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”.
“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
…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…