by Kevin Ryan
There are many questions to be answered about the events at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Here are a dozen such questions that, if answered, might help to bring about justice.
1. Exactly how was Flight 77 hijacked, considering, among other things, that the alleged hijackers were said to be identified as security risks (possibly linked to al Qaeda) when they tried to board, and were not physically imposing (all 5 and a half feet tall or less, and slender in build)?
2. How was the nation’s air defense system disabled on 9/11, and how could anything have hit the Pentagon approximately 80 minutes after the first plane was known to be hijacked?
3. Why was Dick Cheney tracking Flight 77?
4. Why were explosive experts, who had a history of covering-up the OKC bombing and have since been accused of obstructing other investigations, hired to write the FEMA report? (Mete Sozen and Paul Mlakar).,
5. Why did the roof of the Pentagon collapse 30 minutes after impact, giving additional evidence for the use of explosives? Note: The use of explosives at the Pentagon seems to be in agreement with the use of a large plane, which would have had little penetrating power.
6. Why was AMEC, the company that had just finished refurbishing Wedge 1 of the Pentagon, hired to lead the clean-up effort at Ground Zero?
7. Why did the NTSB not make public reports on any of the planes as is the normal procedure?
8. Why did none of the planes squawk the hijack code?
9. Why was the official explanation for alleged phone calls made by Flight 77 passenger Barbara Olsen changed several times, and ultimately how could Ted Olsen’s story make any sense?
10. Why did high-ranking Pentagon officials cancel travel plans for the morning of September 11 “…apparently because of security concerns.”?
11. How could Hani Hanjour still have successfully piloted Flight 77 given his poor qualifications?
12. Why are those interested in The Pentagon not intently reviewing documents released by the FAA and 9/11 Commission that reveal startling questions about the aircraft and events of that day?
Why are these questions NOT being pursued by independent investigators? That’s because the attention of many potential investigators has been hijacked by the much less useful question of “What hit the Pentagon.” This is certainly the favorite subject of intentional disruptors and official story supporters.
A great example was when 9/11 Commission staffer Miles Kara and I exchanged messages a few months ago. He had written to my local group in an inquiry seeking support for his positions. My response was apparently not to his liking, and he therefore sought something in my own work that could be criticized. Despite the fact that the vast majority of my 9/11 work has centered on the World Trade Center, Army intelligence officer Kara searched through my articles and presentations over the last seven years and chose one minor statement I made about the Pentagon, in March 2006. He then enlarged this into his own emotional statement, suggesting that those who question what hit the Pentagon do “a disservice to the men, women and children who died there that day. Visit the Pentagon Memorial and sit on the bench of the youngest victim.“ Kara was most interested in discussing what hit the Pentagon only so that he could turn the issue into an emotional question about the victims. That is usually the case with mainstream media hit pieces, and with intentional disruptors as well.
The question of what hit the Pentagon leads directly to the question of what happened to the passengers, as Miles Kara was trying to insinuate. That fact was also emphasized by the leading promoter of the “fly-over” theory when he gave a presentation in Europe recently. His presentation ended with the questions he really wanted us to think about.
“Demand answers to the question of what happened to the people on the plane.”
“How did they really die?”
“Where they killed them, how they killed them, I can’t know.”
“I can only know what the witnesses tell me.”
Is this a good way to encourage people to question 9/11, and to bring justice? Obviously not.
Finally, note that “endorsements” are a good way to pit people against each other, and that’s exactly what has been done. There has never been another issue in the truth movement that has required the pursuit of endorsements but, for some reason, this least important question about the Pentagon is promoted as an important issue requiring us to divide into camps. Divide and conquer is the strategy of the intentional disruptor.
In other words, what hit the Pentagon does not bring us closer to justice but actually brings us farther from that goal because it exacerbates the divisions within the truth movement while we waste time. That’s probably why the intentional disruptors and government supporters always drive the conversations to that one question.
People who are serious about 9/11 truth and justice focus on the facts that help us come not only to truth, but to a useful truth. We should make only minimal reference to any facts that do not help us achieve truth and justice. Instead, we should make note that what hit the Pentagon, for example, is a minor and nearly useless issue that is used by intentional disruptors and official story promoters as they work to keep the truth from being exposed.
 Complete 911 Timeline, American Airlines Flight 77, http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=aa77
 Norman Mineta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission makes clear that Dick Cheney was tracking Flight 77 while it was more than 50 miles away from Washington DC. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y
 Mete Sozen has since become a leading spokesman for the official story about the WTC as well. For more about him, see my articles “Looking for Truth in Credentials: The Peculiar WTC ‘Experts’”, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=RYA20070313&articleId=5071 and “Finally, an apology from the National Geographic Channel”, http://911blogger.com/news/2009-08-22/finally-apology-national-geographic-channel
 Some very seriouis accusations have been made against Paul Mlakar by Prof. Raymond B. Seed of the University of California, Berkeley, Letter entitled Re: New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina, And the Soul of the Profession, October 30, 2007, http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-15/pentagon-investigation-leader-paul-mlakar-obstructed-investigation-new-orleans-according-uc-berkeley-professor
 Kevin R. Ryan, Demolition Access to the WTC Towers: Part Four – Cleanup, 911Review.com, February 11, 2010, http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p4.html
 911Research.com, NTSB Reports: Long-Hidden NTSB Reports Contain Flight Data, http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/ntsb.html
 David Ray Griffin, Ted Olson’s Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials, GlobalResearch.ca, April 1, 2008, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8514
 The Family Steering Committee for an Independent 9/11 Commission, http://www.911independentcommission.org/
 Complete 911 Timeline, Hani Hanjour, http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&the_alleged_9/11_hijackers=haniHanjour
 See the FOIA responses obtained by the 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington,
Also see the documents released by the 911 Commission,
Here’s an example:
UAL and AAL employees: Contradictions about transponders. ACARS data missing. UAL had radar continuity.
Many of the documents are just cover pages saying the information is still “Restricted”. These include interviews of the CIA agents, Prince Bandar, and the first responders.
 Miles Kara, Archive for the ‘Bloomington Group’ Category, 9/11 Revisited website, http://www.oredigger61.org/?cat=25
 Parody video of CIT tour and presentation in which, at 02:18, the speaker tells his French audience the reasons why CIT is working so hard. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx0tFvlQ2F0&feature=player_embedded
Friday, October 22, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
"Take note of the fact that CIT demands that you agree with everything they say. It's like a cult. If you disagree with anything they say they attack you and accuse you of not being honest. Just like a cult. Also like a cult, the initial claims seem more reasonable than the insanity you will be exposed to later. The initial claim of "North of Citgo" is very reasonable, but once they get you on board with that they expect you to accept the insanity they spew in regards to Lloyde England. They even encourage people to take actions against Lloyde England. It's just like a cult. Members are expected to prove their loyalty with irrational beliefs and actions and when they don't, they get attacked. STAY AWAY FROM CIT. THEY ARE DANGEROUS." - former CIT supporter
Friday, October 8, 2010
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
911blogger.com has published a new article by Arcterus demonstrating CIT's utter uselessness to the cause of 9/11 truth. The article leaves aside CIT's lies, distortions and unethical behavior and focuses solely on the legal impracticality of their "evidence". One particularly compelling highlight:
Let's start with their own witnesses being cross-examined with each other. CIT's own witnesses state that the plane impacted the building. Their case for claiming the physical evidence was faked revolves around the testimony that the flight path as on the north side of CITGO. They would HAVE to find some way to convince the jury that part of the testimony was right and another part was wrong without directly saying so. Now even if they made this possible, invalidating a witness discredits their ENTIRE testimony. Even if you're only arguing against part of it, it only makes the entire testimony look bad. It's so unlikely it might as well be said to be impossible that an entire jury would accept a testimony to be PARTIALLY accurate. They would almost definitely disregard it. Even if, by some miracle, each and every one of them thought in this way, that would go out the window upon cross-examination. Take, for example, Sergeant Lagasse. CIT says that Sergeant Lagasse giving irrefutably wrong locations of the taxi cab and light poles actually supports their theory. Well, that's all fine and dandy, but back in the realm of reality, all it means is that he's WRONG. And if he's wrong, it means the entire testimony could be wrong.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Barrie Zwicker, once considered a fairly reliable media critic, recently told the audience at the Deep Politics conference in Santa Cruz, California that "credibility is overrated". Now we know he really means it. In a disturbingly absurd video pronouncement posted recently, Zwicker swears undying allegiance to the CIT crusade and in equally absolutist terms announces that all of CIT's critics are government agents. Does he offer any evidence at all to back up this shockingly paranoid and disruptive claim? Of course not. And why should he - every CIT follower knows that only agents could possibly have a problem with CIT. You can watch Barrie Zwicker flush the remains of his sanity down the toilet here.