Army Center for Military History FOIA Complete

[beachnut]

You have demonstrated no such thing.

You have no idea if you have the right name, or if you can find that person even if you do, or if he will talk once reached.

CIT on the other hand have proved that they HAVE made this effort many times over with many witnesses.

In fact you have no clue whether or not they have already made that effort with this particular witness. You are too cowardly to even sign up at their forum and discuss the issue with them direct as jhunter did.

This is because you know that logic, reason, AND evidence is firmly in their favor when you have nothing but speculation and assumptions regarding this single account.

If you refuse to even ATTEMPT to obtain any evidence you have no business suggesting this is the case with CIT particularly when they shown many times over how this is not the case.

Great.
Explain why Boger seeing Flight 77 impact the Pentagon supports a flyover?

Boger was a CIT witness re-interviewed by CIT. Boger told them he watched Flight 77 impact the Pentagon. This interview by CIT refutes the flyover delusion.

Explain please?

Next, the DNA from the passengers was found in the Pentagon. The passenger are proven to be on Flight 77, and the DNA proves 77 impacted the Pentagon.
Explain why DNA from Flight 77 in the Pentagon supports a flyover?

RADAR data from multiple sites have no unknown aircraft leaving the Pentagon after Flight 77 impacts! Multiple independent sites!
Explain why this supports the flyover delusion made up by CIT?

Many people saw 77 fly by and knock down lampposts. No body saw anyone plant lampposts, no body saw lamppost on the ground before Flight 77 knocked them down!
Explain how 77 knocking down lampposts support a flyover?

Flight 77 was found in pieces in the Pentagon.
Explain how finding Flight 77 in the Pentagon supports a flyover?

There are many records of witnesses in this database CIT has to ignore and call liars for their delusion.

CIT ignores witnesses and twists selected witness statements to poorly support their lies, delusions, and conclusions made up out of ignorance.

FDR, RADAR, Lampposts, Flight 77, DNA; hard evidence Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon. CIT makes up lies and fails to support them by twisting testimony poorly.

So far CIT has failed to put a dent in the physical evidence so they ignore it by saying the FAA, the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force, the DoD, government workers, Firemen, the Military, Doctors, Forensic Scientists, anyone who worked on the Pentagon disaster are all liars.

CIT delusions only live on because people who don’t understand reality repeat them and blindly believe hearsay, lies and fantasy are evidence to support their shallow beliefs in the delusions of CIT.

This database is enough to refute all CIT can make up! Hopefully those who believe CIT will one day be visited by the clue bird.

 

[jhunter1163]

TLB:

I have no quarrel with Craig personally. He was, to his credit, entirely open to the protocol I proposed. It was the vehemence of the reaction of the rest of the CIT board that convinced me that interviews would be a wasted exercise.

You both agreed that 14 independent first-hand definitive SoC witness accounts would effectively refute the north side approach evidence presented by CIT and you confidently stated that you would make a significant effort to obtain this evidence.

We did agree to this. However, CIT's definition of an "independent first-hand definitive SoC witness" would likely exclude pretty much anyone previously contacted by any media outlet. That would make it tough for me to come up with the witnesses unless I went to the DC area myself, which is impractical for me.

Also, since my proposal in August there has been other work produced, notably by Mangoose and 911files, that answered the questions that I did have regarding the Pentagon events to my satisfaction.

There's really nothing left to debate or discuss. Craig and the rest of CIT deserve credit for sticking to their guns, but there comes a point when one has to admit that the battle is lost. That point has arrived for CIT.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

IIRC, CIT refuses to release any information about their interviews with any SOC eyewitnesses.

You do not remember correctly.

CIT has never stated such a thing.

Nobody they talked to said the plane was SoC.

 

[bonavada]

If you refuse to even ATTEMPT to obtain any evidence you have no business suggesting this is the case with CIT particularly when they shown many times over how this is not the case.

My business is no business of yours.

I am not the man propounding a theory. I just sit here enjoying watching you trying to squirm out of an overwhelming abundance of evidence countering the NOC nonsense. You chose to come on this forum and defend CIT, perhaps you should stop whining like a whipped dog everytime you bump into some opposition. I have only pointed out a glaring lack of principle and consistency in CIT's methods of evidence gathering.

I have no intention of publishing any witness names I might have or might uncover. The disgustingly reprehensible way witnesses (and victims of that day) are treated by CIT is enough to put off any decent person from doing so. I am happy in the knowledge that I am honest and forthright here and that I have never disrespected any victims of 9-11. I am happy in my belief that American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on 9-11 and that Al Quaeda-backed terorists carried out the crime. I am happy that I disbelieve all of CIT's error-ridden, badly researched, amateurly conducted, self-aggrandising "journalism" about that day.

I'm ****ing happy happy happy.

BV

 

[lapman]

You do not remember correctly.

CIT has never stated such a thing.

Nobody they talked to said the plane was SoC.

How would you know if you're not either of them? Were you there for each and every one of the interviews and each attempt to contact the 120 eyewitnesses?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

I have no quarrel with Craig personally. He was, to his credit, entirely open to the protocol I proposed. It was the vehemence of the reaction of the rest of the CIT board that convinced me that interviews would be a wasted exercise.

That is a cop-out and you know it. You know there is plenty of reason for members there to doubt the honesty of your intentions as a well known member of this forum who has bashed them for months. But Craig gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked the other members to do the same. You were well aware of this before you finally agreed to move forward in your quest.

We did agree to this. However, CIT's definition of an "independent first-hand definitive SoC witness" would likely exclude pretty much anyone previously contacted by any media outlet. That would make it tough for me to come up with the witnesses unless I went to the DC area myself, which is impractical for me.

This is a lie on your part as it was made perfectly clear in your discussions that you would be working solely off the previously published witness list and ONLY interviewing over the phone and providing audio recorded interviews.

Craig was entirely in agreement with this and you know it.

Also, since my proposal in August there has been other work produced, notably by Mangoose and 911files, that answered the questions that I did have regarding the Pentagon events to my satisfaction.

This is also dishonest because it's clear that you already fully believed the official story BEFORE you approached CIT. Your posting history proves it. Neither Mangoose nor 911files have remotely met the requirements that you and Craig agreed to in order to falsify the evidence they present.

In fact, like you, they have made no effort in this regard at all and have provided ZERO SoC accounts. Once again you have abandoned critical thinking principles and simply chosen to dismiss evidence out of hand based on some arbitrary irrelevant claims of others that have no direct bearing on the evidence that was being discussed.

There's really nothing left to debate or discuss. Craig and the rest of CIT deserve credit for sticking to their guns, but there comes a point when one has to admit that the battle is lost. That point has arrived for CIT.

Since you and CIT already came to the agreement that this point will have arrived when 14 definitive SoC first-hand witness accounts are presented and so far ZERO exist while the NoC approach keeps getting verified it's 100% clear that this point has not arrived.

Your faith is irrelevant to this fact.

 

[bonavada]

Were you there for each and every one of the interviews and each attempt to contact the 120 eyewitnesses?

I've asked this question before and recieved no answer. The silence is deafening


BV

 

[jhunter1163]

TLB:

Isn't the reason that the existing SoC witnesses are rejected by CIT because they were contacted by the MSM?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

How would you know if you're not either of them? Were you there for each and every one of the interviews and each attempt to contact the 120 eyewitnesses?

You said that they "refuse" to release interviews.

I know that that they have never said this and have heard them state otherwise many times.

So unless you can provide a quote from them declaring this refusal it's clear that you remembered incorrectly or were simply lying about what they had said.

 

[bje]

As far as I know jhunter1163 & bje are the only other members here who boldly claimed they would take on this task but have utterly failed to provide a single interview to date while keeping utterly silent about even having said this in the past.

Don't forget to tell everyone that my trip was contingent on Rob Balsamo fulfilling his part of the bargain. He chickened out - just as you have for the last three years. Of course, you and we know why.

And that means you are responsible for doing your own investigation to support your own claims. We have no responsibility to do your investigation for you as much as you try to pawn it off on those who have factually debunked you or shown that you have not supported your claims. Of course, you know this. The burden of proof is entirely on your shoulders to refute the massive, fully-accepted, evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Meanwhile, we have your repeated evasions over a period greater than two years to do any competent and acceptable investigation to support your own claims.

- You refused to ascertain what the wreckage was inside the investigation. You claimed it was all "planted ahead of time" without doing any investigation to back up that claim.
- You persistently refused to interview the over 1,000 people readily available to you to determine what wreckage they saw, handled, removed. or sorted openly on the Pentagon lawn in the weeks after 9/11.
- You continue to refuse to present eyewitnesses to any flyover of the Pentagon, or any physical evidence of such an event.
- You fully understand that your claim that eyewitnesses to a so-called NoC flight path does not refute the physical, documented, and eyewitness evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

I think you should read the following from UK-Skeptics to fully understand reality:

The nature of paranoid conspiracy theories

 

[beachnut]

Why do all the witnesses in CIT videos point to the SoC?

Ironic how CIT shoot themselves in the foot refuting their own conclusions with their own witnesses.

Flyover witness Boger sees Flight 77 impact the Pentagon; debunked CIT has to make create a cover-up to hide Boger debunking their flyover. What do they do?

Feet from where 77 impacted the Pentagon.
Boger, “I just watched it hit the building."
A CIT witness!

CIT debunked forever by their own work and the records from ACMH;
CIT had been proven to be spewing delusions by ACMH.

 

[DGM]

TLB:

Isn't the reason that the existing SoC witnesses are rejected by CIT because they were contacted by the MSM?

There's a part of ever "interview" they've conducted that they choose to ignore. The problem is no one can justify their reasoning or methodology , other than "confirmation bias" that is.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Isn't the reason that the existing SoC witnesses are rejected by CIT because they were contacted by the MSM?

You're a member of their forum so why don't you go ask them?

But from what I understand their position is that only first-hand witness accounts can fairly considered evidence. Unverified 2nd hand media reports are not evidence, they amount to hearsay.

Of course first-hand accounts whether audio or video recorded by ANYONE including msm can fairly be considered evidence under these guidelines that should be considered reasonable for any legitimate skeptic.

Even still I have heard CIT also maintain that none of the previously published 2nd hand media reports specifically place the plane SoC.

Investigative questions regarding the location of the plane were not asked by the media or government. This is precisely why first-hand confirmation of accounts is so important.

CIT has shown how quotes taken out of context from witnesses who saw the plane but were not in a position to see the Pentagon at all due to topography and landscape have been cited as "impact" witnesses for years.

Same with many of the north side witnesses such as Lagasse and Morin who have always been heavily used to support the offcial story in the past. Now that it has been confirmed first-hand with Morin that he definitively places the plane completely on the north side of Columbia Pike or directly over the Navy Annex it's 100% clear how people will take unverified comments out of context for spin.

CIT values evidence. Not hearsay and spin.

 

[DGM]

You're a member of their forum so why don't you go ask them?

But from what I understand their position is that only first-hand witness accounts can fairly considered evidence. Unverified 2nd hand media reports are not evidence, they amount to hearsay.

Of course first-hand accounts whether audio or video recorded by ANYONE including msm can fairly be considered evidence under these guidelines that should be considered reasonable for any legitimate skeptic.

Even still I have heard CIT also maintain that none of the previously published 2nd hand media reports specifically place the plane SoC.

Investigative questions regarding the location of the plane were not asked by the media or government. This is precisely why first-hand confirmation of accounts is so important.

CIT has shown how quotes taken out of context from witnesses who saw the plane but were not in a position to see the Pentagon at all due to topography and landscape have been cited as "impact" witnesses for years.

Same with many of the north side witnesses such as Lagasse and Morin who have always been heavily used to support the offcial story in the past. Now that it has been confirmed first-hand with Morin that he definitively places the plane completely on the north side of Columbia Pike or directly over the Navy Annex it's 100% clear how people will take unverified comments out of context for spin.

CIT values evidence. Not hearsay and spin.

So how do they decide what to keep and what to ignore?

 

[jhunter1163]

TLB:

I seem to recall a list of SoC witnesses deemed to be "unreliable" for various reasons, such as working for USA Today, being in the military, etc. Can you explain to me how these accounts were deemed to be unreliable but the NoC witnesses were OK?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Your first hand accounts say the plane hit the Pentagon. You ignore them. Do you need me to translate this into another language so you can understand? You can't deny the fact your witnesses say the plane hit the building. You are the one that say they are wrong. How do you determine this?

Will you cut it with the lame circular logic.

The north side claim and the impact are mutually exclusive.

MOST of the 13 north side witnesses could not see the alleged impact point at all due to topography and landscape.

The fact that they DEDUCED an impact does not refute the fact that they SAW the plane on the north side.

Here is the confirmed north side witness list to date:

1. Ed Paik.......could not see Pentagon or alleged impact point at all.
2. Terry Morin....could not see alleged impact point at all.
3. William Middleton.....could not see alleged impact point at all.
4. George Aman.....could not see alleged impact point at all.
5. Darrell Stafford......could not see alleged impact point at all.
6. Darius Prather......could not see alleged impact point at all.
7. Donald Carter......could not see alleged impact point at all.
8. Robert Turcios.....specifically claimed that he DID NOT see the plane hit and only remembers the fireball.
9. Sgt Brooks.....Admitted after seeing The PentaCon that it's possible he could have been fooled about the impact but stands by the north side approach.
10. Sgt Lagasse....Admitted that he jumped into his car out of a "fear" after plane flew by on the north side.
11. Levi Stephens....Admitted that he was facing the opposite way towards Crystal City.
12. Maria De La Cerda......could not see alleged impact point at all and thought the plane crashed on "the other side" or "on top" of the building indicating flyover.
13 Sean Boger....This is the only north side witness who definitively claims that he watched the plane enter the building but since all the other witnesses confirm his north side claim and a north side impact is impossible the logical conclusion is that he innocently embellished the impact details.

 

[DGM]

Will you cut it with the lame circular logic.

The north side claim and the impact are mutually exclusive.

MOST of the 13 north side witnesses could not see the alleged impact point at all due to topography and landscape.

The fact that they DEDUCED an impact does not refute the fact that they SAW the plane on the north side.

Here is the confirmed north side witness list to date:

1. Ed Paik.......could not see Pentagon or alleged impact point at all.
2. Terry Morin....could not see alleged impact point at all.
3. William Middleton.....could not see alleged impact point at all.
4. George Aman.....could not see alleged impact point at all.
5. Darrell Stafford......could not see alleged impact point at all.
6. Darius Prather......could not see alleged impact point at all.
7. Donald Carter......could not see alleged impact point at all.
8. Robert Turcios.....specifically claimed that he DID NOT see the plane hit and only remembers the fireball.
9. Sgt Brooks.....Admitted after seeing The PentaCon that it's possible he could have been fooled about the impact but stands by the north side approach.
10. Sgt Lagasse....Admitted that he jumped into his car out of a "fear" after plane flew by on the north side.
11. Levi Stephens....Admitted that he was facing the opposite way towards Crystal City.
12. Maria De La Cerda......could not see alleged impact point at all and thought the plane crashed on "the other side" or "on top" of the building indicating flyover.
13 Sean Boger....This is the only north side witness who definitively claims that he watched the plane enter the building but since all the other witnesses confirm his north side claim and a north side impact is impossible the logical conclusion is that he innocently embellished the impact details.

Yet none of these people go on record supporting the conclusions of the CIT. Why is this? You deduce from what you decide is their point of view. None saw the fly-over yet they should have, right?

You call my reasoning "circular".

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

I seem to recall a list of SoC witnesses deemed to be "unreliable" for various reasons, such as working for USA Today, being in the military, etc. Can you explain to me how these accounts were deemed to be unreliable but the NoC witnesses were OK?

I don't recall CIT making such a list nor do I recall any "SoC" witnesses.

I suggest you take this up with them direct at their forum since you are a member.

 

[jhunter1163]

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82&st=0

 

[jhunter1163]

Actually, I believe the list I'm thinking of might be at LCF. It was a table with thirty or so names, with various categories like "valid", "suspect", etc. I'm banned at LCF but if anyone with a live account could look there, I'd be grateful.

ETA: Found it.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=219