Telltale Tom
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2010
- Messages
- 384
These are the words of the Architect of Destruction himself which shows why he is such a master of truth.
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.
You see he only had 6 months to make the decision, and probably didnt even have time to visit web site like this. Its not his fault he endorsed the no plane theory and made it part of the truth. He wasn't told that the people who said it went to the side of the gas station also saw it crash into the pentagon. You know perspective is such a funny thing.
After making my statement I became aware of more details of the CIT witness accounts as well as the rest of the compelling eyewitness testimony that is available. The vast majority of eyewitness accounts refute the CIT flyover conclusion, as they entail that the plane hit the Pentagon or was flying so low it could not miss.
Hey now I get it
The preponderance of CIT’s own evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon. (See Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert” and other works listed below for these and many additional witness statements that describe the plane as clearly impacting the Pentagon).
Jeez, now what organization does that remind me off?
Because of these concerns I provided new statements in December 2009 and January 2010 pointing out that my previous statement of support should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their conclusion that the airplane flew over the Pentagon. Despite these statements, CIT has continued to publish my original statement and characterize it as an endorsement of their flyover conclusion.
Sounds very familiar now...now who does it remind me off?
I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all. In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.
Attaboy Richard, just because you supported it for 10 months doesn't mean you always support it. We all know that truth changes
I base my present position also on a number of blogs, papers, and videos that have shed light on the Pentagon Flight 77 issues and on CIT’s work. These papers should be among those studied by anyone seeking the full truth about these matters. Most of these works analyze additional evidence and come to different conclusions than CIT does.
Ah ha, we see the difference between truth and the full truth
.............
<snip>
...........
I strongly recommend that people who care to research what happened at the Pentagon take personal responsibility for forming their own conclusions by acquainting themselves with a wide range of analysis done by people who have come before them rather than jumping to conclusions based on a skewed selection of evidence and argument, or being unduly influenced by any type of authority figure. Use your own discernment, based on your use of the scientific method to arrive at a coherent theory that you can confidently stand behind.
That means, that you shouldn't be so stupid as to do what he did
Its such good advice. I hope he repeats it in his monthly newsletter.
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.
You see he only had 6 months to make the decision, and probably didnt even have time to visit web site like this. Its not his fault he endorsed the no plane theory and made it part of the truth. He wasn't told that the people who said it went to the side of the gas station also saw it crash into the pentagon. You know perspective is such a funny thing.
After making my statement I became aware of more details of the CIT witness accounts as well as the rest of the compelling eyewitness testimony that is available. The vast majority of eyewitness accounts refute the CIT flyover conclusion, as they entail that the plane hit the Pentagon or was flying so low it could not miss.
Hey now I get it
The preponderance of CIT’s own evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon. (See Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert” and other works listed below for these and many additional witness statements that describe the plane as clearly impacting the Pentagon).
Jeez, now what organization does that remind me off?
Because of these concerns I provided new statements in December 2009 and January 2010 pointing out that my previous statement of support should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their conclusion that the airplane flew over the Pentagon. Despite these statements, CIT has continued to publish my original statement and characterize it as an endorsement of their flyover conclusion.
Sounds very familiar now...now who does it remind me off?
I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all. In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.
Attaboy Richard, just because you supported it for 10 months doesn't mean you always support it. We all know that truth changes
I base my present position also on a number of blogs, papers, and videos that have shed light on the Pentagon Flight 77 issues and on CIT’s work. These papers should be among those studied by anyone seeking the full truth about these matters. Most of these works analyze additional evidence and come to different conclusions than CIT does.
Ah ha, we see the difference between truth and the full truth
.............
<snip>
...........
I strongly recommend that people who care to research what happened at the Pentagon take personal responsibility for forming their own conclusions by acquainting themselves with a wide range of analysis done by people who have come before them rather than jumping to conclusions based on a skewed selection of evidence and argument, or being unduly influenced by any type of authority figure. Use your own discernment, based on your use of the scientific method to arrive at a coherent theory that you can confidently stand behind.
That means, that you shouldn't be so stupid as to do what he did
Its such good advice. I hope he repeats it in his monthly newsletter.
