A Response To Arabesque’s “CIT’s Deceptive Flight Path Argument: “North” or “South”? What about “Hit the Pentagon”?” Article

July 10, 2009

Without referencing my article (which he specifically requested I write) Arabesque appears to be responding to it.

My advice to him is to read it, as the answers to his questions are there, and have been expanded in on a discussion I am involved in at TruthAction forums, which he is known to frequent. I will answer using quotes from those two sources.

A Simple question for CIT and their supporters: When a witness says the plane hit the Pentagon, is that part of the “flight path” or is it not? How could the question of whether or not the plane hit the Pentagon not be relevant to the flight path?

Blog: Considering that in both CIT’s scenario and in his own the witnesses to the event would believe they saw the plane hit the building Arabesque’s conjuring of these hundred quotes is a non-event. It is completely baffling to me the number of people duped by this ridiculous line of “reasoning”. By a simple repositioning of testimony that the plane hit the building as a contradiction of the North of Citgo flight path he has managed to add another hundred to his list of “contradictory witnesses”.

Forum: A key point of CIT’s claim is that the explosion itself would make people brace, duck, flinch, turn away, or even that the sight of the plane would make them run away before it hit. Except for the last reaction, you would expect the same to be true of the sound of the explosion as well as the sight of it and so would equally apply to both the people in the cars behind the building as well as in front of it. Such reactions turn up in many witness accounts and when I try and place myself in their shoes I know would do the same. I jump at the cinema in horror movies; a real life horror movie such as 9/11 would have an even greater knee-jerk reaction. The plane was moving fast as it approached the Pentagon, ducking for cover the moment before it hit and then looking up a moment later to see the fire ball – the plane would be gone. I also personally think (while I accept many will not want to accept this) that CIT’s more extreme “sleight of hand” argument does fit. I think this through imagining the scene in my mind and because of their computer simulation. With accurate representation you see the plane fly towards the pentagon and the explosion, and when I first saw it I did genuinely think this was an animation of the plane hitting the Pentagon. Then they move to a different camera angle and you see it flies over. I was fooled by the sleight of hand in a simulation so why shouldn’t I have been in real life?

The CIT flyover (what I correctly rename to the “mass hallucination theory”) largely depends on dismissing hundreds of witness accounts

Blog: Despite his claim that CIT are doing the same, Arabesque’s entire argument is a protracted and drawn-out appeal for his readers to apply (in Arabesque’s trade mark, bolded, italic and coloured text) special pleading. CIT are not telling you to ignore any testimony, indeed they are asking you to do what they have done and to look into these witnesses of Arabesque’s properly, to check they were there, to check the quotes are actually testimony, to check what they appear to be claiming in a cherry picked quote is what they were actually claiming. It is Arabesque whose argument is to try and create an illusion that CIT’s witnesses are such an extreme minority, and on the back of that illusion expecting you to ignore them, or more accurately to take his word on what they do and do not say.

and deceptively insinuating that the widespread and unanimous reports of the plane hitting the Pentagon do not count as evidence of the “flight path”.

See Above

“The plane hit the Pentagon” is in fact the most important and significant claim regarding the “flight path”, although CIT and their supporters would have you believe that it is not relevant, even when many of the various witnesses that CIT cite as evidence themselves claim the plane hit the Pentagon

See above

…while completely hand waving away the fact that there are no credible reports of a flyover

Blog: 1) As verified by CIT in 2008, Roosevelt Roberts Jr. stated in 2001 that he saw a large commercial airliner at less than 100 feet above the ground flying away from the Pentagon seconds after the alleged impact. It is hard to listen to his testimony and come to any conclusion other than that he is a flyover witness, especially since he first gave this testimony just weeks after the event, and a large commercial jet liner is a hard thing to mistake.

2) In 2001 Erik Dihle stated that many witnesses around him said that the Pentagon was hit by a bomb attack and the plane kept on going showing that whatever perception ending up being reported, people on the scene did indeed report exactly the scenario that CIT have been forwarding. http://www.thepentacon.com/neit426.mp3

Forum: If we go back to our initial premise (that it is perfectly plausible for someone to not see something which did happen, but far more problematic for someone to see something that didn’t happen) and add to this the fact that from appearances Dihle’s report had more people saying it flew away than saying it hit, and it is more compelling still. Further, when everyone on the scene had in their minds that the US was under attack by planes flying into buildings, it becomes even more untenable to consider that anyone would say the plane flew away unless they saw it do so. Let’s switch back to the official version of events and consider Dihle’s report in that context. Two planes have just flown into the world trade centre twin towers, one of them filmed at multiple angles and seen by millions across the world. The news is telling people there could be more targets hit by planes. Next a plane flies into the Pentagon. A dead hit. And yet more people on the scene are saying it flew away than it hit? This is a very odd scenario yet it is exactly what Victoria, Arabesque et al would like us to accept unquestionably.

“We have never claimed that the citgo witnesses didn’t believe the plane hit the building. The claim we make is quite clear. Their independently corroborated placement of the plane proves they were deceived… The plane was used as a psychological tool during a military sleight of hand illusion in order to FOOL people into believing it hit the building.” In other words, according to CIT and those who support their work, the Pentagon attack was a “mass hallucination” event in which any witness who claims that the plane hit the Pentagon was either deceived by an illusion or a government operative.

Blog: The basic notion is that as the plane reached the building a large smoke heavy explosion came from the bottom floor, both the smoke and fireball of which would draw any witnesses attention for long enough for the plane to be long gone. CIT suggest that if you saw a plane fly low and fast towards a building then the next second the plane is gone and there’s a huge explosion – your mind tells you the one caused the other. Now there is a lot to discuss about that idea both for and against this, I am not immune to the serious problems this theory must contend with, but that will have to wait. What is immediately interesting is that Arabesque seems to make out that he does not recognise or understand the concept of sleight of hand at all; instead he claims that what CIT are proposing is Mass Hallucination: “To understand just how absurd the arguments of CIT are, you have to understand that the flyover theory is actually endorsing mass hallucination as a plausible explanation for 100’s of witnesses claiming to have seen a plane hit the Pentagon. Again, who believes in mass hallucination here? Please don’t raise your hands all at once. It is completely baffling to me the number of people duped by this ridiculous line of “reasoning”.” To believe that Arabesque is really baffled is to believe he is stupid and that is one thing I would never say about him. Or maybe I’m being unkind? Maybe he really doesn’t understand the concept of an illusion? Maybe when he sees a rabbit pulled from a hat he thinks someone has spiked his drink? Perhaps when he sees a lady get “sawn in half” and wiggle her toes he thinks he put the wrong kind of mushroom in his pasta sauce? Is it possible he really thinks magic tricks are hallucinations? No of course not. He is simply employing an argument to incredulity, one of the cheapest and most childish of all the logical fallacies.

I have a difficult time explaining why this claim is taken seriously at all.

Why do I have trouble believing that? Is it because Arabesque has confirmed he is deceptive when he continues to list people he has long known were not witnesses to the Pentagon event as though they were (see comment under my previous blog)?

Is it because he pretends to really not understand the difference between sleight of hand and hallucination in order to form a not-too-subtle argument to incredulity?

 Is it because while on one hand he seems a fairly intelligent bloke on the other hand he claims that if you take a handful of scraps of unconfirmed testimony it cancels out 13 independently verified eye witnesses full interviews?

A little bit of all those things, no doubt.

But most of all it is because he, like all of CITs detractors continue to pretend they don’t hear you when you ask them the simplest of all questions, and the one that is key to understanding this issue:

Regarding the 13 CIT witnesses, do you –

a) Agree with Adam Larson that they are all lying and part of an elaborate disinfo op?

b) Believe it is possible for them to have been not only drastically wrong about a simple left/right judgement, AND in such a way that 13 out of 13 corroborated each other, AND so utterly stupid that even when CIT suggested the official flight path to them they emphatically rejected it?

c) Have some third option that would not make you sound completely insane?

So long as Arabesque and others continue to pretend they don’t notice being asked that question over and over and over again, how can one conclude that they are in any way honest in the way they deal with this issue?

That is what I have a difficult time explaining…

Advertisements

7 Responses to “A Response To Arabesque’s “CIT’s Deceptive Flight Path Argument: “North” or “South”? What about “Hit the Pentagon”?” Article”

  1. maturin42 Says:

    It would be amusing if it were not so transparently the product of disinformation from the usual crowd (with the addition of Jim Hoffman this time) to see the contortions that the CIT detractors bend themselves into in order to discredit one of the most thorough and credible investigative efforts in the Truth movement. People who can instantly see the science-based reasons that the WTC can only be controlled demolition somehow believe that an aircraft on a very different course can suddenly change course at impact and plow through the building at an angle that had to be several degrees from the course it was on. Not only that, but the light poles “knocked down” by this aircraft are nowhere near where they would have to be to have been struck. Add to this the incompatible Flight Data Recorder record produced by the NTSB which agrees with neither the government-endorsed story nor that of the witnesses, and the lack of credible Southern approach witnesses, topped off by a flyover witness on tape and a virtual confession by a bit player in the staging of the event, and a powerful case exists that should spur an official investigation. But the crew who must throw fog at the issue for reasons known only to them must attack, and attack they do. They continue to snipe from behind their internet camoflage.

  2. C.Doran Says:

    “The plane was used as a psychological tool during a military sleight of hand illusion in order to FOOL people into believing it hit the building.”

    Why?

    • stefan78 Says:

      Hi C.Doran, sorry for the late response, I haven’t been active with this blog for some time.

      A priori questions can only be answered with speculation.

      While we can make guesses at why we can never really know can we?

      I have some ideas as to why, but they can only ever be speculative.

      But it’s worth thinking about the differences between the WTC and the Pentagon. At the WTC the crime scene was destroyed when the buildings were, and since the crime scene was almost a quarter of a mile above ground level before its obliteration, there is no evidence as to what it would have looked like.

      The Pentagon was at ground level, had several available public points of view and the crime scene would have been the very open lawn in front of the building.

      If there was something they did not want the public to know about the planes being used or their contents, then actually crashing that plane into that location would be problematic to say the least.

      • C.Doran Says:

        I haven’t monitored this for a while so I’m a bit late with a reply.
        You suggest a reason why anyone might intentionally fly a plane over the Pentagon- because it would be problematic if the public might see something about the planes or their contents. I really don’t see how using explosives to blast pieces of a plane and it’s contents over the Pentagon lawn, where none of the pieces of the plane or contents are actually from the plane in question is less promlematic. So instead of people seeing some pieces of mangled wreakage that shouldn’t be there, eveything they are seeing shouldn’t be there. I think the whole CIT theory is pretty delusional – it is implausible on almost every level and the people involved seem to have lost the ability to assess evidence rationally. They re probably reasonably intelligent people but seem to be blinded by the idea that they have some kind of papal infallibility which is the rock many have perished on.

      • stefan78 Says:

        Hi C. Doran,
        No problem regarding the slow reply.

        So if the theory is borne of an inability to assess evidence rationally, how would you suggest the evidence be assessed?

        As far as I can see that the plane flew north of Citgo has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

        However uncomfortable the conclusions that lead from that evidential point might make us, we cannot just ignore them. Because the plane flew north of Citgo it cannot have hit the light poles, it cannot have caused the directional damage to the Pentagon, the FDR data must be fraudulent and so must the still images from CCTV which were released. This is impossible to deny.

        These conclusions are unavoidable and leave no logical explanation other than the fact that the plane did not hit the building. When we see Roosevelt Roberts Jnr say he saw a large commercial jet liner fly away after the explosion, and hear Erik Dihle report how after the event more people on the scene thought that the plane had flown past the building than hit it, the conclusion is not only the only logical possibility, but it is impossible to rationally argue against it.

        But it was a genuine question: I don’t think there is any way anyone can credibly claim that the plane did not fly north of Citgo given the level of corroboration, but if there is another believable conclusion that can be drawn from this fact, then I remain open to hearing and considering it.

        Finally, regarding your notion that none of the plane fragments belonging to the plane in question would be a problem; it patently was not. The authorities have never presented a single plane part from the Pentagon wreckage which was positively identified as belonging to that plane in question. Has there been public outrage over this? Or even mild inconvenience? No.

        However, in a real plane crash it is usual to see most of the plane at the site – wings, tail sections, mangled but not completely evaporated, and chairs too with passengers in. Yes, I do think that a whole plane’s worth of seats without a single body in being photographed might have presented a significantly greater problem than none of the plane parts being identified, which as we both know did happen and caused no problem at all.

      • C.Doran Says:

        I haven’t been back to this site for a while so I’m a bit late with this reply.
        You suggested a reason why a plane would have been flown over the building – because menbers of the public might see the something about the planes or their contents and this might be problematic. I really don’t see how blasting pieces of a plane and it’s contents with explosives over the Pentagon lawn, where none of the pieces of the plane and the contents are from the plane in question is less problematic. People noticing something that shouldn’t be there among the mangled wreakage would be a problem but it is not a problem when all the pieces of wreakage they are seeing are things that shouldn’t be there. The whole CIT theory is pretty delusional in my opinion, it fails on almost every level and it just demonstrates how finding out about an event that happened in the past is not about looking at the evidence it is about assessing it rationally.

  3. C.Doran Says:

    Hi Stefan,
    (That previous reply was a duplicate – I thought it hadn’t been posted so I re-wrote it)

    reading your reply I think it is a good summary of what the CIT are saying and really the problem with it is there in the first sentence.
    ‘That the plane flew north of the Citco has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.’ The CIT people have spoken to a number of eyewitnesses and assessed their evidence and have come to a conclusion that this evidence is accurate. Having established this initial evidence as fact, as a gold standard, they then look at other evidence to see if it conforms with it. If it doesn’t then these other eyewitnesses are either mistaken or deceived or they are lying. Physical evidence that contradicts the initial evidence is staged or faked or contrived in some way. All the other evidence is tested with reference to the initial evidence- but never vice versa. The initial evidence is never re-assessed in the light of the other evidence – it only works one way. The initial evidence is set in stone and they go on a game of evidential paper-scissors-stone where the rule is – the stone always wins. How can it loose? What other conclusion can be arrived at if one part of the evidence is set up as this inviolable gold standard that is not to be questioned. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy. Saying that whatever conclusion arrises from this initial evidence has to be true is exactly what the rational assessment of evidence is not about. If accepting certain evidence as being true leads to conclusions that involve bizarre and highly implausible scenarios then that says something about the evidence that lead to those conclusions and that it should be re-assessed. If you have evidence from a few witnesses that all the physical and other eyewitness evidence contradicts then it’s validity is in question. The idea of accepting any conclusions that certain evidence points to as a kind of noble act is part of the problem; it is seen as a kind of badge of honour to accept any conclusions that lead from this evidence when what they are doing is congratulating themselves for failing to objectively assess it. Saying ‘ you either believe it was an inside job or you don’t’ doesn’t say a lot for their objectivity.
    Your explanation for the plane flying over the Pentagon seems to be that it didn’t have any passengers – photos of the empty seats would be a problem. If that means it was not the flight 77 aircraft then this is another Boeing 757 , a third Boeing 757 – one that has to be smuggled into the Pentagon along with thousands of pounds of explosives, the flight 77 aircraft, and a third one to fly over the building. At what stage does a plan become absurd? If you are talking about a plan to convince people that a hijacked plane crashed into the Pentagon then hijacking a plane and crashing it into the building ticks all the boxes. You end up with the plane and the passengers in the wreakage of the building. You have exactly what you want. You can’t improve on that plan. Do you think they couldn’t find some fanatical muslim extremists to do it? -they would be queueing around the block. Do you really think the same extremists couldn’t plan it themselves ? I have seen a case that was actually presented to a court that suggested that flight 77 was hi-jacked in some unexplained fashion and replaced with a radio controlled drone aircraft during a sweep of some radar antenna and this drone 757 was then crashed into the Pentagon. If the idea is then that the drone can’t be crashed into the Pentagon then there doesn’t seem to to a point in having it, the hijacked Flight 77 could be flown over the building, or better still flown into the building ,which means no need for all the faked debris from a different plane and all the explosives (with the sniffer dogs only yards away) and all the cover-up and complicity required from so many people , from firefighters to taxi drivers, for the rest of their lives. If anyone was trying to cover up the identity of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon then all they would have to do would be release a report to say it was flight 77. They released the report identifying the bodies of almost all the passengers from flight 77 recovered from the Pentagon. If that doesn’t convince people like yourself why would a report identifying the plane components convince them?
    The whole point of the ‘inside job’ theory is that it involves people coming up with a plan. A group of even semi-intelligent people sitting down and coming up with a plan to commit mass murder would not sign up to an absurd plan that involved logistical nightmares and elaborate , convoluted risky complications every one of which could lead to discovery or failure. In short I think if the conclusion that people come to involves people sitting down and coming up with an absurd plan then they should consider that they have come to an absurd conclusion.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: