Richard Gage Admits He Has Poor Judgment

There has been a bit of a troofer civil war going over the CIT promoted no-plane-at-the-Pentagon theory, where the opponents of this contend that anyone promoting this theory must be some sort of COINTEL disinfo operative. Richard Gage, one of the more prominent appeal to authority fallacy characters in the movement has caused quite a controversy by endorsing their viewpoint. Now, in response to this criticism he has now unendorsed, them.

In early 2009, I watched the “National Security Alert” video by the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) where recollections of 10 eyewitness accounts of the attack on the Pentagon were presented (of many more that were interviewed). These accounts included the witnesses’ recollection of the path being taken by the plane prior to impact. The path that many of them recalled was to the north of the former CITGO gas station. Based on these few accounts CIT presented its case that the plane flew over the Pentagon since the damage trail was not consistent with the north path.

My main focus relative to 9/11 had been on the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers. I had not been able to spend much time on the Pentagon issue. I was initially impressed by CIT’s presentation and, more than a year and a half ago, provided a short statement of support for their efforts.

It took him nearly two years to figure out that they were a bunch of idiots? This is someone who by his own account studies 9/11 full-time? His excuse that he doesn't focus on the Pentagon is ridiculous. Hell, it took Pat and I about 10 minutes to figure out how idiotic this theory is, and we are just a couple of part-time bloggers. Gage considers himself one of the foremost authorities in the world on these issues, yet he still endorses theories which he himself admits are dishonestly created and not factually based. Pathetic.

Give that Man a Cigar!

CIT's pretty much burned up all their credibility with the "responsible" wing of the Truthers. JONES, David Chandler, and others have officially denounced the flyover theory as the nuttiness that it is.

So the question now becomes, when does Richard Gage rowback his endorsement of CIT's video, National Security Alert? Remember, that's the video that Gage gushed about:

"The exhaustive effort by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of Citizen Investigation Team to contact, record, document, and analyze numerous first-hand eyewitness accounts of the actual flight path of the airliner at the Pentagon on 9/11 has been long overdue, but worth waiting for. The evidence they have uncovered and compiled in their DVD "National Security Alert" deserves serious attention - particularly in light of what we now know about the explosive destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises that day."

Over at Truth Action, speculation is running as to why Gage has not rescinded those statements. My money is on this guess:

So here's my opinion on what I think I "know" to be true...

You don't want to alienate a portion of your audience and potentially jeopardize AE911Truths steady and lucrative income streams.

Yup. Box Boy, like Griffin before him, is a big tent kind of guy; he wants everybody inside his tent as sustaining members.

J.O.N.E.S. Back from the Dead

The Journal of 9/11 Studies, which at one time announced that it was no longer going to publish, since truthers supposedly had made so many inroads to mainstream scientific journals that it had worked itself out of a job, has posted its first paper in 9 months. This paper, brace yourself, argues that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Gasp. Leave it up to the truthers to take 9 years to come up with the conclusion that everyone else figured out within about 20 minutes of the event. Next up on the horizon, a scientific study concluding that water is wet, and the Pope is Catholic....

All kidding aside though, I am not one for predictions, but I will predict that the next year or two in the nutjob community will evolve into a Civil War between the no-planer CIT, Rob Balsamo Pilots, David Ray Griffin, Loose Change crowd and the Planer Journal and 911 Blogger crowd, with the reality agnostics like Gage's group switching sides like a fickle Afghan warlord whenever the balance of power suits them.

Hey, at least schisms are entertaining. These guys have been pretty boring lately.

Update: I suppose I should also point out, since troofers will inevitably argue that Legge is one of the rational scientific fact-based members of the truth movement, that in a previous paper he, among other things, argued for those magical invisible GI Joe anti-aircraft systems hidden in the roof of the Pentagon. The paper has since changed of course, since even after passing "peer review", the paper underwent 7 rounds of revision.

I'm Okay, You're a Government Disinfo Plant

Or, the continuing paranoia of the "responsible" Troofers. Fruitcake David Chandler writes about the CIT-heads:

Why, then, the strenuous push to focus the attention of the Truth Movement onto the Pentagon? Does it sound too cynical to suggest that we are being intentionally set up? We must remember that we are in a situation where nearly 3000 people were murdered in a day not counting the thousands who have died since, and millions killed in the resulting wars. If agencies of the US government really are complicit, which the evidence shows to be the case, then the people who really know what happened are playing for keeps. Any movement with real potential for arriving at incriminating truth will certainly be highly infiltrated. This is not paranoia: it is a simple fact. The 9/11 Truth Movement must respond by policing itself and holding itself to the highest standards of intellectual rigor.

A bit late for that, and of course Chandler is hardly an exemplar of the highest standards of intellectual rigor.

Note as well that Chandler goes after the easy target in CIT. There's no mention of the guru of the 9-11 Troof Movement, David Ray Griffin. Grifter routinely gives credence to the "what hit the Pentagon" nutbars. How is that any different from CIT?

Zwicker Reactions

I gotta roll my eyes sometimes. The folks over at Truth Action are appalled at
Zwicker's "endorsation" of CIT, and angry that he has accused them of being agents:

Zwicker has openly accused TruthAction of being run by ‘infiltrators.’

So how do they respond? If you guessed with paranoia and accusations, score five points:

Remember all the energy that was being put into relentlessly pushing Space Beams and TV Fakery?

Remember how that just kind of stopped right around when CIT came onto the scene?

yeah - right after the election

and:

this was always the thing that caught my eye - how they seemed to work in concert and had talking points that they pushed in seperate yet suspiciously coordinated ways.

Zwicker Endorses CIT

Gee, if a Steering Committee Member of 9-11 Troof dot org supports it, maybe there's something to this CIT nonsense. Or maybe the fruitcakes at 9-11 Troof dot org are just as nutty as the fruitcakes at CIT?

Update: Troy joins CIT!


I mean, if they can convince Troy, that's it! I'm getting my Ameros and heading to Tahiti to drink mai-tais with David L. Griscom!

CIT for the Prosecution

Arcterus, one of the more intelligent Truthers, writes about the problems CIT would experience if they were running the case for the prosecution.

Let's start with their own witnesses being cross-examined with each other. CIT's own witnesses state that the plane impacted the building. Their case for claiming the physical evidence was faked revolves around the testimony that the flight path as on the north side of CITGO. They would HAVE to find some way to convince the jury that part of the testimony was right and another part was wrong without directly saying so. Now even if they made this possible, invalidating a witness discredits their ENTIRE testimony. Even if you're only arguing against part of it, it only makes the entire testimony look bad. It's so unlikely it might as well be said to be impossible that an entire jury would accept a testimony to be PARTIALLY accurate. They would almost definitely disregard it. Even if, by some miracle, each and every one of them thought in this way, that would go out the window upon cross-examination. Take, for example, Sergeant Lagasse. CIT says that Sergeant Lagasse giving irrefutably wrong locations of the taxi cab and light poles actually supports their theory. Well, that's all fine and dandy, but back in the realm of reality, all it means is that he's WRONG. And if he's wrong, it means the entire testimony could be wrong. That and, of course, they wouldn't be allowed to say why they think it supports their conclusion. They can not speculate.

I particularly like this part:

In short, this means "Every contact leaves a trace." Are the implications of this clear? Physical evidence is always correct, because it can not be wrong. IF the physical evidence was faked, then there'd be some sign, some EVIDENCE that it was faked. Does everyone understand? You can only trump physical evidence with PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

Were the light poles blown away by explosives? Then there should be some explosive residue. Was that segment of the Pentagon blown up? Then like all bombs, there must have been some shrapnel. Were the plane parts planted? Then it should be clear to forensic examiners that the locations of the plane parts are all wrong, that they flew in the wrong trajectory, that they weren't traveling at the right velocity, anything to suggest that they didn't originate from a high-speed plane crash. Did the examiners miss all of this? If so, it doesn't matter. It means CIT has no case here. If the evidence was missed by those examining the scene, there's nothing that can be done about that. It still means there's no documented, verifiable physical evidence with which to suggest that the whole scene was set up.

Indeed. Of course, if we try to suppose that Professor Jones is in the witness chair, and Arcterus the prosecutor, I'd love to hear this part:

Arcterus: Did you obtain confirmation that the red-gray chips were thermite?

Jones: Well, we sent them to a guy in France, who confirmed the existence of the chips, although not in the quantity we found them, and he discovered they had been deactivated...

Arcterus: Do you have any evidence that they had been deactivated?

Jones: Errr, well, that is to say....

It is Disinfo about Disinfo!

Over on 9/11 Flogger it has been announced that the CIT no-plane kooks are following in the footsteps of David Ray Griffin and touring Europe. This of course has woken up their sleepy little burg and led to the usual battles over whether they are government disinfo plants.

As part of this argument someone posted a video called the CIT-Deception mocking them, but ironically they included the audio of me lecturing Jason Bermas about the book Firefight. The ironic thing is though, Bermas is not in any way affiliated with the CIT kooks, he belongs to the more mainstream part of the kookery!

Update: This is the original video that they lifted the audio of me from.

More Problems for the CIT-Heads: Paik Testimony

Sometimes the Troofers do good debunking, but only on the parts of the fantasy that they don't agree with personally.

There are problems with some elements of Shinki and Ed Paik’s accounts, but CIT has compounded these by omitting or distorting elements of Ed and Shinki’s accounts, while selectively interpreting and hyping other elements. CIT has a history of doing this, they’ve consistently done it in ways that support their theory about ‘north path’ and ‘Pentagon flyover’, and their doing so- while accusing their critics of being ‘agents’ and ‘disinformation’- has created controversy and undermined their own credibility.

More South of Citgo Witnesses Ignored by CIT

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, to discover that the CIT-heads are full of it with regard to the account of Dawn Vignola.

At the time, there was only vacant land and buildings under construction in between their building and the Pentagon, and these did not obstruct their view of the heliport. Since then, shorter buildings have been built in that area, but they still can still clearly see the upper floors of the Pentagon. In person everything appears much larger and clearer than it does on the accompanying video; when the camera is zoomed in, it actually gives a better idea of how large everything appears in person. Dawn and Tim had a clear view of the impact side and the airspace over the Pentagon, and would have seen the plane fly over- or seen something else hit- if that had happened. In addition, Dan’s office across the Potomac River had a view of the airspace over the Pentagon; he was looking at it while on the phone with Dawn, and saw the black smoke rising, but did not see a plane flying over or away from the Pentagon.

Good job by Erik Larson, who is a "Truther", but is not delusional like the creeps from CIT.

What's Worse Than Debating the CIT-Heads?

Debating the CIT-heads and losing. John Bursill takes on Craig Ranke in a 2-1/2 hour slug-fest (in the sense that both debaters are slugs), and admits that he lost.

This is a debate no one else would have, so once again I get left carrying the bag:) By the way Craig will be viewed the winner (congratulations)....but I hope all are benefited by this sometimes painful process. I do not represent any others in this debate, and strongly defend the work of Michael Wolsey and Jim Hoffman et al as important and valid although I accept it could of been done better.

Adam Syed, a CIT-head himself, engages in a little victory dance at 9-11 Flogger, and reveals himself as a pinhead. For instance:

Craig explains his line of reasoning and uses one of Richard Gage's lecture points as an analogy. This lecture point concerns statistics and probability. With the controlled demolition proof: There are 10 (or more) characteristics of the 'collapses' that are characteristic to only controlled demolition. Gage makes the point that: Let's just say that ONE of those characteristics MIGHT have a (generous) 1 in 100 chance of occurring in a "natural" collapse without explosives. Well, for TWO of those characteristics to occur without CD would already be a 1 in 10,000 chance, meaning quite low indeed. But for ALL TEN of these features to occur without CD is 1 in 100^10 (more correctly spelled 1 x 10^20). In other words, zero, for all practical purposes.

Similarly, at the Pentagon we have 13 eyewitnesses who independently corroborate each other in placing the plane on the north side of the gas station. Of these 13, let's say there's a 1/100 chance of one of them being wrong. But the odds of two of them both being wrong about the plane's location w/r to Citgo is 1/10,000, etc. The probably that all 13 witnesses are wrong about the plane being on the north side is, for all practical purposes, zero.

So much nonsense in those two little paragraphs! Gage always ignores that there are many, many characteristics of controlled demolition that were not present at the World Trade Center. For starters, there were no loud explosions.

Second, there is no way that saying there is only a 1 in 100 chance of any individual North of Citgo witness being wrong is generous. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, which is why the essential message of every episode of CSI is that when the physical evidence contradicts the eyewitnesses, go with the physical evidence.

And playing the "what are the odds" game cuts against the CIT-heads anyway, as I pointed out months ago. Let's really be generous and say that the odds are 70% that each witness is right and 30% that he is wrong. Adam and Craig would like us to focus on the idea that the odds of them all being wrong are vanishingly small; 30% to the 14th power, which works out to be about 1 in 20 million.

But let's flip that around and ask, what are the odds that they are all right? That's 70% to the 14th power, which may not be vanishingly small, but it's about 0.6% or about 1 in 150. And that's before we get into questions like whether Edward Paik's flight path is significantly different than the "official story" or whether Officer Legasse was playing games with the Troofers.

Note as well this key point in Bursill's post:

Even though it was my understanding that all 13/14 witnesses CIT site believe a plane hit the Pentagon, Craig also now disputes this but would not be drawn on the number...

Of course Ranke disputes that, because if he admits it, his whole "what are the odds" game can be played against him. What are the odds that the eyewitnesses were wrong about the plane hitting the Pentagon? Obviously an order of magnitude or more lower than whether they're wrong about the plane's position vis-a-vis the Citgo station.

Box Boy Gage: Just Because I Endorsed the CIT Video Doesn't Mean I Believe It

Yes, those words like "worth waiting for," and "deserves serious attention," don't mean that Gage is actually a flyover fruitcake.

Peter Dale Scott Tries to Rowback His Endorsement of CIT-Heads

Apparently he was taking quite a bit of flak for it:

I must say that I am disappointed by number of ad hominem attacks I have received. I do not believe one incoming letter so far has dealt with the substance of what the Turnpike witnesses claimed and I endorsed.

Here's his claim:

I have not endorsed the flyover theory for Flight 77, and I do not personally believe it. All I endorsed was their assemblage of witnesses who said that Flight 77 approached the Pentagon on the north side of the Pike. I do not draw the conclusions from their testimony that CIT does. But I believe that the testimony needs to be seriously considered by those trying to find out what actually happened.

So the obvious question is what does PDS believe actually happened? That the plane approached from North of the Citgo and flew into the Pentagon? But if that's the case, isn't the light pole damage out of place? Doesn't that mean that the exit hole in the C-Ring is mispositioned?

You see the problem? You can't endorse North of Citgo, and then try to say but you don't believe in the flyover, because if the plane really was NoC, then it could not have caused the physical damage seen. So Peter Dale Scott's attempted rowback on this is yet another massive fail.

None Dare Call It Science

Frank Legge continues to post in his Journal of 911 Studies (he is one of the editors) with this short paper on the Pentagon. In typical conspiracy theory logic he argues that a plane probably did hit the Pentagon, which proves there was a conspiracy. A lack of falsifiability is the hallmark of crank science.

The position I hold is simple. In answer to the question "What hit the Pentagon?" I say I don't know and attempt to turn the discussion to the more fundamental question "Why was the Pentagon hit?". It should not have been. It should have been well defended. Flight 77, a Boeing 757, was the third plane hijacked, so there was ample time to confirm that real hijackings were taking place, not a war game, and ample time to send up fighters to intercept, as is the normal procedure. One presumes that there were also anti-aircraft defenses
round the Pentagon, as it is the hub of the military machine.

Of course good science isn't based on evidence or observation, but unsubstantiated presumptions. Later on he continues:

The most logical inference from the Pentagon attack evidence is that the perpetrators of 9/11 knew that there would be many members of the public who would become suspicious for one reason or another. The perpetrators realized that a powerful technique for weakening the arguments of the skeptics would be to have them arguing against one another. Like a good playwright they balanced contradictory evidence to keep the public guessing. On cue the media critics gave the NIST report high praise and we were left guessing about the actions
and motives of the people behind the curtain.

This probably won't make him popular with the CIT people, since he claims they are being misled, but that it is the evil NWO planting evidence that is the culprit, not their own warped thought process.

Update: I should also mention this section, which could be the textbook example of "The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy". I always shake my head at the fact that the troofers insist that Hani Hanjour could not have navigated successfully to the Pentagon, despite the fact that it is one of the largest buildings in the world, but then once he did, then he must have targetted the area he it because of its specific characteristics, not because it just happened to be from the side he was coming from.

Why did the plane aim for the reinforced section, which still had few occupants due to the recent renovation? Would al Qaeda have wanted to minimize casualties? Why did it not hit the relatively weak roof? There were auditors in the damaged section who were investigating the loss of trillions of military dollars. Most of the auditors died, which has led to considerable speculation regarding motive. Who would wish to kill auditors?

Grifter, Gage and Asner Endorse CIT-Heads

Yeah, I know, Griffin's an idiot, and Gage is a buffoon, but Ed Asner? One of the proposed commissioners on the NYCCAN ballot initiative says this:

“Citizen Investigation Team have presented a reasoned, and methodical look at witness testimony the day the Pentagon was attacked on Sept. 11th. As stated in their presentation, National Security Alert, it behooves every citizen of conscience to question the offical story after viewing CIT's labors towards seeking the truth of what happened that day in 2001".

Richard Gage:

"The exhaustive effort by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of Citizen Investigation Team to contact, record, document, and analyze numerous first-hand eyewitness accounts of the actual flight path of the airliner at the Pentagon on 9/11 has been long overdue, but worth waiting for. The evidence they have uncovered and compiled in their DVD "National Security Alert" deserves serious attention - particularly in light of what we now know about the explosive destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises that day."

David Ray Griffin:

“This new film by CIT is far more professionally produced than their previous efforts. It is also more convincing, given the addition of more witnesses, so that they now have a total of 13 witnesses reporting that the actual flight path of the plane that approached the Pentagon was drastically different from the official flight path (which would have been needed if the plane was to knock over the felled light poles and to strike the Pentagon at the designated spot and angle). This part of the film's thesis is now established beyond a reasonable doubt. The film does not establish its related claim---that the airliner pulled up and flew over the Pentagon---as clearly, but it does make a good case for it. One of the film's most valuable parts is a scene in which cab driver Lloyde England, who otherwise gamely tried to maintain the truth of his testimony supporting the official story, admitted that the Pentagon operation had been planned by powerful people with lots of money. I am pleased to be able to recommend this important film with enthusiasm."

Apparently the CIT theory is getting more popular among Troofers; as I have pointed out before CIT is supposed to make presentations at Lukefest 2009 as well as Sander Hicks' Real Accountability Confab. Jim Hoffman and his wife, Victoria Ashley have put up extensive debunkings of the flyover theory. Of course, since they're a pair of fruitcakes themselves, they indulge themselves in a little, "there are still unanswered questions about the Pentagon" whataboutery, and Ashley goes into a particularly useless digression about TWA Flight 800.

The CIT Faithful

Continue to do battle with the Truth Action folks. What I am constantly amazed at is the ability for Stefan, the CIT groupie, to rationalize the flyover theory. Consider this:

The first thing I’d like to address is this notion that witnesses are more likely to get the flight path of the plane wrong than whether the plane hit the building.

It does not sound very likely to me, and I’m sure to a lot of people. The part of the experience from seeing the plane until the impact was in some cases 10-15 seconds. The point of “impact” was an instance. When virtually their entire eye witness experience involved watching a plane fly through the air, and just a split second of it involved a frightening and traumatic instant, I personally have no qualms whatsoever with saying the complete opposite is the case.

No, of course he has no qualms about that; without that leap of faith the CIT scenario crashes and burns.

Arcterus said the North side approach is wrong, meaning he agrees that all the witnesses were wrong about a simple left right judgement, and that they were all wrong in such a way as to corroborate each other, and that they were all so stupid they rejected the correct flight path even when prompted with it.

Again, the supposed "fact" that all the witnesses agreed about the North Side approach and "corroborate" each other is actually a strong indication that CIT is not showing all their witnesses. Just on the basis of the odds, one or two of the witnesses should have gotten it "wrong"; the fact that they did not is a strong indication that CIT is playing games with their witnesses.

1) Logically, there is no damage to the Pentagon that could be ascribed to a Boeing hitting from the NoC flight path. I know you have said there is, but come on mate, please. I realise that the notion that a plane from the SoC path could just could in a million to one shot cause that damage, is acceptable. It is not what you would expect and we all know that.

Is he seriously claiming that there's only a one-in-a-million chance that a SoC approach would cause that damage? Or is he suggesting that there's only a 1,000,000-1 chance that it was an SoC approach?

2) There is no conceivable logical reason for faking one set of flight path damage, planting light poles and so on and then driving the plane into the Pentagon anyway.

He's right, you know. If we assume that the light pole evidence was faked, then it makes no sense to fly the plane into the Pentagon. And how does he know that the light pole evidence was faked? Because the plane didn't fly into the Pentagon. It's circular logic.

I also love that he claims to be just arguing this "evidence", but throws around ad hominems like frisbees:

Arabesque is rapidly becoming a comedy show.

Mistakenly thinking Arabesque was more honest than in fact he was....

Back to the Big Tent? Blogger Allows Pro-CIT Post

I wish Reprehensor would make up his little mind.

Citizen Investigation Team offers this compilation of independent verifiable evidence exposing the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon as a psychological black operation of deception. Consider this a non-violent call to action as everyone is encouraged to copy and distribute this conclusive evidence to media, political, and authority figures while first requesting, and then demanding a response. Inaction by authorities and media to this information amounts to a crime of obstruction of justice so it's time they are held accountable.

Weren't the CIT boys and their fans banned from 9-11 Blogger? What was the reasoning behind that explained by Reprehensor at the time? Oh, yeah, one of the biggest CIT-groupies, Domenic DiMaggio had this to say about Rep:

"Your support of government agent John Farmer and toilet scrubber Adam Larson and some obsessed clown named Arabesque exposes you for the gatekeeper you are Reprehensor. Let me guess you're just another anonymous clown in the gatekeeping world. Perhaps one of Randi's kids from the JREF Forum posing as a truther."

I'm trying to cooperate with the supposedly sensible "Truthers" by not highlighting the CIT nuttery, but I guess this stuff is now back up there with that peer-reviewed paper in terms of evidence of inside jobby job. Of course, maybe Rep's just bowing to reality here; Aldo and Craig have been invited to make their presentation at the WAC/Jamieson summit this anniversary, and who's missing? Where's Steven Earl Jones? Where's Kevin Ryan? Where's Neils Harrit? After hearing all year that this peer-reviewed paper is going to end up convicting every member of Congress on the charge of misprision of treason, suddenly "the evidence" that they've been presenting with great flourish to various leaders is not even going to be discussed; instead we're getting the Pentagon Flyover theory and Daniel Hopsicker's long-debunked claims about Amanda Keller.

Of course, what's the real problem here? After three years of following these people I should realize that they are not going to do the sensible thing. Thermite, as nutty as it is, is so 2006. Pentagon Flyover is new, it's exciting, it's groovy, at least to those who don't remember Dick Eastman. It almost seems time to hear about P-Tech all over again.

Lineup Announced for Les Fest 2009

Hoo-boy are some people going to be grumbling when they catch sight of the 9-11-09 festivities.

Daniel Sunjata - Activist and Star of FX's Rescue Me

Richard Gage - Founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Erik Lawyer - Founder of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth

Ellen Brown - Creator of the popular blog Web of Debt.

CITIZEN INVESTIGATION TEAM - Aldo Marquis and the PentaCon film project

William Pepper, Esq. - Prolific Attorney and Author.

Kevin Barrett - 9/11 Truth Activist and author of Truth Jihad.

CIT, and Barrett? These guys just don't seem to understand how easy they make it for us.

Not Much Out There...

I keep checking the usual suspects and there isn't much to talk about. The folks over at Truth Action noticed today that Reprehensor has apparently backtracked on his pledge not to let the CIT-heads darken 9-11 Blogger's door. Unfortunately I covered that story last week.

Steven Jones apparently sent out an email to his troops telling them that he's kicking some Dr Greening butt in their online debate over the "Active Thermitic Material" paper. In fact, if you've been reading here, you'll know that Dr Greening has been providing the boot in that exchange while Jones shouldn't be sitting down anytime soon.

CIT-Heads Prove that Memories Are Vague After 7-1/2 Years

A laughable attempt by the CIT heads to claim that Lloyde admitted being in on the plot. Lloyde does seem to be a little off his rocker (like everybody else in the film); let's remember that in one of the videos, Craig and Aldo found a copy of a David Icke book in his cab.

Can we get some help from Stew or John-Michael on this one? Is this one of the crazy theories or is this something legitimate that requires debunking. I don't want to put any effort into this if our "rebunkers" are just going to say it's disinformation.

Update: Well, well. It turns out this got posted over at 9-11 Blogger despite Reprehensor's supposed ban on CIT theories and the response has been very positive. Perhaps it is time to remind Reprehensor why he initially banned CIT in the first place? It was comments like these from CIT groupie Domenic Dimaggio:

"Your support of government agent John Farmer and toilet scrubber Adam Larson and some obsessed clown named Arabesque exposes you for the gatekeeper you are Reprehensor. Let me guess you're just another anonymous clown in the gatekeeping world. Perhaps one of Randi's kids from the JREF Forum posing as a truther."