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The only evidence fitting those requirements refutes the NOC/flyover so the only course of action for making a flyover or alternate flight path believable is to make you think all that physical 'stuff' is somehow staged or fabricated but, I mean really? all of it? everything? even things that may not yet have become public knowledge? (FBI was on site for a month or more collecting and recording physical evidence).

The FBI certainly looms large in this investigation. You say that they spent a month collecting and recording physical evidence and allude that much of it has yet to be revealed to the public. Why do you suppose that is? And as to a lot of evidence being fabricated, yes, I believe that it was. Really. It makes much more sense to me then the idea that independent witnesses would all lie so consistently as to what flight path the pentaplane took in its final manoever to the pentagon.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The 'alphabet' agencies you have no trust in could, if they wanted, slap this NOC/flyover/whatever theory down easily if it was considered necessary yet that isn't happening.

You're assuming that they could do this. I make no such assumption. However, I do find it rather interesting that they decided to finally state that the 5 frame video was 'real' at the time that CIT's work came out. The suspicion by many as to why they were withholding all video evidence that would reveal whether or not the pentagon was hit by a plane may have gotten to the point that they felt they had to do -something- about it.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Is it because it's no threat to the actual truth coming out while you're expending all your energy in the wrong places making NOC, flyover, missile, no plane, wrong plane, holograms, space beams etc etc useful to them?

Alright, I get your idea that you believe spending one's energy on this is to put it in the wrong place. I'm curious to know, what do you think the right place would be?

reply to weedwhacker's post #2593

Originally posted by weedwhacker
After a breather, I thought about it and think I neglected, in rush to type, mentioning another huge, gaping hole in their (CIT's) "theory" of the "flyover".

This was covered at great length in a long thread started by LaBToP about a year ago. It was back when CIT/P$T/LCF, et al, were all going on about the 84 RADES data being "faked". When that nonsense was roundly debunked,

I'd want the opinion of someone like turbofan as to whether this data was in fact "roundly debunked", as you say :-p.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
they moved on to these other red herrings, always flailing about with some distractions, but underneath it all they've invested so much on the "flyoever" that they seem to feel they must defend it at all costs, else admit defeat. I think it's their 'Waterloo'.

I think it's something that's true and thus essentially undebunkable :-).

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Anyway, back to the "flyover".

Even a casual glance at the area will show you that any airplane that approached the Pentagon from the West, and magically (unseen by ANYONE, mind you)

You're forgetting Roosevelt Roberts. And there are apparently others who may have realized or atleast suspect that the plane didn't crash into the pentagon, as mentioned by someone else that CIT mentions (forget the name for now).

Originally posted by weedwhacker
"flew" over, would in just a few moments be right over the majority of downtown Washington, D.C. --- and aimed more or less towards the Prohibited Areas, P-56A and P-56B (have to refer to aeronautical charts for the depictions of those zones).

From what I've heard, the most likely scenario is that it would have headed to Reagan International Airport, which is hardly prohibited airspace.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The counter 'argument' to that is...oh, and this is rich beyond measure...that the airplane that 'decoyed' and 'flew over' then made a sudden right turn and landed at Natinal Airport!

I find the theory that the plane landed at Reagan National to be compelling myself..

Originally posted by weedwhacker
More magical, fantastical stuff...stuff that good fantasy writers reject, but [that] fantasy theorists gobble up. Especially those who are not familiar with how airplanes fly, and the practical impossibility of any conventional jet that would be used as a"decoy" for a Boeing 757 to accomplish such a feat.

Again, I'd like to have turbofan's view on whether or not this would be an impossible feat.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Not to mention, besides, that any such imagined scenario would have had the magical mystical "decoy' landing opposite to the flow of traffic at the airport that morning...(even though a Nationwide Ground Stop had been issued at about 0930 EDT, airplanes still airborne were being vectored to airports to land ASAP. Of course, they weren't being sent to DCA, because of the proximity to D.C. and the White House and Capitol Building, to name just a few potential targets).

I will admit that it's possible it didn't land at Reagan National, but at present, that's my working theory.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
No...but, the fact that an airplane screaming into the airport, the wrong way, at low altitude, considering the events of the day that had unfolded; the fact that this mythical airplane went unnoticed by ANYONE seems to tell the entire story vis-a-vis the "flyover" fantasy.

Who says it went un-noticed? The only thing that needed to happen is that it went -unreported-, which is quite different.

reply to pteridine's post #2566, second response

Originally posted by pteridine
The generator tank could not account for the fire. The tank that was struck was small and was burning outside. How did thousands of gallons of fuel get inside?

I quoted this question of yours over at the loose change forum. Following is JFK's response, one of the admins there:

Ask him for the EPA fuel spill cleanup report.

There should most definately be a very detailed one since the Pentagon is located so near a waterway.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by scott3x]

reply to Lillydale's post #2594

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by mmiichael
Notably the generation of educated young liberal who started it have left now, seeing how the supposed evidence of the Inside Job is largely the domain of opportunists selling books, videos, personal appearances to a sub-culture that display few critical faculties.

I find it interesting that I have seen so much reference to this selling of books in the last month but I have admit my vast ignorance. I have been someone who doubted the OS since it happened and I never knew there were any videos or books for sale. I had no idea anyone was profiting. I am not sure what that says about them but it shows I am not lost in those trappings myself so not all of us.

I've bought a book from David Ray Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, which I'm in the middle of, and a few books from Jim Marrs: The War on Freedom, Inside Job, and just bought The Rise of the Fourth Reich, which I haven't started yet. I was first introduced to Jim Marrs by my brother, who had his book Rule by Secrecy, even though he hadn't apparently read it :-). As to David Ray Griffin, not sure where I heard his name first, but he's one of the first intellectuals to speak out against the official story, so whether it was from Zeitgeist or one of various web sites that reference him, I decided that it would be worthwhile to check out a book or 2 of his.

I've also borrowed some books of Marrs, such as "The Terrorist Conspiracy" and David Ray Griffin's "9/11 and American Empire" from the library. Despite my 3 month banning from PFT and the recent rift there between its founder and one of its admins, I've been eyeing their complete set of videos for some time now. I may get it in the not too distant future. I'd also love to have a copy of all of CIT's videos, and if they're at a discount rate now, now's probably the time to think about it getting it.

I'd love the government to do a new investigation, but I think there's no guarantee that they'll actually do as good a job as people who have already spent a great deal of time uncovering a slew of facts concerning 9/11. If they make a little money off of it, great. Perhaps it puts some food on the table. I, for one, definitely think that we need some investigators working the evidence, and I think it's fair that if it takes up a lot of their time, they should be paid something for it. Investigators need to eat, just like everyone else.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by scott3x]

Originally posted by Lillydale
I have admit my vast ignorance.

You honestly didn't realise that some people profit from 9/11 Truth?

Does it worry you that they might have a bit of a conflict of interest now that you've discovered this?