...is that there are things worth dividing the movement over, like LIHOP. how exactly the Pentagon deception was carried out isn't one of them. my gut tells me CIT are up to no good. others may well feel differently.

researched, wrote a bunch of books, lectured like a rock star, and still had that same bunch of clowns dismissing your whole body of work because they think AA77 had seat back phones and that the idea of voice morphing is crazy talk? I think DRG has at least as much reason to be peeved with the fake truther circus as CIT... but observe the way he reacts (or doesn't).

I'm willing and ready to consider all the evidence no matter where it takes me. That is what I'm doing right now. I'm considering evidence and sharing information. Just as I have done since 2002 concerning things like controlled demolition.

You are encouraging others not to look at valuable evidence and your reasoning goes beyond healthy paranoia. Your logic would have us ignoring practically all valuable witnesses to the crime. Just the fact they worked at the CITGO which served only Pentagon employees deems them not worthy? OMG...they worked at the Arlington Cemetery...they can't be trusted!!! That's how it works right?

CIT has gathered eyewitness testimony that could and should be used in court. You can't provide a single worthy reason to exclude it. Excluding it, encouraging others to exclude it, accusing people of being government agents and such...without a single thread of evidence is not right. Your cherry picking evidence because it doesn't jive with your beliefs.

• Without a single shred of evidence, you suggest that CIT and Cas Sunstein are working together for the US Government to cover up the crime that occurred on 9/11/2001.
• Without a single shred of evidence you suggest that the witnesses are also working with CIT, Cas Sunstein in order to trick us all.
• You cherry pick evidence and exclude it because it includes witnesses who saw the plane hit the building
• You exclude evidence because the witnesses happened to work for companies that worked at the Pentagon

..."The ongoing cover-up efforts over the Pentagon since day one, WELL BEFORE CIT ENTERED THE SCENE, tells me that the Pentagon puzzle must be a key, if not THE key to the whole 9/11 operation, or that the truth of the Pentagon attack must be the most dangerous truth that must not be exposed."

...and it's a point of view I am very sympathetic to (will provide the links to prior discussions in a moment) then you might like I do feel that CIT has not actually done the cause many favors by having people fixate on one specific point--the method of deception. It's like arguing about whether it was regular thermite or nanothermite used in the towers' demolition. As i've repeated many times, we should be arguing that until the evidence of AA77 or any large Boeing having crashed at the Pentagon is produced, we should default to agnosticism leaning towards skepticism of it having happened at all. The flyover hypothesis is intriguing and possible but is not a slam dunk given that it's based, like the contradictory official version, on the testimony of eyewitnesses not in court, not under oath, in a world where the number of people willing to lie to protect the official conspiracy theory is apparently quite high. CIT has accomplished little beyond getting the truth movement to waste time arguing and now have even pushed a seemingly good, honest guy like David Chandler into an unfortunate position verging on acceptance of the OCT wrt the Pentagon. By their fruits, people--BY THEIR FRUITS!

...reinforces to me the suspicion that Bursill and CIT might well be "ops" who have been working to frame the debate in specific ways. You say in re: CIT "And obviously they have verifiable histories and no ties that would qualify them as possible operatives." Really? Where exactly are their exhaustive bios spelled out such that you could assert this, and how do we know those are their real bios, and that their real names are even Craig and Aldo? We don't, of course. As for myself, I have been open enough about my own background such that people have become privy to the fact that I went to Harvard and that my dad was a U.S. diplomat (now retired). You are free to infer from these facts that I may be a "deep cover" CIA asset, as one particular individual made it his life's work to claim all over the internet, or you might infer that the operation in this case was aimed at giving activists reasons to distrust me, for example when I spent years trying to get the peace group at Harvard to consider the case for explosives at the twin towers: http://wtcdemolition.com/hipj/ So which is the agent here, the guy arguing respectfully for explosives in the towers or the physics grad student claiming the opposite?

I see now, in fact, that in a thread trying to rehabilitate the anti-controlled demolition LIHOPper John Judge, SnowCrash has quoted Bollyn on my rumored CIA ties. Again I ask, who in all this cast of characters seem like ops? The former no-planers?  The LIHOPpers?  The racist?  Or me--the son of a US diplomat who went to Harvard (for shame!!)

T. Carter - Flight 77 Attendant (COPA Conference 2002)

Submitted by shure on Mon, 12/27/2010 - 7:03pm

• 911
• American Airlines
• Flight 77
• pentagon

T. Carter (COPA Conference 2002)

T. CARTER, flight attendant, was scheduled to fly on her regular
flight, AA 77, on Sept. 11, 2001, but she instead opted out of duty that
day, and her friend and fellow flight attendant, Rene, took the plane,
replacing her.

Rene boarded AA 77 in Washington DC and on this regularly scheduled
route, proceeded to Dallas. Over Ohio, Rene called her mother on her
cell phone and told her to call American Airlines Operations and report
that the plane had been hijacked. Rene said there were 6 hijackers.
Press releases since then have only reported 5 hijackers, but that is a
separate subject due to its size and scope. There were no sounds of
struggle when Rene phoned her mother and Rene did not call her again.

In an affidavit, T. Carter states that she went to the crash site
within 48 hours after the 757 hit the Pentagon, with her mother, to give
support to the crews retrieving bodies and wreckage. Her visit could
have been late in the day Sept. 11, or on Sept. 12. At the pentagon, she
recognized the tail section of AA 77 that she had flown on many times,
as she walked past it. The tail was on the grass,
near the crash site. She went inside the pentagon and saw other parts of
this plane that she knew from her work. She saw many charred bones of
people, among the luggage. She saw more parts of the plane inside the
pentagon, and recognized them as parts of the plane that she used to fly
on.

T. Carter was shown photographs, a few days later, of the crash
scene, and identified the bracelet she had given her friend Rene, for
her birthday, on the charred arm bones of her friend. T. Carter has no
doubts that Flight 77 crashed into the pentagon on Sept. 11th.

I first heard T. describe her memories of the Pentagon crash, in
Dallas at the COPA Conference on the anniversary of the JFK
assassination, on Nov. 23, 2002. She was still shaken by the loss of her
friend and the devastation she had seen on Sept. 11, 01.
http://www.oilempire.us/eyewitnesses.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above desrciption is far from accurate. Here is a proper description thanks to Jon Gold:

The Pentagon Attack
and American Airlines Flight 77
by John Judge
researcher and founder for 9/11 CitizensWatch
21 February 2004
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/PAandAAF77.html

[snip]

As it turned out, my friend had not been on Flight 77, having taken
the day off work to care for her sick father, and to my relief she had
survived. She had lost her entire regular crew, both pilots and all the
attendants, including her best friend at work. She was immediately
invited in to a series of briefings and grief counseling sessions by
both the airline and the Pentagon. These briefings continue to this day.
She also attended a long series of memorial events at the gravesites of
her co-workers and friends following the event. Her own father died
shortly after that in November. I attended his funeral service at
National Cemetery and got to meet some of her American Airline
co-workers.

When questions arose about Flight 77, I contacted her to raise the
issues that concerned me and the speculations of others who denied the
plane hit the Pentagon. She was adamant in saying it had, and told me
she had been to the crash site and had seen parts of the plane. I asked
her about the speculation that the plane would have made a larger hole
due to the wingspan. She informed me that the fuel was stored in the
wings and that they would have exploded and broken off, as the fuselage
slammed through the building walls.

I have spoken to dozens of other witnesses to the event, and to
others who know the reports. Wayne Madsen, a respected local journalist,
spoke to a camera person at WJLA-TV 7 who had been driving to the
Pentagon on instructions from his office, expecting a public statement
from authorities there in response to the events in New York City.
Shortly after the crash he saw a woman standing by the road at the edge
of the Pentagon, next to her car, and apparently in shock. He stopped to
help her and found she could not speak. But she pointed him to the far
side of her car. The passenger side had been sheared off in part and
sections of the landing gear from the plane were on the ground nearby.
Others I have spoken to, including pilots, either saw the crash happen
and identified the plane, or saw parts of the plane in the wreckage days
afterwards.

At the funeral service on September 20th in Annapolis for Charles
Burlingame, the pilot of AA Flight 77, my friend was approached by
another flight attendant to assist in support work for the rescue crews
at the site. This work was being organized by the Salvation Army. The
Pentagon was seeking people with security clearances that they could
trust to be near the site and all the airline attendants qualified for
that level of clearance. The shifts ran from 10 am to 10 pm, and then
for the next twelve hours. She and her mother signed up for an overnight
shift on Friday, September 21st.

She and her mother spent the entire night continuously providing
drinks to rescuers from North Carolina. Burger King, McDonald's, Pepsi
and Outback Steak House were the selected food and drink providers. She
and her mother were given a special T-shirt to wear for the night, with
red lettering for "Operation Noble Eagle". They did not wear the
traditional Salvation Army outfits. No break came until early morning,
the crews were large and worked continuously. The work was tedious and
slow. She was in the second of five groups that were sent in that week.
Rescue and clean-up work continued for months.

At the end of her shift on Saturday morning, September 22nd, she was
approached along with other attendants to visit the crash site. One
declined, but she and two others took a van driven by the Salvation Army
to the area. They were forced to wait almost 45 minutes at a safety
fence around the area before being admitted into the area of
destruction. As they waited, members of a psychological support group
talked to them about their feelings. She will never forget what she saw
there.

The area was covered with rescue equipment, fire trucks, small carts,
and ambulances. They were still hoping to find survivors. Small jeeps
with wagons attached were being used to transport workers and others at
the site. One flight attendant was driving one of these around the site.
Once inside the fence, she was unable to clearly discern where the
original wall had been. There was just a gaping hole. She got off the
van and walked inside the crash site. The other attendants broke down
crying once they were inside. But my friend went in further than the
others and kept her emotions in check as she has been trained to do and
usually does in emergency situations.

She saw parts of the fuselage of an American Airlines plane, a Boeing
757 plane. She identified the charred wreckage in several ways. She
recognized the polished aluminum outer shell, an unpainted silver color
that is unique to American Airline planes, and the red and blue trim
that is used to decorate the fuselage. She saw parts of the inside of
the plane, which she easily identified since she flew and worked in them
for years. Upholstery, drapes and carpeting she could identify by both
color and design. The soft carpeting and padding of the inner walls had a
cloud design and color she recognized from American Airline planes,
though it has since been replaced. The blue coloring of drapes and
carpet were also specific to the 757 or 767 larger planes, and were not
used on the smaller planes. Seating upholstery also matched the AA 757
planes, including the blue color, tan squares and hints of white.

She saw other parts of the plane and engine parts at a distance but
they were familiar to her. She did not see any galley supplies, which
she would have recognized as well, nor any jump seats. All the parts
were charred but colors were still visible. She also saw charred human
bones but not any flesh or full body parts.

One area of fuselage had remaining window sections and the shape of
the windows, curved squares not ovals, was also distinct to the 757's
she had flown. She also saw parts with the A/A logo, including parts of
the tail of the plane. Smaller A/A logos and "American" logos are also
on the planes and she saw parts of those. One website shows pictures of
wreckage inside the building, including sections of the fuselage with
bright lime and yellow coloring, which is distinctive to Boeing parts.
My friend confirmed this, having visited a Boeing plant where she saw
the bright colors on the production line marking the inside of fuselage
parts. She did not notice this coloring at the site, but the photos show
it in some pieces of the plane.

She spent approximately 15 minutes in the crash area looking at parts
of the wreckage, all of which she recognized as coming from a Boeing
757 American Airline plane, the same planes she flew regularly. She did
not see any rubber, only metal pieces of fuselage, engine parts and
sections of the inside of the plane.

She went to briefings by Pentagon people at the Sheraton for 3 months
afterwards, and the clean-up lasted for a long period. She is a union
representative for attendants as well, and briefings continue. Families
and attendants were at the briefings, along with Pentagon and airline
people. Hundreds of people saw the plane from windows of nearby
buildings, from cars along the nearby highways, and some ducked because
it flew over so low. Pentagon employees and construction workers at the
site saw the events unfold before their eyes. Hundreds more took part in
the clean-up operation and saw the wreckage. It is not difficult to
find eyewitnesses to the event in DC.

The crew of Flight 77 who died in the crash included her personal
friend Renee May. She had spoken to Renee's mother after the crash, and
Renee had used a cell phone to call her mother during the hijacking. Her
mother noted specific phone numbers to call American Airlines
operations to report a hijacking. "There are six of them," Renee had
told her, one more than in the official version. Her mother also heard
the voices of other attendants calling out contact numbers for American
Airlines during the call. At the time attendants had been trained to
cooperate during a hijacking event, and it seems a group of them were at
the back of the plane together as it approached DC. She was told at a
briefing that pilot Charles Burlingame's throat was slit, but had no way
to confirm it. She believes the co-pilot may have been forced to the
rear with the attendants. She does not know exactly what happened to her
friend Renee.

Cell phone calls made from the planes that day have become an area of
contention as well. However, my friend told me that attendants
regularly hear cell phones ringing during flights, despite the
prohibition. In fact, the airlines are now ending the restriction while
on the ground, having discovered that these devices do not actually
interfere with communications or functions aboard the plane before take
off. Some cell phones do not work as well as others at high altitudes
and speeds, but major carriers have multiple towers and the calls do not
even roam in connection. Other people I know have tested Verizon and
other cell phones crossing the country and found them to work normally.
In addition, many of the calls made that day were to family members who
clearly recognized their relatives' voices.

Other American ground crew workers saw some of the suspects board
American Airline Flight 77 and recognized them from the published
photos. While questions remain about the identities of the hijackers, it
is not the case that none of them were on the planes. The airlines have
yet to release full passenger manifests, and those they have released
are short of the total count, and do not contain the suspects' names.
Rather than speculate that none were aboard, the more interesting
question is why the names have not been released if they indeed match
the official story.

My friend is therefore a credible and very knowledgeable eyewitness
to the fact that American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon
on September 11, 2001. She has been vilified by those who refuse to
believe the obvious, as have the many witnesses to the event. We lack
clear footage of the event, some of which was confiscated by the FBI, or
pictures showing all the wreckage and plane parts. Working from a few
un-timed photographs, others have speculated that not only did AA77 not
hit the Pentagon, but that a cruise missile or smaller plane did.

My friend is herself a researcher for many years into government
misdeeds and cover-ups. If she did not see the parts, she would say so.
She has no reason to lie about it. Nor is she confused about what she
saw. She is a professional and is used to looking at evidence. Families
of victims and others who work at the airlines, as well as many
witnesses I have spoken to, are offended and shocked by these unfounded
speculations.

[snip]

.

• shure's blog
• Login to post comments

»

• Login to post comments
• -1 votes
  

Excellent

Now that we know someone identified body parts,
parts of an aircraft and personal jewelry, there should be plenty of
photographs depicting the same that independent investigators can be
given access to. Short of that, there is no way of verifying this
account. The sensibilities of victims' families will always be given as a
reason not to release such information, but a clear photo of tail
section, certainly not a sensitive piece of aircraft wreckage, should
put everyone's doubts to rest.

Submitted by pduveen on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 9:21pm.

»

• Login to post comments
• 6 votes
  

fake

"but a clear photo of tail section, certainly not a sensitive piece of aircraft wreckage, should put everyone's doubts to rest."

My guess is that photo would be as fake as the ones I've shown no planers for the last few years.

That's right I use the term No Planers.

No Plane at the Pentagon

Pentagon -birth place of the No Plane Theory

On 9-11 Planes Flew into Buildings.

Submitted by jimd3100 on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 11:28pm.

»

• Login to post comments
• 3 votes
  

Peter

You are moving the goal posts. There is a
voluminous collection of photographs that prove a plane hit the
Pentagon, from fragments of the fuselage, to the FDR, wheel parts,
landing gear sections and engine fragments.

If you don't find this account convincing, that's your problem, not 'everyone's.

Time to admit a plane struck the Pentagon.

Submitted by SnowCrash on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 12:05pm.

»

• Login to post comments
• 0 votes
  

No planers?

Ok, let's call them no planers. We should find
out exactly what the no planers would need in order to convince them
that flight 77 indeed struck the Pentagon, such as photographic evidence
w/chain of custody demonstrating that parts of flight 77 were at the
crash site immediately after the crash. There seems to be some questions
regarding the black boxes recovered. Why? Why should serial numbers and
positive identification of the black boxes not be forthcoming? Seems it
would be a very simple matter. In other words, when push comes to
shove, the evidence is not there. If it were, there would be no
controversy. Also, if I remember correctly, the fusilage was supposed to
have entered the pentagon, and from the positions of the bodies, the
bodies were id'd. So there must be remains of a fusilage structure.
Where is it? Normally after a crash, these aircraft are assembled. Why
can we not see these attempts to assemble the aircraft? If we could, the
controversy surrounding the 9-11 aircraft crashes could be quickly put
to rest. Surely there are no national security issues surrounding the
viewing of mere aircraft remains. Snow, I've been involved in other
matters lately, so if you can provide some links to the photos you
speak of, I promise to review them again. It's not a matter of moving
the goal posts. It's a matter of moving the arguments beyond
speculation. Aidan has been trying to obtain id numbers of wreckage to
no avail. Why all the mystery?

Submitted by pduveen on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 10:42am.

»

• Login to post comments
• 3 votes
  

Which if any evidence can we trust to be supplied by

our Government? The obvious fabrication of the
official story, the lack of any real investigation, the corruption and
dismissal of some of the witness testimony, why would I trust anything
official sources provide at this point. The history of past lies
concerning JFK, MLK, RFK, Waco, Murrah Bldg, Iran Contra, Anthrax
deaths, the USS Liberty and so much more is ample evidence that our
officials cannot be relied upon to tell the truth. Even alleged outside
witness testimonies cannot always be trusted. The truth will be very
hard to discern.

Submitted by peacefulwarrior on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 1:49pm.

»

• Login to post comments
• 0 votes
  

"no planers" = ad hom + insult = off limits

from the rules - "Keep your comments relevant
to the blog entry. Post useful information and commentary, not
ad-hominem attacks or insults."
http://www.911blogger.com/rules

After discussion w/ the other mods, I'm posting this notice for
everyone; don't use use the term "no planers" in connection with AA 77
Pentagon crash skeptics. It's obviously intended as an insult, so it
violates the rules.

Attacking or insulting other 911blogger users is not allowed here.
Criticizing ideas, arguments, evidence and behavior is fine - and if you
feel compelled to do it, "back up your observations with linked
documentation."

Credible arguments don't require insults and ad hom. Requiring
civility at 911Blogger promotes an atmosphere conducive to productive
discussion, and limits the ability of disruptors to operate here.

Please keep it civil.

Submitted by loose nuke on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 9:19pm.

»

• Login to post comments
• 6 votes
  

source link? and tail, etc.

Shure, please update the post w/ the link to
the description source- from the context, I can tell John Judge wrote
it, but where was it first posted? I didn't see it on the parapolitics
page linked from the post at pumpitout.

This video was from a 2002 COPA conference- the claim that AAL 77
didn't crash at the Pentagon began to get circulated almost immediately
after 9/11- Thierry Meissan's book was one of the most successful
vectors for this meme. T. Carter says she was there, saw plane and body
parts and personal effects, at least one of which she recognized. The
description says she said these things in an affidavit- i would be
interested to see that. It also says she said she saw the tail; I didn't
hear her say in the video that she saw the tail section, but she said
she saw parts. I haven't seen anything recognizable as a tail in photos.
Perhaps she saw a recognizable piece of the tail section.

She's apparently a JFK researcher, she makes the point about how
misinformation can be used to discredit researchers, she repeatedly
encourages people- in 2002- to investigate 9/11.

There are hundreds, probably thousands, of photos that haven't been
released yet, as well as video from the clean up. I have a FOIA appeal
pending for release of these and other Pentagon records.

The govt should release all records they have that demonstrate AAL 77
crashed at the Pentagon- photos of parts w/ serial numbers, records
showing chain of custody and verification, autopsy reports, etc.
However, the lack of public, original source, verifiable evidence
doesn't mean it didn't crash there- and there's no evidence it didn't,
contrary to the assertions many have made.

The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

Pentagon Attack Errors
http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html

9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Witnesses Described
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html

Submitted by loose nuke on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 11:06pm.

»

• Login to post comments
• 4 votes
  

911blogger

This was posted a long time ago on 911blogger.
When in the past I spoke about John Judge's stewardess friend, I spoke
about Carter.

See here

Notice especially Craig Ranke's irritated reaction: "She is not a witness."

Jeff, wanna give her a call sometime, maybe? You spoke to John already... Keep up the good work.

Submitted by SnowCrash on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 7:56am.

»

• Login to post comments
• 6 votes
  

just got off the phone with T Carter

She told me that the write up I posted above
from oilempire is garbage and she doesn't know where it came from. I
didn't get to talk to her for very long but she clarified a few things;

- She did NOT ever write an affidavit

- She did NOT see any tail section, but she did see various "chunks" of aircraft wreckage

- She was NOT supposed to be on AA77 that morning and did NOT "switch" with Rene

- She DID know 8 people who were on AA77 that morning

- There ARE air phones on the plane and only 5 can operate at one time

- She WAS at the Pentagon helping to get drinks, etc... to the rescue workers

She said I could talk to her again in a few days and she would answer
any question asked as long as it does not violate AA security code.
The responses will be soley the responses of T Carter only and in no way
represent AA.

Submitted by shure on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 5:07pm.

»

• Login to post comments
• 1 vote
  

thanks, Shure

Helpful info. And i'm impressed by how many people you manage to get to talk to you.

Glad you updated the post w/ John Judge's report as well- after
looking at the oilempire statement again, I see Judge wouldn't have
written that, as the author said, "I first heard T. describe her
memories of the Pentagon crash, in Dallas at the COPA Conference on the
anniversary of the JFK assassination, on Nov. 23, 2002." John Judge had
already known T. Carter and heard her story.

Submitted by loose nuke on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 9:25pm.

»

• Login to post comments
• 4 votes
  

I informed him...

Of John's original write-up about this. I don't know where Mark Robinowitz's version of events comes from.

John was driven out of the 9/11 Truth Movement because of his views regarding Flight 77. Makes me mad.

Submitted by Jon Gold on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 10:06am.

»

• Login to post comments
• 1 vote
  

Interesting

I find it interesting that I get voted down to a
negative one for calling into question a post that is subsequently
found to have several errors/misrepresentations in it, while the one
posting the erroneous text is voted up to a 6. Of course the correction
is valuable, as is the hope held out that further clarification will be
forthcoming. I would particularly be interested in finding out if
Carter really did identify the bracelet on her friend's charred arm.
That's something I'm sure she would have vivid memories of, unless it
was so traumatic that she blocked it out.

Submitted by pduveen on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 5:05pm.

»

• Login to post comments
• 1 vote
  

And

Was the original post edited? If so, I think it should be noted, because many of the comments refer to the original posting.

Submitted by pduveen on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 5:16pm.

»

• Login to post comments
• 3 votes
  

I think what you did was

I think what you did was pretend the witness
statement stands in isolation, then build on this false premise to
demand it be 'verified'.

You apparently consider the possibility that is complete fiction,
based on little but incredulity. The burden of proof rests on you. I
don't understand why Pentagon crash skeptics keep claiming all sorts of
entitlements, or keep demanding to be served all sorts of scientific and
epistemological evidence way beyond what is normally due to come to a
reasonable conclusion. Pseudo-physics and the concomitant unrealistic
crash scene expectations play into this heavily.

So no... I would like to see some physical and testimonial evidence
for a flyover now.. the only theory left in the crash skeptic camp. The
burden of proof, again, rests on you.

CIT has 13 witnesses who all claim the plane hit. None saw it fly away. There weren't 'deceived', but CIT supporters were.

Submitted by SnowCrash on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 6:25pm.

»

• Login to post comments
• 4 votes
  

description source

I got the description from this page - http://www.oilempire.us/eyewitnesses.html

Submitted by shure on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 8:39am.

»

• Login to post comments
• 4 votes
  

Is this...

John's friend?

Submitted by Jon Gold on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 8:10am.

»

• Login to post comments
• 3 votes
  

Just

got of the phone with T. Carter. She is aware
of this thread and other things going on lately. T. also said she
appreciates what people here and other places are doing to combat the
disinformation about what happened at the pentagon on September 11,
2001.

ps; correction in my comment above; I spelled her friends name wrong, it is Renee May.

Submitted by shure on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 3:07pm.

»

• Login to post comments
• 3 votes
  

This

warms my heart. Rest assured, we're going to fix this offensive nonsense that's been going around.

On another note, rumors are afoot that Gretavo from wtcdemolition is linked to the CIA.

Gretavo (Gustavo A. Espada) responds on his blog, but his response is
lackluster at best. The problem I have with this is that the source is
Bollyn, but that doesn't change the fact that if Gretavo's father is
indeed CIA, he and his blog are done as far as I'm concerned. It would
explain perfectly the almost religiously possessed paranoia-peddling
divide & conquer jibber-jabber he's doing.

Submitted by SnowCrash on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 3:39pm.

»

• Login to post comments
• 2 votes
  

LOL

Just look at this bullshit:

"Yes indeed. If we've learned one thing about 9/11 it's that a LOT
of people are willing to lie about it. Not hundreds, not thousands, but
likely many more than that. I no longer find it hard to believe that
100+ alleged eyewitnesses were plants, and that includes CIT's
eyewitnesses as well as the OCT's. The bigger the lie, the more people
tend to believe it. As they say "I mean, come on, you don't seriously
think that many people are in on it?!" Yes, unfortunately, yes I do."

— Gretavo

hxxp://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/3068#comment-27511

(replace xx with tt if you want to visit the link)

This guy needs to pack up his site...

Submitted by SnowCrash on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 6:33pm.

»

• Login to post comments
• 4 votes
  

Good.

I hope she starts to speak up.

Submitted by Jon Gold on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 6:33pm.