Chris Sarns meltdown
As an observer of the Pentagon controversy I can't help but be extremely mystified at the illogic of Chris Sarns. He thinks CIT are con artists out to destroy the movement on the one hand, while agreeing with many of their conclusions (north path, staged light poles) on the other, to defending a 757 impact, or rather a 737, on the 3rd hand!
He is for the record the first person in the entire movement to try to reconcile a north approach with an impact. Even Hoffman, Arabesque, and company don't do that! Instead they try and use straw men to cast doubt on the veracity of the north side witnesses, as if to suggest that they were all wrong about seeing the plane on the north side. Sarns is also the first to suggest that the entire damage path was staged as well as a real (large) plane being flown into the building!
One of Sarns' main objections in this thread to the flyover conclusion is that all of the witnesses themselves believe, or are convinced they saw, the plane hit. The argument of "Even CIT's own witnesses don't agree with CIT's conclusion!" Adam Syed analogizes this to the WTC situation:
Syed even answers the common criticism against CIT that they openly accuse eyewitnesses who don't fit their conclusions of being liars or plants.
After a bit more back and forthing in circles, Chris Sarns eventually melts down and declares "Friendship over!" with Adam Syed:
To his credit, Syed doesn't fall for the makin'-it-personal bait, and instead stays cool as cucumber, focusing purely on facts:
I've been following Sarns' pentagon related posts and simply don't know what to make of him.
Whenever I speak with people at bars, social events etc. about 9/11, many people who got suspicous early on (before any documentary came out suggesting to people what to conclude) were struck by 3 things: the WTC collapses, the lack of air defense, and the lack of airliner debris at the Pentagon. Some truthers even say that you've gotta be an idiot to not realize a plane crashed there. DRG reminded me in the midst of an e-mail conversation that the "no airplane crash" viewpoint is hardly a minority viewpoint in the movement.
Yet here we have Sarns, agreeing that light poles were staged, along with the directional path inside the building, yet he's still claiming a plane impacted anyway, and that CIT are diabolical con artists!
Latest thoughts on this and the Pentagon controversy in general? I'm all ears.
- Adam Syed's blog
- Login to post comments
Chris Sarns = Enigma
Chris Sarns is a member of A&E 911Truth. As such, he is a high profile researcher/activist for 911blogger. It seems like on the one hand he feels compelled (pressured?) to join the bandwaggon of CIT bashers, while on the other hand is forced to acknowledge the indisputable logic of the actual north side path and the staged light pole damage/faked south side path that the CIT researchers have successfully uncovered.
As far as a plane impact, he seems to be hedging in that sometimes he supports a plane impact from the north side approach with the corollary that the ASCE report of the internal damage must be faked and that the real internal damage must match up with the NoC path (selectively presuming the falseness of certain official CT claims but not others?), while at other times he speculates on the ol' plane bomb scenario coupled with his strange 737 theory, which (unconvincingly) obviates the need to explain the contradiction of minimal building damage/lack of identifiable debris.
His resort to makin'-it-personal and excessive defensiveness is inappropriate and hurts his credibility, which is already damaged by his pushing the highly speculative and weak 737/plane bomb theory. I am having a hard time deciding what to make of him.
One of the side benefits of the whole Pentagon controversy/CIT fiasco on the controlled 9/11 truth forums is that it has helped us to identify many obvious fakes of the likes of Hoffman, Arabesque, Victoria, JohnA, Wolsey, Gold and their cheering squad because of their need to resort to blatant dishonesty and disinfo-esque discourse to support their position (agenda). But I'm genuinely stumped in regards to Chris Sarns, who could be:
A) Having trouble dealing with some psychological dissonance
B) A disinfo agent trying to experiment with different trial balloons, pushing the OCT of a plane crash while acknowledging the strongest evidence uncovered by CIT and other researchers
C) Is loyal/indebted to Jim Hoffman - a fellow CD researcher/scientist - and has closed ranks (his mind) against the possibility that Hoffman could be drastically wrong/lying.
D) Something else
Edit: I'm personally undecided about the flyover conclusion in that on the one hand I agree that it appears to fit the available evidence and logic better than just about any alternative theory that has been put forward, but on the other hand still lacks any solid evidence or sufficient corroborated witness testimony, so is definitely not ready to be stamped with "proven" but rather "a possibility". I'm hoping that continuing research and uncovering more evidence will eventually either corroborate the flyover theory or reveal an alternative scenario.
"Edit: I'm undecided about
I am in the same boat with you on your statement above. I actually wish more witnesses or evidence will come out to support CIT's flyover theory because it makes the best sense at the moment with respect to reconciling the north side flight path and the absence of an airliner size hole at the Pentagon in the initial (staged) impact photos.
I did have trouble once explaining the photos of aircraft parts that were allegedly taken at the Pentagon. Someone in another forum asked me where all those airplane parts came from? I was stumped, because although it was possible that some of them were placed there after the explosions or perhaps the photos were faked all together and not even taken at the Pentagon (interior shots), I just did not know how those photos came to be.
One thing I am sure of is that when someone says all the Pentagon crash passengers were identified via DNA, I think he is pulling our collective leg. Perhaps the same outright lie or fabrication was involved in the airplane debris photos.
One way to reconcile the debris photos with the notion that no airliner hit the Pentagon is that perhaps a drone with a jet engine did hit the Pentagon, but came in at a speed that was not witnessed by anyone who has so far been interviewed. The benefit of such a tactic would be to create a blast and damage within the Pentagon without having to place explosives and airplane parts ahead of time. This is not incompatible with a north side flyover by an airliner, it only puts the source of the Pentagon explosion as coming from a drone rather than pre placed explosives within the building.
If that drone did not exists, then the explosives would have been preplanted in the building and either the photos were faked, or the aircraft parts were placed in the Pentagon site after the staged explosions. This is also a real possibility as well.
Yup
"One thing I am sure of is that when someone says all the Pentagon crash passengers were identified via DNA, I think he is pulling our collective leg."
Exactly. Whenever anyone insists that we make an a priori assumption of truth regarding the alleged US Army Hospital DNA idintification claims of the AA77 passengers, my BS detector explodes.
AA77 was alleged to have been a 100 ton Boeing 757. In all of the Pentagon crash photos I have seen to date, I have not seen anything that could pass for much more than a tiny fraction of 100 tons of aircraft debris, either in individual photos or collectively. The fact that not a single piece has been identified with a serial number is a red flag. I do not accept that the tail section would have either completely disappeared into the building (necessitating an impossible cartoonish fold up and continued forward entry) or been shredded into confetti on the lawn. Not credible.
Interesting drone theory, though I would think that some of the 13 NoC witnesses that CIT interviewed who were closest to the approach in front of the Pentagon with the best view would have seen the drone. With the descriptions of multiple explosions coupled with shock waves and cordite smell reported by numerous witnesses, I definitely think there were pre-planted explosives, if nothing else.
Chris Sarns gets destroyed
Chris Sarns gets destroyed over at the Pilots forum:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18306&st=0