By youtube user 'Brokenstyx' or Broken Sticks

[admin edit to remove direct links which can be found at link below]

I saw it posted here at the 911oz forum

Yeah we saw it and will have yet ANOTHER response to these incessant yet foolish attacks.

This guy joined here a few months ago and played the role of gushing fanboy so bad that it was rather awkward and embarrassing and frankly I thought inappropriate right off the bat. He then made a complete flip-flop and all of the sudden decided that the plane DID fly NoC but also hit the Pentagon AND the light poles too!! So he was supposedly DECEIVED by our trickery at first but too smart to stay that way for long!
:rolleyes:

It would be comical if this wasn't so serious.

Some people will do anything to get our attention but this is the first time that ANYONE has made an assertion this wild.

Yeah, he signed up here a few months ago. He has a bad case of what he calls "9/11 Jealousy" and it has led him to lie shamelessly about the evidence and about CIT in an attempt to make a name for himself in what he calls "the 911 jungle", where, according to him, a lot of people "resist anyone else finding damning evidence" because "a lot of people involved want to be THE person to solve 911, they want to be THE person to find the crucial damning evidence. They want the glory themselves, after all those nights lost to research."

See a few months ago "broken sticks" observed: "When you view the CIT research fairly, its pretty obvious how important it is. Every non-researcher i show it to agrees."

He tried brownosing, but that didn't get him "the glory", because, as 22205 once explained:

Not only did broken sticks not get "the glory" by brownnosing, but he wasn't really even "recognized, thanked, and respected" very much because he barely contributed any research.

It seems the apparently attention-starved broken sticks then realized that the fastest track to "the glory" was actually for him to attack CIT and their research.

And in fact it IS very easy to get attention if you attack CIT because many members of sites like JREF and TruthAction will promote virtually ANYTHING that attacks CIT, with zero fact checking or regard for its accuracy, and even if it totally contradicts other things that they are simultaneously promoting and saying.

For example broken sticks clearly asserts repeatedly that the plane flew on the north side of the Citgo station in his video, yet many in these groups will love, applaud, and promote his video even though they have been attacking CIT for saying this same thing for years now (CIT are of course the ones who personally established this fact by going into the belly of the beast and interviewing eyewitnesses). These people promote Jim Hoffman's dishonest attacks even though Hoffman argues that the plane flew on the south side of the station and admits that this is where it had to be in order to cause the physical damage. All that matters to them is that you call CIT liars in some way or another.

"broken sticks" has learned that it's not about quality for these people; it's about quantity. This means that the longer your vapid attacks are the better, but it also means that the more different angles people are attacking CIT from the better. A good way to recieve "the glory" from them as fast as possible is to find your own little niche (again, even if it contradicts other things they're putting out). broken sticks observed a few months ago:

When he didn't get "the glory" by showering praise on CIT, he decided that, given the "pretty obvious" "importan[ce]" of their work and the climate of easy "glory" for attackers, he would ignore the science AND the majority of the statements by the witnesses and try to be "THE person" to come up with an "official explanation for their findings"; what he calls the "1st ever path poss[ible]".

Anyone who has paid attention to CIT's videos, including broken sticks, knows that he is making deceptive and/or false claim after deceptive and/or false claim in his video. But it will get him a little piece of "the glory", and that's clearly the most important thing to him, even if it means pulling a complete 180 from what he knows to be true and deliberately lying about Craig and Aldo and the solid, extremely important evidence that they have uncovered which exposes the 9/11 mass-murder fraud.

"Without wanting to comment too much on the general demographic, there's a lot of immature people involved in 911 research. Its pretty clear that CIT have to deal with a LOT of detractors. I've experienced it first hand, people fighting tooth-and-nail over semantics, making clearly false accusations about their methods... The CIT guys probably wouldn't say this themselves, but i think its why a lot of the community have been (and continue to be) resisting shouting their findings from the rooftops. They're jealous. So well done guys for not letting it get it to you and, after some of the crap you've had to deal with, well done for still remaining civil!" - broken sticks, Sept 19, 2009

Another note: broken sticks has stopped posting on this forum for maybe a month, but I have seen him log on quite a few times and poke around on various threads. I have previously predicted (privately) that once he launched his attack piece he would then begin posting again, except now of course it would be aggressive and inflammatory instead of his previous fawning posts, and his direct goal would be to leave us no choice but to ban him so that he could then go around bragging about that as a sort of badge of honor to help build his "street cred" with JREF and TruthAction types in his pursuit of "the glory". Just wanted to get that on record. He may not do it now that I predicted it but I think he probably still will.

I can't be bothered to watch his video.

Is he seriously saying NOC and hitting the lamposts?

That is frankly impossible.

He knows it's impossible. He tries to do it with a flightsim in his video and fails miserably, even after throwing Paik, Morin, and others under the bus. He doesn't care. He yearns for "the glory".

I saw this on the Aus forum also and had seen his previous attempts there to make NoC and lightpoles not mutually exclusive. Has anyone seen this promoted elsewhere?

Yes, his first post ever on TruthAction was today when he posted it there. He can almost taste "the glory".

"So he was supposedly DECEIVED by our trickery at first but too smart to stay that way for long!"
correct craig.

"Some people will do anything to get our attention"
CIT are deceiving many people. Its those people whose attentions i want.

"I can't be bothered to watch his video."
Your dedication to the truth is quite astounding. lol.

"He tries to do it with a flightsim in his video and fails miserably"
My flightsim results show it is within the realms of possibility.
The witness testimony proves it happened.

How did YOUR flightsim tests go?

"He can almost taste "the glory"."
I did this for truth. CIT are deceiving you (and possibly themselves).

btw, will this thread be discussing the evidence and theories spoken of in the videos?


and ligon, your psychoanalysis is funny - the reason i changed from supporter to detractor is because i saw through the lies. maybe you folks will too one day. yes, i looked at the situation from all sides, and i saw the detractors trying to claim the plane wasn't NoC. it obviously was NoC, but that's not the whole story.
if the evidence proves anything, its that a plane went NoC-lightpoles-pentagon. CIT's detractors were wrong about SoC. i can not explain their actions and motivations for them, but i was aware that making this video might annoy both CIT AND the SoC believers. however unpopular a video is, if its the truth and its important then i will try to make it regardless.


oh well. hopefully all the little details will be ironed out in some kind of debate. craig has already refused - will any CIT supporters interested in truth take up the challenge? it has been laid down on the 911artists website for anyone who would like to explain to the public how the flyover is a "100% scientific fact".


and my initial praise was based on the presumption that CIT had taken due diligence with their work. i didn't realise at the time what i would find underneath it.

Just wait and you'll see broken sticks. Your claim that you "did this for truth" is yet another blatant lie and you know it, just like your claim that "My flightsim results show it is within the realms of possibility", your claim that "The witness testimony proves it happened", and countless assertions made in your video.

lol
you wish.
oh well. everyone can see through CIT's lies now. sorry boys.

"just like your claim that "My flightsim results show it is within the realms of possibility""
hehe - CIT are going to have to entertain the idea that a plane did all the physical damage. finally. they normally don't allow that kind of thing.

"your claim that "The witness testimony proves it happened""
it all does baby :)

any takers?

There isn't a reason to debate an anonymous internet troll who is desperately seeking "the glory" with foolish and patently ridiculous claims and attacks.

That would only play into your innermost desire that you already let out in a Freudian slip as quoted by Ligon.

Your silly youtube piece will be swiftly debunked.

You won't be banned here but you are limited to replying in the "questions and discussion" section that I will move this thread to right now.

CIT response to youtube video The CIT Deception - The Plane, The Path, The Poles, The Pentagon by "broken sticks"


The entire premise of this piece is based on the notion that the plane did in fact fly north of the former Citgo gas station but still caused all of the observed physical damage to the light poles, generator trailer, and the building itself leading to the C-ring hole. We will demonstrate in this response (supported by a detailed professional technical analysis) that this claim is scientifically impossible proving that by accepting the north side approach, the author must accept the notion that the plane did not hit the light poles or the building.

The creator of this deceptive hit-piece only identifies himself as "broken sticks" so he has refused to put his name to his claims and therefore has no reputation to risk with this baseless fraudulent attack. Since he has no credentials for us to verify we must assume he has no expert qualifications regarding flight capabilities. The home PC software based "flight simulation" that he presented ignores several pertinent witnesses who prove the plane crossed from the south to the north side of Columbia Pike and flew directly over the Navy Annex, while he does not even bother to demonstrate that a plane on his irrelevant hypothetical path would hit the light poles anyway,let alone hit the generator trailer and cause the low and level first floor damage to the building.

He presents no calculations whatsoever while ignoring pertinent values such as altitude, speed, and most importantly the required roll rate of the plane while failing to show the light poles in his animation at all. Nothing he has presented demonstrates that the plane would hit the poles even on the irrelevant path presented.

But his hypothetical path is entirely north of A-One Auto shop and the Navy Annex which is completely irreconcilable with confirmed witness Terry Morin's account at the Navy Annex as well as confirmed witness Edward Paik who specifically has the plane crossing from the south to the north side of Columbia Pike as shown here:



Neither Paik nor Morin would have been able to see the plane on the "broken sticks" flight path at all as is evident from the screen shot of his flight path below.



Even though several of the witnesses presented and addressed in this piece including Darell Stafford and Sean Boger corroborate each other by distinctly describing and/or illustrating an approach from directly over the Navy Annex turning into a significant right bank "broken sticks" is forced to dismiss this and depict the complete opposite.

To demonstrate how this blatant straw man argument is even more deceptive, although he references our presentation "Flight 77" The White Plane his flight path also completely ignores all of the witnesses presented corroborating Edward Paik's claim that the plane came from south of Columbia Pike. Specifically Cindy Reyes, Veronica, Mrs. Hubbard, and Jamal El'Kournayti.



CIT detractors, supporters, and all Pentagon researchers with real names who have published anything on this topic at all unanimously agree with us that it is impossible for a plane on the north side approach to cause all of the physical damage including the light poles. "broken sticks" has been the first to argue on various internet forums that it is possible for a plane north of the gas station to hit the light poles, generator trailer, and cause the observed 1st floor damage to the Pentagon. Although he remains anonymous and is therefore not a legitimate researcher with a reputation to risk, we have taken one of his previous hypothetical flight paths to professional certified pilots to examine who are willing to put their names and reputations to their claims. Although this hypothetical flight path examined is still irreconcilable with the witnesses, it did have the plane coming from south of Columbia Pike and at least partially over the Navy Annex unlike the version "broken sticks" presents in his youtube piece. Here is his originally asserted "possible" path that was analyzed.



"broken sticks" must have realized that this very tight S curve double bank path is impossible explaining why he would drop it while choosing to completely ignore the accounts of Edward Paik and Terry Morin in order to show an allegedly "possible" single bank approach completely north of Columbia Pike and the Navy Annex for the simulation provided in his youtube hit-piece.

A complete professional analysis of his original hypothetical path, as well as a hypothetical transition from north to south based off the witness illustrations, has been authored by certified pilot Rob Balsamo while being reviewed and approved by USAF Accident investigation Board President Captain Jeff Latas and Commander Ralph Kolstad who has flown commercial B757/767's for 13 years mostly as an international Captain with American Airlines. The technical analysis complete with animations and all relevant calculations is linked below.

These experts who unlike "broken sticks" are willing to put their names to their claims demonstrate unequivocally how it is impossible for a plane as observed by the witnesses to cause the physical damage to the light poles, generator trailer, as well as the Pentagon itself from either the witness illustrations OR from the irrelevant hypothetical path illustrated by "broken sticks".

Since "broken sticks" accepts the notion that this is where the plane was located he has no choice but to accept the notion that the plane did not hit and continued on as reported by witness Roosevelt Roberts.

The account of Roosevelt Roberts has been twisted by "broken sticks" beyond recognition with careful selective editing and fraudulent assumptions. He ignores that Roosevelt specifically describes seeing the plane immediately AFTER the explosion, not before. He also ignores the fact that he described it banking around "as if it missed it's target, missed the landing zone." He also ignores the fact that in the Library of Congress interview Roosevelt specifically called it "another plane" meaning not the one that he was deceived into believing caused the explosion "ten seconds tops" before he saw the plane "flying around south parking". When listening to both of Roosevelt's entire interviews in context it is 100% clear that he was describing a plane "just above the light poles" that did not hit the building and that he was inside his booth at the Pentagon only "7 steps" away from the edge of the loading dock during the explosion and so did not see the approach of the plane at all.

The other attacks in this piece merely amount to more spin and irrelevant baseless arguments that will be ignored for now since he completely failed in demonstrating his primary claim that it is possible for a north side plane to cause the damage. However a more thorough point-by-point breakdown of some of the deceptive claims made by "broken sticks" will be forthcoming.

The insinuation that we are doing this for money is also false as we have always provided all presentations for free while encouraging people to download and burn their own DVD's for their Operation Accountability efforts. We have not even come close to recouping the many thousands of dollars of our own money that we have spent to obtain this data throughout the course of our investigation and merely offer DVD's for those who prefer not to do the manufacturing themselves and wish to support our efforts by helping us offset our significant costs.

As it stands his claim that the witnesses are correct about the north side approach, and pull-up over the highway, but that the plane still hit the light poles, generator trailer, and caused the low and level damage to the building is a patently ridiculous argument that has been proven false by the laws of physics as already understood and agreed by all other skeptics, researchers, scholars, and experts who have looked closely at this information.

Good call! :lol:

Looks like the only "broken stick" is the one in the cockpit of the plane simulator making the impossible S-turn...

Haha no kidding.

Let's see if he is man enough to post the rebuttal in full (with links intact) at truthaction.

Doubt it.

Aside from your misogyny, i notice YOU haven't posted your rebuttal on truthaction.

Pardon me. It's is true that your cowardly anonymous nature means you could just as easily be female so I suppose I should have said "courage".

:rolleyes:


Believe me I'd love to if I could. They have arbitrarily banned me there out of pure censorship because my civil plea for reason converted some of their most intellectual contributors. Primarily Stefan and ChekNI who I believe are both known activists in the UK.

I see that you did NOT have the courage to post the full rebuttal (with links) and made sure to only casually post a link hoping it will be buried in the continuous ad hominem attacks against us.

Figures.

For those interested, the discussion with "broken sticks" who has now claimed his real name is "David Owen" continued for a bit here.

Until he puts out a tech paper as a full response to the thorough technical debunk by Pilots for 9/11 Truth it is clear that he has already lost the debate.

It's extremely doubtful he'll even attempt this as it's clear that David Owen has no expert qualifications or even remedial knowledge of aeronautics based on his response in the above thread.

I asked him:

He responded with this:

Rob replied:

Well, he does admit right on his YouTube channel that "Confusion" is one of his "Hobbies".

Having just read the thread on TruthAction, I like the support they give him because he is attacking CIT while not quite saying his whole video is a pile of crap. Sort of like "any enemy of my enemy is my friend".

That certainly seems to be their strategy. It's things like this which make me think that truth movement is infested with cointelpro agents. There is no chance ordinary people would react like this. It's so bizarre behavior that there has to be other reason ... It's incredible that they do not get ousted for this kind of blatant attempts to suppress evidence.

i see in that sorry thread broken sticks asked if you've ever flown a plane.......

HAS HE?

:facepalm:

Why not debate him, if only for the comedy value? :lol:

Because his entire goal is to make a name for himself by attacking us no matter how ridiculous and unfounded his arguments are.

He has already exposed his complete ignorance regarding aeronautics and the entire premise of his argument has been ripped to shreds by real pilots.

His 15 minutes of fame are already up.

I have a couple of questions for broken sticks. I haven't had time to watch your video yet (limited internet access right now) but from what I've gathered there are definitely a couple of points I need clearing up:

1) Why is it the government faked the flight data, in your theory?

2) Is the absence of Paik and Morin in your theory due to the fact they don't fit your preferred conclusion, or some other reason?

Great questions, Stefan.

Things that make you go duuuuhhh.

No answers yet? I thought Broken Sticks was keen to discuss this work with CIT supporters… Well while I wait...

I've watched the first part of this now and my immediate impressions are that he is employing a mix-&-match approach to try and reconcile the evidence CIT have presented with the official story.

So we keep the testimony of the NoC part of the flight path corroboration from the independent evidence;

The we add a little light pole damage from the official story;

And finally we have the plane impact and Broken Sticks believes he has come up with a clever way that he can avoid ignoring all witness testimony (a well-worn detractor tactic which has become untennable since the release of NSA) and still support the official story and hence avoid being attacked and ridiculed by the brown shirts of the CIT detractor campaign. It seems clear from his online history that Broken Sticks is very concerned with being accepted and patted on the head as part of an in-group. He failed to ingratiate himself with CIT despite some frankly embarrassing ass kissing, so turned to the detractors. Since simply insulting CIT is enough to be crowned as a champion of the truth movement by these clowns, he unsurprisingly found this a lot easier, but it does leave him with a lot of questions to answer.

Most importantly regarding the evidence he chose to reject and why.

He removes Paik and Morin from the indendent evidence;

Then he removes Zakhem, Wheelhouse and others from the official story supporting evidence;

Finally he subtley throws away the flight data and hopes no one notices.

First the witnesses. Why does he leave out these out?

When we look at CIT's exclusion of eye witnesses there is a clear logic.

Take Zakhem and Wheelhouse, who both CIT and Broken Sticks reject.

CIT reject them because Paik and Morin contradict them, and corroborate one another.

You could say this would be a draw as there are two claiming each account, but Wheelhouse's story of the shadowing C130 is proved wrong not just by the other witnesses (including even Zakhem's dubious account) but also photographic evidence, video evidence and the word of the pilot of the plane himself so is clearly a suspect witness. Further, the path over the Annex Morin and Paik suggest fits perfectly with the emmergence from the other side of the Annex testified to by the Citgo and Arlington Cemetary Maintenance witnesses, while Wheelhouse again is contradicted by them, and Zakhem's claimed sight of wing where she says she saw it would leave the plane the task of some serious slalom action to arrive on the north of Citgo, if it is possible at all. So if we have Paik and Morin who's testimony agress with each other and fits all the other eye witness testimony saying one thing, and Zakhem and Wheelhouse contradicting each other and everyone else, we know which we should logically put aside.

With CIT testimony is rejected because other witnesses corroborate each other and prove it false.

Not so with Broken Sticks, who rejects these witnesses not because any other witnesses refute them (the witnesses he does accept jive with Morin and Paik perfectly) but because they cause a problem for his pre-decided conclusion that the plane did hit the light poles and building.

Selecting evidence and rejecting evidence depending on how convneient it is to our conclusion?

We call this cherry picking.

And what about the flight data? Clearly Broken Sticks did not think very hard about why the government might want to lay the ground work to prove themselves lying about 9/11 by faking an FDR file to suggest a slightly different route. The difference between Broken Stick's flight path and the one suggested by the FDR is insignifcant when looked at through the context of the perpertrators aims. In both flight paths the plane hits the light poles and then the building, furthermore the real FDR would be even better, as it would not have the incorrect altitude or the early ending which drew so much suspicion to the faked FDR data.

There is no logical reason to fly the plane into the light poles, into the generator, then into the Pentagon… and then fake a new FDR file which showed the plane too high to hit the light poles and that ends way too soon to be genuine. The only reason Broken Sticks disposed of the flight data as part of his theory is that, again, it did not match his preferred conclusion.

[EDIT]

Hey Sticks, why did you leave out Lagasse diving into his police crew as the plane flew north of citgo, clearly before it allegedly impacted the Pentagon? You realize this of course calls into question the entire path of the plane after seeing it North of Citgo with regards to Lagasse?

Was this your attempt at lying for Lagasse to match your own theory?

Geez your a terrible liar sticks. You butchered Roosevelts interview. Why not play the entire CIT recorded conversation instead of hacking up into a fantasy time frame.

Hey Sticks, call Roosevelt up and ask him, "Did you see the Pentagon plane before it hit the building?"

He may have saw a replay of the WTC attacks, but ignormaus, he feel's the explosion at the Pentagon and then runs outside and sees the plane flying away from the south parking lot. Your a joke. You seem to think he FELT the events in NYC while watching a replay on TV and then react to those by running outside and then seeing the plane and impact?? LOL! You are quite the twister!

Simply ask yourself? Did Roberts feel the explosion, see dust fall, and react to nothing and then went out side to see the plane??

You aren't very good at this dis-info stuff are you?
---------

With regards to the cab....distorted lens shot when it comes to pictures?? LOL. How is it distorted?

----

I threw the link to this thread up on his comment section on his Youtube! Channel. Lets see if anyone bites...

Broken Sticks?

Where has he gone?

David Owens,

Why in the world didn't anyone else figure out this startling revelation? Why are you the only one to make this case? Out of allll of our detractors which included alleged pilots/avaiation professionals, not one of them have made or used this argument. Yet you are the only one.

Why is that? Are you just keener or smarter than everyone else? Did you see something that no one else could?