Home ยป WOW! Informed, Reasoned Analysis of the CIT/Pentagon Debate - Thanks to Robin Hordon

Keenan's picture

Another excellent point by Robin hits the nail on the head

Submitted by Keenan on Sun, 2010-07-18 04:10.

I'm not making any claims here at all, and I sure am finding this stuff very interesting and it helps me keep thinking outside of the "tidy boxes" that some researchers have encouraged us to climb into. And I do notice that this report was made in 2003 and updated in 2007...and that it hasn't been seen in much discussion within the 9/11TM since then...why?

Seems its been Hoffman and Legge ever since...with the later arrival of CIT. Lets back-up and re-evaluate...

There are probably many other interesting reports that might be re-analyzed or at least reconsidered.

My guess is that IF we can back off, consider Honegger's work, consider CIT's eyewitnesses, and dig into some of all these "buried?" reports, as well as use the volumes of good stuff provided by our solid researchers, maybe we will see something that everyone has missed, or misinterpreted.

And of course...an exacting examination of the damage tof the low cement wall to the left of the generator...to the left top of the generatorthe...and to the top center-right of the generator...will pay dividends soon.

Of course, it would be helpful if all the snickering and all the knee-jerk defense of pet theories would diminish...if not go away totally. That would be nice wouldn't it?

If we are 10% of the way to understanding what went on at the Pentagon, it would be alot...and then if one looks at the GOVERNMENTAL sources of some of the information that some "pet theories" are based upon or have been influenced by, and questions such subjective information, then we are back to about 2% of our way into "getting" the AA77-Pentagon-Cheney-PEOC-SS-NORAD-FAA scenario.

Its gonna be a long time here...surely beyond 9/11/2011...but we have that 10 year anniversary covered with emphasis being on WTC7 and the Controlled Demolitions. So, we have time to crunch some numbers and rethink some things...

What is so helpful and refreshing about Robin Hordon's approach is that he provides the kind of methods that can minimize the ill effects that cognitive infiltration is designed to elicit. The debate over the Pentagon has largely solidified into the very scenario Gretavo warned about in his Cognitive Infiltration thread, in which a static, fruitless debate has developed between the Jim Hoffman/Frank Legge camp on the one hand, and the CIT/P4t camp on the other which just seems to go round and round with nothing new to tip the scales in a very long time at this point (at least as it is being perceived by many of the movement's intellectuals such as Ken Jenkins, Richard Gage, Peter Dale Scott, etc.).

While I personally am still convinced that the Jim Hoffman camp is more obviously engaged in purposeful deception to help cover-up the full truth about 9/11, while the CIT researchers generally have good, honest intentions, it seems that CIT's approach is not without problems - particularly the way they hastily adopted the pet theory of the flyover at the exclusion of all other possibilities, and the unreasonable and ridiculous position they are taking in which they insist that the flyover theory is as solid and provable, er even more so, than the WTC CD theory, along with the off-putting way that they try to shove this down everyone's throats.

By not getting caught up in any of these pet theories, and by seeming to be consistently open to objectively analyzing all relevant data and sources of information while helpfully bringing new angles and research to the table while leaving no stone unturned, Robin's approach has the best chance at this point to make the most progress in uncovering the truth about the pentagon attack. Go Robin!

»

Reply