Robert Steele on 9/11

[8bitagent]

@8bitagent - I stayed up late the other night watching this ... I shoulda been trying to go to sleep but this film really drew me in. It's pretty convincing ... at least it has convinced me that the official-myth version of the trajectory and path of the alleged impact-plane are extremely dubious at best.

I'm not saying their hypothesis of overflight is correct but it seems like they did a very good job of establishing that the official story completely contradicts the majority of witness testimony. Now I can believe that one or two witnesses were mistaken about certain elements regarding the events of that day or any other traumatic event. But in this case, as the film points out, ALL of these witnesses testimony conform with one-another and for them to each be mistaken would mean that each of them has completely revised their memory of WHICH DIRECTION THEY WERE FACING WHEN THEY SAW THE PLANE THAT DAY. Highly unlikely.

Again, I still don't agree with the conclusion that the film-makers jump to based on these witnesses testimony. The weakest link in their chain of witnesses is the final guy who worked in the Pentagon and claims to have seen a plane (THE plane in the filmmakers theory) flying away from the other side from the explosion site.

And the whole bit with the taxi-cab driver whose cab was impaled by the downed light pole is just ... well ... BIZARRE! I mean, obviously he is mistaken and confused about where he was that day but to then take his weird off-the-record (tho recorded on audio and video) comments about being a small fish in a plot with BIG WHALES is just ... a stretch.

Other than that I HIGHLY RECOMMEND this film to researchers.

I'm glad you saw it! I mean I never even gave much a second thought to the Pentagon stuff. A natural resistance I suppose to that particular line of inquiry.

But hot damn, every single person they interviewed stakes their whole life in the pride and experience of their field. Pentagon workers, police officers, mechanics, maintenence workers. But they all swear that the plane was completely to the left of the Navy Ex/Citgo gas station, which as the filmmakers point out is a fatal contradiction.

But then we have the Doubletree Inn and Pentagon surveilence footage/frames. Downed light polls. Well respected JFK and 9/11 writer John Judge(whom Ive personally talked on the phone at length over this stuff with) who is convinced Flight 77 hit the Pentagon...especially with a close friend confirming she saw AA seats and passengers mangled in the Pentagon hole mess.

So how can these two distinct realities co-exist?

It's like all those stories that Bush Sr and company are child abusing Illuminists who go to Eyes Wide Shut like gatherings, Dick Cheney hunts people in the woods, Bush rapes people, and all this Cathy Obrien stuff
with an Aquino Omaha cherry on top.
Yet, you have people who say all of that is merely from the furtile mind of conspiracy writers.

However, again...is it possible both realities exist?
That's what strikes me about 9/11 and other events...the idea of multiple realities occurring at once. And that's the frightening rub. Is it possible
that these people really saw what they saw, and are not simply mis-remembering? Yet, is it also possible Flight 77 knocked down those polls and seered into the E-ring as we were told?

It's almost like there's this wrinkle in time, a twilight moment where
different spacial events co-exist. Where syncs swirl around like particles in the air. And the thing is, people like Cheney and those we generally ascribe as being the black handers...might genuinely not be aware of their shadow selves or these things.

[John Schröder]

Just out of interest, exactly what difference does this make to the whole "9/11 is a lie" idea ?

I mean, after all, we both know that the official story is fulla shit right ?

Oh and Mr Schroder, call me some kind of fucking idiot, but I saw the aftermath of the Pentagon crash, and wondered how the fuck could a plane do that.

I guess the "dont believe your own lying eyes" statement never ran more true.

But I digress..........as I said earlier......what difference does this make to the fact that 9/11 is a lie ?

There's no question in my mind that the official story is "fulla shit". But that doesn't mean that every part of it is wrong. I think that Jim Hoffman has very convincingly shown that the physical evidence is compatible with the crash of a large plane. And dozens of witnesses say they saw the plane hit the building. IMO it's virtually certain that a plane crashed into the Pentagon. We cannot say for certain whether it was Flight 77 or not, but there's also some evidence that suggests it was.

A Good Theory

What hit the Pentagon?

The articles I linked to in my first comment expose the CIT nonsense very thoroughly. Craig and Aldo are extremely dubious characters who have displayed atrocious behaviour towards numerous witnesses and 9/11 researchers who happen to disagree with them. They've been caught in countless lies and distortions. They are clearly not trustworthy. Their flyover theory is crap and even most people who have endorsed them seem to agree, as they've endorsed only the collecting of witness statements, but not the flyover theory. It's important to make people aware of the many, many problems with CIT. Most people are not aware and just take their presentations at face value. That's how they got their endorsements from Peter Dale Scott, Richard Gage and others. Now that Scott knows about CIT's verbal violence against good people and their lies and distortions, he has distanced himself from them. Good for him and for us.

[elfismiles]

[quote="John Schröder"][/quote]

Thanks JS.

[8bitagent]

Just out of interest, exactly what difference does this make to the whole "9/11 is a lie" idea ?

I mean, after all, we both know that the official story is fulla shit right ?

Oh and Mr Schroder, call me some kind of fucking idiot, but I saw the aftermath of the Pentagon crash, and wondered how the fuck could a plane do that.

I guess the "dont believe your own lying eyes" statement never ran more true.

But I digress..........as I said earlier......what difference does this make to the fact that 9/11 is a lie ?

There's no question in my mind that the official story is "fulla shit". But that doesn't mean that every part of it is wrong. I think that Jim Hoffman has very convincingly shown that the physical evidence is compatible with the crash of a large plane. And dozens of witnesses say they saw the plane hit the building. IMO it's virtually certain that a plane crashed into the Pentagon. We cannot say for certain whether it was Flight 77 or not, but there's also some evidence that suggests it was.

A Good Theory

What hit the Pentagon?

The articles I linked to in my first comment expose the CIT nonsense very thoroughly. Craig and Aldo are extremely dubious characters who have displayed atrocious behaviour towards numerous witnesses and 9/11 researchers who happen to disagree with them. They've been caught in countless lies and distortions. They are clearly not trustworthy. Their flyover theory is crap and even most people who have endorsed them seem to agree, as they've endorsed only the collecting of witness statements, but not the flyover theory. It's important to make people aware of the many, many problems with CIT. Most people are not aware and just take their presentations at face value. That's how they got their endorsements from Peter Dale Scott, Richard Gage and others. Now that Scott knows about CIT's verbal violence against good people and their lies and distortions, he has distanced himself from them. Good for him and for us.

I've never wavered in my belief that Flight 77 absolutely slammed into the Pentagon.

And the idea of a "flyover" or "drone plane" or "missile" always struck me as silly.

However, how can all the witnesses in the newest CIT video be wrong about the left side path?
I do find it highly dubious and sad when "truthers" pushing a pet theory have to be so antagonistic and nasty toward any naysayers.

[slimmouse]

Just out of interest, exactly what difference does this make to the whole "9/11 is a lie" idea ?

I mean, after all, we both know that the official story is fulla shit right ?

Oh and Mr Schroder, call me some kind of fucking idiot, but I saw the aftermath of the Pentagon crash, and wondered how the fuck could a plane do that.

I guess the "dont believe your own lying eyes" statement never ran more true.

But I digress..........as I said earlier......what difference does this make to the fact that 9/11 is a lie ?

There's no question in my mind that the official story is "fulla shit". But that doesn't mean that every part of it is wrong. I think that Jim Hoffman has very convincingly shown that the physical evidence is compatible with the crash of a large plane. And dozens of witnesses say they saw the plane hit the building. IMO it's virtually certain that a plane crashed into the Pentagon. We cannot say for certain whether it was Flight 77 or not, but there's also some evidence that suggests it was.

A Good Theory

What hit the Pentagon?

The articles I linked to in my first comment expose the CIT nonsense very thoroughly. Craig and Aldo are extremely dubious characters who have displayed atrocious behaviour towards numerous witnesses and 9/11 researchers who happen to disagree with them. They've been caught in countless lies and distortions. They are clearly not trustworthy. Their flyover theory is crap and even most people who have endorsed them seem to agree, as they've endorsed only the collecting of witness statements, but not the flyover theory. It's important to make people aware of the many, many problems with CIT. Most people are not aware and just take their presentations at face value. That's how they got their endorsements from Peter Dale Scott, Richard Gage and others. Now that Scott knows about CIT's verbal violence against good people and their lies and distortions, he has distanced himself from them. Good for him and for us.

Youre point being what, exactly ?

Was 9/11 a lie or was it not ?

Who gives a fuck about what happened at the pentagon ?

Why is That so important ?

I dont believe for one moment that a plane struck the pentagon ......so fucking what ?

Is 9/11 a lie ?

elf ? 8bit ? uncle tom cobberly and all ?

[Nordic]

Real disinfo is mixed with actual info.

That's how you discredit the real stuff, by mixing it with the easily disproven stuff.

Then people can throw it all away, the baby and the bathwater.

This guy is spreading disinfo. And real info.

[slimmouse]

Real disinfo is mixed with actual info.

That's how you discredit the real stuff, by mixing it with the easily disproven stuff.

Then people can throw it all away, the baby and the bathwater.

This guy is spreading disinfo. And real info.

well thats good to know....

Is 9/11 a lie or not ?

I dont believe for one minute that a plane hit the pentagon .....want to ask me more reasons for why I knoiw its a lie ?

Who gives a fuck ?

Is 9/11 a lie or isnt it ?

Its really fairly simple.

[8bitagent]

Real disinfo is mixed with actual info.

That's how you discredit the real stuff, by mixing it with the easily disproven stuff.

Then people can throw it all away, the baby and the bathwater.

This guy is spreading disinfo. And real info.

well thats good to know....

Is 9/11 a lie or not ?

I dont believe for one minute that a plane hit the pentagon .....want to ask me more reasons for why I knoiw its a lie ?

Who gives a fuck ?

Is 9/11 a lie or isnt it ?

Its really fairly simple.

No you're right.

What we saw on that ugly day was a pledge(the aftermath of flight 11 having struck WTC1), a turn(flight 175 seering into WTC2 with Michael Bay Hollywood epicness), and of course...a prestiege(the collapse of all three towers)
It was a damn magic trick, and one that neutered both the liberals and the right wingers for what seems to be permanent twilight.

I mean let's say we even entertain the idea of the "official" fable being true at face value. The fact Saudi Arabia seems balls deep in the affair and Bush covered for them spells out a conspiracy and deep complicity alone. "Who the hell do these little al Qaeda lab rats work for anyways, if we even were to accept the official narrative?" is what I ask.

[elfismiles]

Whoa whoa WHOA!

JF, did you hand transcribe your quote below? Or did you cut and paste?

Cut and paste, as bks confirms. Nice job catching that.

It said "Jewish" at http://www.wedemandtransparency.com/steele.html

I quoted it from there.

Thanks JF and BKS. Confirmed by google cache.

I didn't realize this yesterday but the site is run by Sander Hicks ... someone I've never seen spew about "da joos". In fact I've generally been impressed by his work.

[elfismiles]

Calling DreamsEnd...if you look on his schedule page :
We Demand Transparency
@ St. Marks Church in the Bowery
2nd Ave and E. 10th Street
9/12 and 9/13, 2009
isn't that where Jeremy and Theresa were staying when it all went pear shaped ?

Thanks LB23 ... have not heard from DE but this adds to the NYC/Theremy/911 Nexus.

I wonder if St. Marks would cancel the event if they knew about the changes made to Steele's recent statement?

[Nordic]

I mean let's say we even entertain the idea of the "official" fable being true at face value. The fact Saudi Arabia seems balls deep in the affair and Bush covered for them spells out a conspiracy and deep complicity alone. "Who the hell do these little al Qaeda lab rats work for anyways, if we even were to accept the official narrative?" is what I ask.

Well yeah, there ya go. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to realize this, not one bit. In fact, I swallowed the whole thing right away, immediately, then started researching who must have been behind it. I thought okay, we're gonna kick some serious ass here, and we should start with Pakistan.

Uh ..... no. They were our "allies".

That's when my first WTF happened, and it veered off into realizing the whole thing was fishy, then beyond fishy, then just a downright terrifying thing.

I quickly realized it was something completely ass-backwards from what we were being told long before anybody even brought up the question about the building's collapses.

It seems so obvious, and, hell, there's nothing "seeming" about it, it IS obvious, but what I find so disturbingly fascinating at this point is how ferociously people want to attach, emotionally, to the "official story", no matter what the actual evidence shows them. That's when I realized the whole thing was really a Psyops operation. And quite possibly the most powerful psyops operation of all time.

So I started looking into psyops, and, well, down the rabbit hole you go.

In a way, everything is psyops, even war. You try to convince your "enemy" to give up. War is nothing but terrorism. Which is why a "war on terror" is really nothing but a big, ugly joke.

[8bitagent]

It seems so obvious, and, hell, there's nothing "seeming" about it, it IS obvious, but what I find so disturbingly fascinating at this point is how ferociously people want to attach, emotionally, to the "official story", no matter what the actual evidence shows them. That's when I realized the whole thing was really a Psyops operation. And quite possibly the most powerful psyops operation of all time.

So I started looking into psyops, and, well, down the rabbit hole you go.

In a way, everything is psyops, even war. You try to convince your "enemy" to give up. War is nothing but terrorism. Which is why a "war on terror" is really nothing but a big, ugly joke.

Ain't that the irony? War IS definitely terrorism. The amount of civilians the US government has MURDERED in Afghanistan for no good reason is definitely mass terrorism.

Yeah it's weird that FINALLY some of the liberals/Democrats are finally starting to question if we should be in Afghanistan...you know, tens of thousands of dead Afghan villagers later.
They try to put the 9/11 clowns on trial at Gitmo for "war crimes"...Im thinking is dropping white phospherus weaponry and 2 ton daisy cutters on civilians ALSO "war crimes", if not more so?

You know, it's ironic your Pakistan comment. Bush said he'd make no distinction between those who finance al Qaeda and those who provide a safehaven for them. Well, wasn't a lot of the 9/11 money traced back to Dubai, Saudi Arabia and elements within Pakistan?

And why are people like Ali Mohamed, Marmoun Darkazanli, etc protected from prosecution? Its like the West goes after the low level and mid level al Qaeda operatives, but protects the higher level operatives.

9/11 is a powerful spell. People attach so much emotionally, and wouldn't you say that 9/11 *is* the ultimate litmus test? Ive met people who believe in all sorts of government coverups, the JFK stuff, aliens/UFOs, etc...and people who know all about CIA shenanigans, lie-based wars,
etc...but oh no...9/11, don't go there! That was all "pissed off Muslims and blowback".

John Pilger, Howard Zinn, Ron Paul, and others you'd THINK would disagree with the official story fully support the "al Qaeda masterminded and orchestrated by themselves" notion.

9/11 was knocked the wind out of the sails of the 1999-2001 strong anti IMF-World Bank-WTO-activist left...from which they NEVER recovered.
When you have dyed in the wool "leftists" supporting endless war in Afghanistan and strikes in Pakistan...you know something is wrong.

Eight years on, and most people would rather not even entertain the idea that there are unanswered questions. Post any comments questioning 9/11, and watch how fast youll be banned from DailyKos, CrooksAndLiars, CommonDreams, MotherJones, FireDogLake, HuffingtonPost, etc. Its like RaWstory is the ONLY real progressive site next to anything Jeremy Schaill is involved in.

Government funding the child sex slavery-arms smuggling-civilian killing Blackwater? Oh yes. Government lying about 9/11? Thats crazy!

[John Schröder]

I do find it highly dubious and sad when "truthers" pushing a pet theory have to be so antagonistic and nasty toward any naysayers.

I absolutely agree with that. And you're not going to find anybody in the movement who's more antagonistic and nasty toward any naysayers than CIT. Everybody who criticizes them is immediately labeled as a "detractor" and sooner or later as an "operative", not to mention the foul language they use. Madlene Zakhem, a witness who happens to (possibly) be Jewish and who doesn't confirm the north path, is called a potential Mossad agent and her testimony is dismissed as not credible. Why? Because she's wearing a crucifix, although she's (possibly!) Jewish. Therefore she cannot be trusted. This is a perfect example for how bizarre and atrocious their conduct is. That's how they come to their claim that there are no south side witnesses: they've dismissed all of the numerous south side witnesses for bogus reasons like the one they've used against Madlene Zakhem. They could also dismiss their witnesses for similar reasons, but of course they don't. All of their witnesses are 100 percent credible, even if they contradict each other and sometimes even themselves.

However, how can all the witnesses in the newest CIT video be wrong about the left side path?

First of all, we only have what CIT shows us. And since they are clearly not trustworthy, we should be very careful with these selected edited statements. We don't know if they've found contradicting witnesses that they simply left out. We don't know what they said to the witnesses and what they left out from their statements. I would bet a relatively high sum of money that Craig started the interviews like this: "EVERYBODY we talked to placed the plane north of the citgo. Now, where did you see it?" It's well known that eyewitnesses are susceptible to suggestion, so this would make it more likely for them to adjust their memory of the flight path to the north. After all, we're only talking about a slight deviation of some degrees. And these witnesses saw the plane that came out of nowhere for them for only one or two seconds. They were interviewed years after the fact and so their memory of the event has probably diminished very much. And, suprisingly, studies have shown that the confidence of a witness doesn't make it more likely that he or she is correct. It's not so rare that eyewitnesses say they're absolutely certain about something and it later turns out that they were wrong. So much for CIT's favourite word "EMPHATICALLY" - some of the witnesses "emphatically" support the north path, they say. Well, they could also emphatically be wrong.

According to an interesting paper by Jennifer Overbeck, it's a big problem that juries tend to overestimate eyewitnesses. Many, many false convictions apparently result from that. Here are some excerpts from this paper about the general reliability of eyewitnesses:

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic. ... 3070#33070

I understand why people like Peter Dale Scott are impressed by the eyewitness accounts that CIT has collected. But it is entirely possible that the witnesses could really just be mistaken about the exact flight path (again, we're only talking about a slight deviation of a few degrees). Somebody who's more credible than Craig and Aldo should interview 500 people who were north and south of the official path (CIT only interviewed people north of the official path - all others are, according to them, irrelevant). Only then could we draw any meaningful conclusions.

[slimmouse]

[I understand why people like Peter Dale Scott are impressed by the eyewitness accounts that CIT has collected. But it is entirely possible that the witnesses could really just be mistaken about the exact flight path (again, we're only talking about a slight deviation of a few degrees). Somebody who's more credible than Craig and Aldo should interview 500 people who were north and south of the official path (CIT only interviewed people north of the official path - all others are, according to them, irrelevant). Only then could we draw any meaningful conclusions.

So, John.....in your best estimation, is the official story of 9/11 a complete crock of crap or not ?

I can only assume you understand that to be so.

I dont believe for one fucking moment that a plane hit the pentagon. But I know for a fact that the official nonsense of 9/11 is a lie .

Why is that a problem to a twoofer like me ?

[slimmouse]

[I understand why people like Peter Dale Scott are impressed by the eyewitness accounts that CIT has collected. But it is entirely possible that the witnesses could really just be mistaken about the exact flight path (again, we're only talking about a slight deviation of a few degrees). Somebody who's more credible than Craig and Aldo should interview 500 people who were north and south of the official path (CIT only interviewed people north of the official path - all others are, according to them, irrelevant). Only then could we draw any meaningful conclusions.

So, John.....in your best estimation, is the official story of 9/11 a complete crock of crap or not ?

I can only assume you understand that to be so.

I dont believe for one fucking moment that a plane hit the pentagon. But I know for a fact that the official nonsense of 9/11 is a lie .

Why is that a problem to a twoofer like me ?