Monday, December 22, 2008

Still More April Gallop

James posted the other day about her lawsuit. Apparently it includes some mention of the CIT "flyover" nonsense, which generates some amusing commentary over at Truth Action Forum.

One of the overwhelming factors for those concerned about "disinfo" is the citing of witnesses who claim to have seen the strike happen. Indeed on 911 Blogger, this is exactly the case and has resulted in some voting down of those who are prepared to see beyond the implications of the infamous "honeypot" warning, as I believe Jim Hoffman christened it.

I examined a cited witness claim in detail to see what gives, and this is what I found. But I couldn't see a way to post it at Blogger so here it is here.

He goes on to parse the witness claim and shows an aerial which "proves" she could not have seen what she claims to have seen, and we're off to the races:

CIT have applied similar scrutiny to the oft-quoted "witnesses", but again of course, most of us are too lazy to double check, and accept words such as those of Ms. James at face value. God help us.

A couple of the responsible (I won't use the scare quotes this time) folks over there moan about the inclusion of the CIT nuttiness. But it's like trying to herd cats and before long the accusations are flying:

We know what highway she was on & we know where the trees are/were (trees take years to grow) & therefore we can prove exactly where or where not she might have EXACTLY been when she saw the plane & if she could or could not have seen it impact the Pentagon!It appears as if she could not have both had her view blocked by trees & seen a plane hit the Pentagon!Either way we have her pegged as a liar.

Another co-conspirator!

Thanks W, that was exactly the kind of rational response I was hoping for. Except perhaps for the liar part...

Somebody says that CIT's claims have been debunked by Frustrating Fraud (true), but Stefan demurs:

I haven't found CIT's claims to be debunked at all, by FF or Arabesque (who after all, just repeats FF's arguments).

And chek NI:

Rebutted to your satisfaction perhaps, but not to mine or apparently April Gallop's. And most definitely not "debunked". Repeating US Govt. "evidence" does not equate to being on 'solid ground'.
Have you even begun critically examining those alleged "100+" witness statements or do you just take it as read that someone else has?

Daniel (who just joined over there today) brings up the Great God Griffin:

No, you are definately *NOT* the only one. And recent polls indicate that as of 2006 at least 12% of Americans - 36 million - and a majority of 9/11 skeptics including leading researchers such as David Ray Griffen, do NOT accept the government's version that a Boeing 757 smacked into the Pentagon. However, it doesn't appear that this view is welcome here on this forum, so I'm afraid to say any more.

Leading researcher? Exactly what research has David Ray Grifter done?

Siddhartha attempts to be reasonable:

Do you feel the inclusion of missile and flyover theories strengthens Gallop's case? Or are you just cheering it because you support those theories?

But hastens to assure us he's solidly agnostic:

By the way, just to be clear, I don't adhere to any particular theory regarding what did or did not hit the Pentagon.

LOL! It's times like these that I almost feel sorry for the responsible "Truthers". Almost.

Update: The thread over there just keeps getting better and better:

Are we to pretend that internal explosions before the alleged impact didn't occur?
What the hell was going on between 9.32 and 9.38?

LOL! Yes, of course there were lots of explosions going on inside the Pentagon six minutes before Flight 77 hit.

I am talking about many honest researchers/activists who have been branded "disinfo", etc., for merely presenting *EVIDENCE* regarding holes in the government's Pentagon claims - folks such as PFT and many others who don't fall into your presumptuous box. Some of these people, including the CIT researchers, actually traveled to Arlington and gathered first hand evidence and interviews, which is way more than what many of those who have viscously attacked them have done for bringing any sort of clarity to this contentious area of 9/11 truth, I must say.

Aldo and Craig honest researchers? The guy goes on and on about "David Ray Griffen"; one would think such an acolyte would at least know how to spell the grand poobah's last name!

Labels: , ,