Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

You have ADMITTED it was a hastily written, poorly done, rush to judgment "hit-piece". You called us "Pentagon sponsored disinfo" for gods' sake!

It most certainly was an empty, unjustified ATTACK.

There is no other way to characterize it.

Suspicion of disinfo. Based on a pttern I had already identified (Rummy's missile "admission," etc.) that it fell right into. I've never made a specific argument to that end.

Long past due Retraction/clarification: if not gloatworthy. The PentaCon is neither misinformation nor disinformation. It is IMO a forceful presentation of a flawed theory extrapolated according to eyewitnesses whose odd accounts are certainly evidence of something, leveraged to fit a pre-conceived notion contrary to the general body of evidnce as I see it. I have no reason to think the CIT are deliberately miselading people, it's only my opinion they are misleading at all, and there's no evidence the Pentagon are involved in this operation in any way.

Jeez, why didn't I clear that up better before.

Yeah why didn't you? What's so odd about your response now as well as in your article, and throughout our entire debate in this forum is that you have refused to even bother to attempt to reconcile or even address the north side evidence directly!

You have now formally admitted that it is "evidence of something".

How can you possibly just leave it at that? Evidence of what?

Evidence that they all hallucinated the same thing? Evidence that they all made the exact same drastic mistake? Or evidence that the plane flew north of the citgo? Be honest with yourself here.

Minimizing this testimony by casting it aside as merely anomalous info that has been "leveraged by a pre-conceived notion" is an intellectually dishonest way to address why Edward, Robert, Chad, and Bill all corroborate the north side claim.

And for the billionth time the flyover and light pole hypothesis is secondary. The north side evidence is what our documentary is about and to this day you have refused to address it directly. Don't you find that a bit odd? It's almost as if your brain shuts down because it clearly contradicts everything you have worked towards and believe.

Strange how you still feel comfortable suggesting it is your "opinion" that we are "misleading" people without explaining how or addressing the north side evidence directly.

There is a serious disconnect going on in your discussion of this information.

Otherwise, the review was rushed. Some typos. Now it's empty? I had no real concerns worth publishing? It was only motivated by my irrational hatred of your video? Puh-leeeeze. Basically what I said is I don't buy it and here's why. I don't give a hoot if you like the content. Of course you don't, and that's why you lash back, because it was an attack on your theory that worked. You need to get better at taking criticism and quit trying to read too much into a passing observation and a few mistakes. Oohh, he's so eager to hurt our wonderful theiry he can't even type straight blah blah blah.

Huh? Are you talking about the self admitted "hit-piece" that you took down again? Let it go. It was trash. It was nothing but a hollow attack that did not directly address the evidence. I never claimed to know why you did it but I suggest it's because it clearly threatens everything you believe about the Pentagon. Again....you keep trying to make this about a "theory". Well it's not. It is about the north side evidence that you refuse to directly address to this day.

It may be hard for you to see someone call a spade a spade in the forum but that's what your article amounted to.

Clearly you agreed enough to take it down so coming back to defend my accurate characterization by arguing semantics seems rather wishy washy.

Say what you will about where I stand. You would know better than me wouldn't you? You're an expert after all at extrapolating what people mean, and always so objectively. But for the record I have never "admitted" I was wrong in the core issue of doubting your theory and criticizing the approach and logic of it. I have bent over backwards enough for you. Just keep re-hashing that little victory there, CL pulled his hit piece blah blah blah. That should tide you over till DRG helps you get that little second wind. You are not stopping, so just keep on going, man, and you'll get where you're headed to.

Sarcasm, emotional distress, frustration, focusing on me personally. All quite evident. What I don't see is you addressing the north side evidence directly without skipping over it to announce you doubt a "theory". How do you explain the north side evidence Adam?

Aldo: I feel there's no need for a phone conversation. It's established to my satisfaction that there can be no informational breakthrough either way, and whatever you want to explain to me is already evident enough. You guys believe what you believe, and you don't want to keep fighting me over it. Me neither. My energy is better used elsewhere.

I wish you guys luck.

We don't want luck. We don't do this for us. We don't want to fight with anyone. Aldo doesn't really care if you call him. It was a gesture. A way to show sincerity, honesty, and a willingness to be open.

I am not surprised that you would refuse and once again bail on this discussion without EVER having addressed the north side evidence directly.

Some call that the ostrich syndrome.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Many people died in the Pentagon from those charges. Obviously damage from strategically placed bombs would be much more random then complete obliteration from the impact of a 757 and thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

Did I say she would be able to differentiate that? Her testimony most certainly IS relevant because she SURVIVED and because she literally exited out of the alleged entrance hole. Yes the fact that she saw nothing that indicates a plane hit the building is also quite relevant.

Nobody said that because she didn't see plane debris that it proves there was none. We are saying that it most certainly is suspicious and notable that she saw NOTHING at all including seats, luggage, debris or anything of the sort. It is selective for you to dismiss this testimony as having no "relevance" at all.


We certainly have! We talked to a retired fire captain who was all throughout the building particularly by the alleged c-ring exit hole. He saw the landing gear. He saw tiny pieces the size of a "quarter". He does not believe a plane hit the building. In fact he told US he believes a plane flew over and that a "missile" did the damage.

We talked to another officer who actually helped April Gallop escape. He confirmed she came out of the alleged entrance hole. He was not able to describe any discernible plane debris.

So far we have not been able to find any evidence of additional significant sized pieces of debris other than what we already know about.

We would be happy to talk with ANYONE who reports something different.

The difference between us and you is that we actually talk to people. For you to smugly imply we are selective in our investigation is an unsupported and completely unwarranted personal attack. I thought you learned your lesson.


Go ahead and be disingenuous while attacking the 9/11 truth movement. She survived the impact and she survived the fires that allegedly melted the steel of the building so much that a catastrophic virtual free fall collapse ensued ultimately causing her death.

We do this for justice for people like Edna Cintron and April Gallop. Spare me the condescending diatribe insinuating we or the 9/11 truth movement are exploiting anyone.

That was a cheap and transparent way to dodge the point.

Obviously damage from strategically placed bombs would be more random? Based on what? Based on 4 eyewitnesses thinking the plane flew in a different path and a woman who thought the sound of an explosion was a bomb? yet no physical evidence what so ever. And her not seeing the plane hit the building is evidence that there was no plane? Oh sorry, it makes it 'suspicious'? And because SHE didn't see parts?

Well many other people saw parts, many other people saw the plane. You seem to think they are all wrong. You seem to think all the pictures of that stuff is all wrong. But when someone says otherwise, it's good evidence. And you call that scientific method? It's a witch hunt.

And the only one dismissing testimony is you guys. No one here is ruling any of their testimony out, we're just not selectively ONLY using that testimony and using it to discard the rest as you guys are doing. Or using it to make up the rest to fill in the holes with what we want to believe.

Can we see the footage of this fire captain who saw a missile hit the building and the plane fly over? And now this seems to be a new twist. So now not only was there a fly over and bombs in the building, but a missile as well. Where might this missile have come from and how come none of the witnesses saw the missile parts? Now of course that's his theory, not yours, but since you are using him as more evidence...

And again with sizable pieces. How is a plane flying at over 500mph hitting a concrete building going to leave large parts? I suppose with certain approaches and angles it could, but to say it must? That's not true.

And all the tear jerking rhetoric is not going to change the facts here. Trying to accuse people of "attacking the truth movement' and what not is not going to work. You like to question ofther people, but when others question you guys, it's an attack on the truth movement and people who died. That's pretty low.

The bottom line is that you got some good eyewitness testimony on people who think they saw the plane fly on the north side. And that's great. But everything else is pure conjecture and speculation based on that.

Originally posted by snoopy

Obviously damage from strategically placed bombs would be more random? Based on what? Based on 4 eyewitnesses thinking the plane flew in a different path and a woman who thought the sound of an explosion was a bomb? yet no physical evidence what so ever. And her not seeing the plane hit the building is evidence that there was no plane? Oh sorry, it makes it 'suspicious'? And because SHE didn't see parts?

There are many suspicious things about the pentagon attack. The fact that you refuse to admit that any exist does not change this. There is not a pentagon researcher that doesn't agree about this simple fact.

Well many other people saw parts, many other people saw the plane. You seem to think they are all wrong. You seem to think all the pictures of that stuff is all wrong. But when someone says otherwise, it's good evidence. And you call that scientific method? It's a witch hunt.

No sir. We acknowledge all the parts that were planted/found. Most were indistinguishable tiny pieces but there was a few that were somewhat recognizable.

Inside:


Outside:


That's about it for the somewhat recognizable parts.

And the only one dismissing testimony is you guys. No one here is ruling any of their testimony out, we're just not selectively ONLY using that testimony and using it to discard the rest as you guys are doing. Or using it to make up the rest to fill in the holes with what we want to believe.

Huh? We heavily analyze all the witnesses and have called dozens. NONE directly contradict the citgo witnesses and only a couple indirectly contradict them the strongest of which is Lloyd the cab driver!

Almost every single other account could easily support either flight path.

Can we see the footage of this fire captain who saw a missile hit the building and the plane fly over? And now this seems to be a new twist. So now not only was there a fly over and bombs in the building, but a missile as well. Where might this missile have come from and how come none of the witnesses saw the missile parts? Now of course that's his theory, not yours, but since you are using him as more evidence...

He did not "see" a missile or the plane at all. He is a first responder. He simply doesn't believe a plane hit because he observed the c-ring "exit" hole up close and simply could not fathom it being created by a plane.

He did not see any plane debris but the landing gear.

CIT does not believe there was a missile and he did not see one. He simply believes there was a missile and thinks the notion that a plane caused the damage that he saw up close is ludicrous.

Oh and he has responded to several plane crashes within his career.

We will present this in the Researcher's Edition.

And again with sizable pieces. How is a plane flying at over 500mph hitting a concrete building going to leave large parts? I suppose with certain approaches and angles it could, but to say it must? That's not true.

The plane was on the north of the citgo and therefore could not be what caused the physical damage starting with the light poles and ending with the curiously round c-ring hole.

And all the tear jerking rhetoric is not going to change the facts here. Trying to accuse people of "attacking the truth movement' and what not is not going to work. You like to question ofther people, but when others question you guys, it's an attack on the truth movement and people who died. That's pretty low.

It's what he did. He said Edna Cintron's story is "exploited". I claim BS. No doubt Edna Cintron would support people that are seeking justice for her murder.

The bottom line is that you got some good eyewitness testimony on people who think they saw the plane fly on the north side. And that's great. But everything else is pure conjecture and speculation based on that.

Ok well demonstrate how the plane could have possibly flown on the north side of the station and still hit pole number one or you have just admitted this is proof the plane didn't cause the physical damage.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The difference between us and you is that we actually talk to people. For you to smugly imply we are selective in our investigation is an unsupported and completely unwarranted personal attack. I thought you learned your lesson.

Craig, you really need to lighten up a little bit. Just because I don't think your investigative skills are the be all and end all of investigations doesn't mean it's a personal attack.

By the way, what were you before you became an investigator? Do you have a resume or anything you can post to let people know your qualifications for making conclusions about the physical evidence? How do you extrapolate your skills at running a video camera to being qualified to render expert opinions on everything to do with 9/11?

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The difference between us and you is that we actually talk to people. For you to smugly imply we are selective in our investigation is an unsupported and completely unwarranted personal attack. I thought you learned your lesson.

Craig, you really need to lighten up a little bit. Just because I don't think your investigative skills are the be all and end all of investigations doesn't mean it's a personal attack.

By the way, what were you before you became an investigator? Do you have a resume or anything you can post to let people know your qualifications for making conclusions about the physical evidence? How do you extrapolate your skills at running a video camera to being qualified to render expert opinions on everything to do with 9/11?

I am a concerned citizen.

If that's not enough for you then you probably are not in the right "movement".

Plus what are you talking about "be all end all"? When did I say that and what does that have to do with your accusation?

You made a very specific claim about how we conducted this investigation without citing any evidence to back it up or giving a reason why you would make that statement.

Dodging it by asking for my credentials doesn't seem very fair.

My credentials do not change the testimony of Edward, Robert, Chad, and Bill.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

I am a concerned citizen.

If that's not enough for you then you probably are not in the right "movement".

Plus what are you talking about "be all end all"? When did I say that and what does that have to do with your accusation?

You made a very specific claim about how we conducted this investigation without citing any evidence to back it up or giving a reason why you would make that statement.

Dodging it by asking for my credentials doesn't seem very fair.

My credentials do not change the testimony of Edward, Robert, Chad, and Bill.

To get right to the point, you claim that your interviews are the "smoking gun" that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the official story isn't true. You've been repeatedly accused of "cherry picking" the evidence. This means that you cite only the evidence that supports the fly-over, north-of-Citgo theory as real, and all other evidence as mistaken. A perfect example of this is the FACT that 3 of your 4 star witnesses said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon, and your "explanation" for their incorrect, triple-corroborated testimony is that they were fooled by an illusion.

No, your credentials don't change the testiony, but your credentials, or lack thereof, reflect the myopic conclusions you've reached based on a very, very, small data set of "evidence." The fact that you even feel the need to cite April Gallop's account reflects this. Early on in science classes one is taught that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I.e., because somebody didn't see something doesn't mean you can reasonably conclude there's nothing there, or even that it's "suspicious."

And the other reason I bring up your credentials is because you seem to have jumped from simlpy citing your witnesses testimony to being able to make commentaries about building damage, plane wreckage, witness reliability and fallibility, etc.

As a concerned citizen, maybe you should visit Backus Middle School and talk to the teachers and administrators there about Sarah Clark and her student, Asia Cottom. Do you think these people were fake? How do you explain an 11-year old that just disappears, or a 65-year old teacher that just vanishes? Have you sought out an interview with Asia's family?

If you were really serious in finding the "truth" you would start by interviewing the victims' families. Unfortunately, there is no "truth" movement. There is only a "let's look for evidence, no matter how obtuse and flimsy, that the government did it and make a video about it" movement. Just because somebody you personally interviewed makes a claim doesn't mean it's the truth.

In fact, the only evidence that you cite as the "truth" is evidence that agrees with your pet fly-over north-of-the-Citgo theory. All the evidence that contradicts this theory is either mistaken or fabricated according to you. This is why people don't generally take your "citizen's investigation" seriously.

[edit on 12-6-2007 by nick7261]

Your condescending tone backed with more unsupported attacks about how we approach the evidence is noted.

I will fully admit that we approached this investigation into the Pentagon completely convinced that 9/11 was an inside job because of the incredible amount of evidence circumstantial and otherwise that exists.

We believe the buildings in New York could not have physically collapsed as they did without help. We have researched the history of the alleged hijackers and found proof that there are known doubles for some of them and a myriad of holes in their stories.

The list goes on and on. There are so many holes that it's pointless to go through them all. We weren't trying to prove 9/11 was an inside job....that had already been fully established.

We were trying to figure out if people REALLY saw a plane in Arlington and where it flew.

We figured it out.

As a result of THAT investigation we established the fly over theory. Not the other way around. We did not believe in a fly over until we had evidence for it.

However we do approach this investigation in the context of it being a false flag terror attack.

Think about it.......a serial murder investigator doesn't approach the crime thinking about the possibility that they may have been coincidental suicides just because he hasn't uncovered the murderer yet.

Know what I mean?

It is not "myopic" for him to think within the context of the crime committed.....serial murders.

Same with us....it is not myopic for us to approach this investigation for what it is........an investigation into a psychological false flag crime of deception.

If we believed the official story we would have left this investigation to the authorities.

If the witnesses all saw the plane on the south side coming in low and hitting the light poles we would have reported it and not have asserted a flyover theory.

The hypothesis is the result of the evidence.

No matter how much people like you say the information we have obtained is being dismissed you are wrong.

The attention has been phenomenal and will only continue to grow.

This data has permanently changed the landscape of the Pentagon discussion no matter how biased you believe we are.





[edit on 12-6-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Oh and the notion that we should have interviewed the "victim's families" is absurd.

How is that line of inquiry supposed to help us establish the flight path of the plane in Arlington?

We CHOSE to focus on whether or not there was a plane and where it flew.

That is our prerogative.

If you feel interviewing the victim's families will uncover important information then by all means go right ahead.

To tell US that's what WE "should" have done when it really had nothing to do with the details we were investigating is plain silly.

With your "smoking gun" evidence.... how many arrests have been made post PentaCon?

Your basing your theory on what YOU want to believe. You believe the cop but the cab driver must have been paid off...you believe the other cop, but the USA today employees are all invlvoed in the evil media.

You believe in Planted Plane parts, Fly-overs, Chem Trails, Pod people, and other garbage that there is NO proof for... yet you dismiss true physical and other eye witness FACTS that don't fit your agenda.

You and Nick are both making generalized incorrect claims about my beliefs and approach to this investigation without backing them up.

Nothing is being dismissed.

NOBODY directly contradicts the north side claim.

Nobody at all.

This claim alone is enough to prove 9/11 was an inside job. (nobody seems to deny this; instead they choose to deny the evidence)

If any of you would have went through what I did and had all these people independently tell you the plane was in the same place you would believe it.

The only reasons people refuse to believe it are because the implications are so astronomical or because it contradicts their own theories.

Bottom line we conducted an investigation, brought back the evidence for everyone to review, and came to conclusions based on the evidence.

The only way to counter it is by dismissing the evidence as being false.

This has been done by people accusing us as having staged the entire thing or by people suggesting that all of these witnesses are simply wildly incorrect in the exact same way.

If you refuse to think critically or accept the evidence presented I suggest you do some soul searching and make a determination as to why.

I understand there is a very large mental barrier for most in accepting this important and thorough information.

I'm sorry but I can not change that.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

There are many suspicious things about the pentagon attack. The fact that you refuse to admit that any exist does not change this. There is not a pentagon researcher that doesn't agree about this simple fact.

No sir. We acknowledge all the parts that were planted/found. Most were indistinguishable tiny pieces but there was a few that were somewhat recognizable.


That's about it for the somewhat recognizable parts.


Huh? We heavily analyze all the witnesses and have called dozens. NONE directly contradict the citgo witnesses and only a couple indirectly contradict them the strongest of which is Lloyd the cab driver!

Almost every single other account could easily support either flight path.


He did not "see" a missile or the plane at all. He is a first responder. He simply doesn't believe a plane hit because he observed the c-ring "exit" hole up close and simply could not fathom it being created by a plane.

He did not see any plane debris but the landing gear.

CIT does not believe there was a missile and he did not see one. He simply believes there was a missile and thinks the notion that a plane caused the damage that he saw up close is ludicrous.

Oh and he has responded to several plane crashes within his career.

We will present this in the Researcher's Edition.

The plane was on the north of the citgo and therefore could not be what caused the physical damage starting with the light poles and ending with the curiously round c-ring hole.


It's what he did. He said Edna Cintron's story is "exploited". I claim BS. No doubt Edna Cintron would support people that are seeking justice for her murder.


Ok well demonstrate how the plane could have possibly flown on the north side of the station and still hit pole number one or you have just admitted this is proof the plane didn't cause the physical damage.

You mean you have much speculation and conjecture about the Pentagon.

You claim the parts were planted, yet no proof of that. And you claim their size is suspicious. yet people found tail numbers and parts that not only identified it as that type of plane, but flight 77 itself. And you expect us to believe that it was planted right there in front of thousands of people with no one noticing? Or as you have claimed in the past that it was all there beforehand and yet no one happened to notice?

Most of the witnesses contradict the rest of your claims which you don't have backed up by evidence but just make up based on your findings (and those conclusions were not determined b your findings since you guys have been claiming them before you even started Pentacon). Even some of your own witnesses contradict these things (bombs planted, a fly over, etc etc).

And so you boast a first responder who can't imagine a plane hitting the pentagon and only saw landing gear. but what about all the other responders who handled plenty of plane debris and parts and the people who actually saw the plane hit? How many of the plane crashes he responded to involved a large commercial jet flying at full speed into a concrete building? And what is his expertise beyond simply doing rescue work? You're cherry picking the testimony you want and dismissing the rest.


No, you have 4 people who think the plane was on the north side. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong. but as always, you use ONE piece of evidence to dismiss all other evidence. You don't factor in any of the rest of the evidence, you say 'these 4 people say this, so THAT is the truth'. Likewise we could use the damage and all the other evidence such as the DNA, the flight path, the other witnesses, the debris, the belongings and say that proves your witnesses are wrong. It works both ways. The people who literally saw the plane hitting the light poles could then be used to say that the plane didn't fly the way your witnesses say. It's all how you selectively choose your evidence.


I think You need to explain how the plane could fly on the north side and do that damage. because you guys are the ones making the claims, not us. I accept the testimony, but weighing it in with ALL the evidence, it's not enough to dismiss the rest of the evidence.

Multiple people giving a same incorrect account is not uncommon. And eyewitness testimony alone is not reliable as we have all already discussed. You seem to hold it as a gold standard. but then have absolutely no problem creating conjecture and speculation to write off all other evidence. 'They are lying', 'it was planted', etc etc.

It's the same old routine over and over. And this is why no credible outlets outside of these conspiracy forums will take it seriously. It pays no respect to scientific method and hence being labeled as conspiracy theory. The leg work alone is not what gives research legitimacy. It's the unbiased scientific method which you guys discard to lead people to believe your pre-determined conclusions which you guys have been saying long before this research. it's definitely better than anything anyone else has and the eyewitness accounts have to be taken seriously. But the overall study is not honest.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


The only way to counter it is by dismissing the evidence as being false.

This has been done by people accusing us as having staged the entire thing or by people suggesting that all of these witnesses are simply wildly incorrect in the exact same way.

If you refuse to think critically or accept the evidence presented I suggest you do some soul searching and make a determination as to why.

I understand there is a very large mental barrier for most in accepting this important and thorough information.

I'm sorry but I can not change that.

And yet you don't see that that is exactly what you guys are doing. THAT is the irony of all of this and that is the real criticism. All these things you charge other people of doing is the entire basis of your research.

This is not perhaps the best thread for the questions I have but I’m reluctant to start yet another Pentagon-related thread.

Let’s make two assumptions: first, 9/11 was an inside job; and second, the eyewitness testimony presented in The PentaCon is correct – a commercial aircraft did fly north of the Citgo station. We have, by default, a third assumption. The aircraft that flew north of the Citgo station did not impact the Pentagon building, since the physical damage is inconsistent with such a flightpath.

To my mind, this scenario begs the question, why did the perpetrators stick the aircraft within a few tens of metres of the Pentagon and then execute a flyover when it surely would have been easier to hit the building? If the plan did involve a flyover, then it also involved either the carefully synchronised launch of a missile or the detonation of pre-planted explosives (or some other means of achieving the damage to the Pentagon). This added and seemingly unnecessary layer of complexity introduced all sorts of potential complications. Why take the risk when there was a more straightforward option?

The other question I have, which is aimed more at the pilots in the forum, is concerned with the practicability of the strike itself. I recently heard a radio interview involving Rob Balsamo and a flight instructor whose name I forget. This flight instructor said that, after finishing a simulator session on or around 9/11, a few of them took turns trying to hit one of the twin towers in the simulator. Only this flight instructor was able to do it and that was after several attempts. Has anyone ever tried to simulate the manoeuvre that allegedly took Flight 77 into the Pentagon?

Originally posted by coughymachine


To my mind, this scenario begs the question, why did the perpetrators stick the aircraft within a few tens of metres of the Pentagon and then execute a flyover when it surely would have been easier to hit the building? If the plan did involve a flyover, then it also involved either the carefully synchronised launch of a missile or the detonation of pre-planted explosives (or some other means of achieving the damage to the Pentagon). This added and seemingly unnecessary layer of complexity introduced all sorts of potential complications. Why take the risk when there was a more straightforward option?

Complete control of the destruction to their own building.

Damage from a plane would be random and the 1,000's of gallons of jet fuel may have contaminated the building for who knows how long.

Clearly they did not plan to demolish the entire Pentagon as they did the towers so control of the destruction to their headquarters would be a big concern.

The operation is complex no matter how you look at it but bottom line the same M.O. was used at both places.

Real planes used as psychological tools while the actual destruction was carried out covertly with strategically placed explosives.

Originally posted by coughymachine
This is not perhaps the best thread for the questions I have but I’m reluctant to start yet another Pentagon-related thread.

Let’s make two assumptions: first, 9/11 was an inside job; and second, the eyewitness testimony presented in The PentaCon is correct – a commercial aircraft did fly north of the Citgo station. We have, by default, a third assumption. The aircraft that flew north of the Citgo station did not impact the Pentagon building, since the physical damage is inconsistent with such a flightpath.

But those aren't the only assumptions. There's more. you then have to assume that they crashed flight 77 somewhere else so they could plant all the parts, teh bodies, and the belongings of the passengers.

Then you have to assume they made some fake alls that were convincing enough to fool the victims own family members. Or you have so assume that some of the family members are in on the plot to kill their loved ones.

Then you have to assume bombs were planted and set to go off at just the right moment. Even though it's not true that the Jet fuel would contaminate the building or that a jet would not make random damage, etc.

And as for questioning the intent of the perps, wouldn't a better question be 'why would they not just fly the plane in the path that matches all the other evidence?' Instead they aparantly opted to plant all this evidence and bodies and parts and stage this huge scene, including a plane flying over the building and a flight path that doesn't match their pre-planted damage.

And all these reasons to do a fly over which are pretty weak and in turn using all these mthods which were based on hoping that out of the thousands of people in the surrounding area no one would see the plane fly over and no one would happen to capture it on video. It's a bit like the James bond movie where an absurdly overly complex plan is put into place for the convenience of the good guys catching it when they could have just done it in a very simple fashion.

There's a great scene in Austin powers between dr evil and his son that this often reminds me of. And so these guys were smart enough to pull off the biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind, yet too stupid enough to have the plane follow the right flight path.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

I understand there is a very large mental barrier for most in accepting this important and thorough information.

I'm sorry but I can not change that.

The only mental barrier is the one you possess which prevents you from accepting evidence that contradicts your pet theory. Your videotaped witnesses have done little, if anything, to change anybody's mind. The people who cite your video as evidence of a conspiracy are also the same people who believe that fire doesn't melt steel, or that there were only tiny little fires in WTC1.

And yes, if you're looking into whether or not Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, then you must also address the question of what happened to the passengers on Flight 77. Apparently you believe the victims on Flight 77 were real people who actually died. So then how does your theory account for who killed them?

You incorrectly implied in another post that Operation Northwoods related somehow to your scenario. What you failed to admit was that Northwoods never called for the cold-blooded murder of innocent children like Asia Cottom, Bernard Brown, or Rodney Dickens. If Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, and these children aren't at home sleeping in their beds tonight, then where are they? Are they dead? Who issued the order to murder 11-year old children, and who followed these orders?

Considering the long history of global Islamic terrorism I personally find it more likely that these 5 guys...



...would be happy to kill 11-year old American children -not members of the U.S. armed services, special forces, CIA, or FBI.

On the other hand, I can cite crime after crime in which radical muslims carried out the murders of civilian men, women, and children. Of course mentioning such incidents might be considered in poor taste since the accused murderers are not members of the U.S. government.

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

I understand there is a very large mental barrier for most in accepting this important and thorough information.

I'm sorry but I can not change that.

The only mental barrier is the one you possess which prevents you from accepting evidence that contradicts your pet theory. Your videotaped witnesses have done little, if anything, to change anybody's mind. The people who cite your video as evidence of a conspiracy are also the same people who believe that fire doesn't melt steel, or that there were only tiny little fires in WTC1.

David Ray Griffin cites it in his new book. It has only been out a few months. It will not be going away.

And yes, if you're looking into whether or not Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, then you must also address the question of what happened to the passengers on Flight 77. Apparently you believe the victims on Flight 77 were real people who actually died. So then how does your theory account for who killed them?

I have no idea nor do I believe we will ever know. You have changed nick. You seem dark and full of bitterness.

You incorrectly implied in another post that Operation Northwoods related somehow to your scenario. What you failed to admit was that Northwoods never called for the cold-blooded murder of innocent children like Asia Cottom, Bernard Brown, or Rodney Dickens. If Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, and these children aren't at home sleeping in their beds tonight, then where are they? Are they dead? Who issued the order to murder 11-year old children, and who followed these orders?

They DID suggest killing people in northwoods. Not on the same level but they did. I referenced it specifically in regards to the plane swap idea anyway.

Bottom line you are interrogating me with questions that will never be answered.

You should be interrogating your government who has covered up for the crimes of 9/11.

Considering the long history of global Islamic terrorism I personally find it more likely that these 5 guys...

...would be happy to kill 11-year old American children -not members of the U.S. armed services, special forces, CIA, or FBI.

On the other hand, I can cite crime after crime in which radical muslims carried out the murders of civilian men, women, and children. Of course mentioning such incidents might be considered in poor taste since the accused murderers are not members of the U.S. government.

Wow.

Interesting.

I thought you believed 9/11 was an inside job.

Anyway dude.......we know that about radical muslims and all. They have a strong history of being used as patsies. Think soviets/Afghanistan in the 80's. Who funded al quada then?

But islamic fundamentalists did not have the capability of pulling off 9/11. You are starting to lose control and expose your deep hatred for people in the truth movement in creepy unstable kind of way.

We do what we do for justice for those families and the families of every service person and Iraqi that dies every day because of this fraudulent war based on nothing but lies.