PentaCon is not a Hoax

Craig, I think you're self-projecting buddy.

And once again, you provide another great example of your self-proclaimed, narcissistic ability to assign meaning and motives where none exist. This is almost as comical as when you accused CL of having "nefarious" motives because he has enough common sense not to waste his time talking with you or Aldo on the phone.

Because I don't "suffer fools gladly," as the expression goes, doesn't mean I hate anybody.

And you're tactics are as transparent as they are predictable and juvenile. When confronted with evidence that doesn't match your theory, or arguments you can't rebut, you go right into personal attacks almost every time.

I'm really not sure why the mods, even though they have proclaimed the 9/11 forum under strict watch, continue to give you a free pass in your ongoing personal insults.

(Does this warning ever apply to everybody except Ranke?)


Or is it now appropriate to say that somebody is dark, full of bitterness, losing control, creepy, and has deep hatred for people?

[edit on 13-6-2007 by nick7261]

Well I didn't call you creepy.

I said what you posted was creepy.

They locked your thread calling for people to contact victim's families so you brought that strange rhetoric over here by trying to insinuate it is somehow my responsibility to prove who killed their loved ones or the exact method that was used to murder them.

It makes no sense and it is odd.




[edit on 13-6-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Sorry Trip,

Your theory is the one that is creepy. You are the one that has made this theory up, you should explain it. What happened to the plane..the passengers...etc.

You should also let others in here know MORE about your charachter. ie: that you believe in Chem Trails. Also you believe there was a missle on planes that hit the twin towers. THAT my friend is creepy.

Where is your eye witness to a flyover? With the MANY witnesses to the plane hitting the pentagon not ONE has come out to say they saw a flyover.

Again, I ask you... how many arrests have been made? You bragged for weeks that this "smoking gun" was going to lead to arrests. Well? How many so far?

Indeed if this was so huge then the police,FBI etc would have been all over the place plus this would certainly have made mainstream news ages ago.

But in fact this is only being used to try and make money by selling a DVD as i pointed out awhile back

If you claim to be a top notch researcher, and you cite Operation Northwoods as a template for 9/11, then it would follow that you might want to confirm whether or not the victims were real or made up CIA identities. You should know that Northwoods called for false hijackings, comlpete with false passengers and false funerals. Northwoods did not call for actually downing a real commercial airliner and murdering U.S. citizens.

So if you're going to reference Northwoods, you need to be intellectually honest. The truth is there is no doubt that the passengers on all 4 9/11 flights were real people, and they left behind real families. This means for your Pentagon flyover theory to be correct, you must also account for what happened to the real people who boarded Flight 77 and never returned home.

In my opinion, stating the obvious, that radical muslims would be more likely to have no problem killing 11-year old American children than U.S. special ops is not creepy -it's self-evident. More to the point, you have shown no evidence that deals at all with Flight 77.

So what's the next step in your theory? That U.S. government black ops gassed the passengers, burned their bodies, and snuck their remains into the Pentagon when nobody was looking? How did they get their DNA? Did they falsify the entire DNA results?

See, it's real easy to come up with a tabloid-like story and stray witnesses to confirm it. I've seen stories, corroborated by witnesses, that U.S. forces have captured Satan himself in Iraq, how microscopic aliens live in our carpets, and how Bigfoot is battling space aliens to protect his home turf. Oh yeah... and how a mystery plane flew over the Pentagon while at precisely the exact moment of the flyover a missile hit the Pentagon and bombs destroyed the inside of the building.

Just because a there's a large market of people that believe these stories doesn't mean your "research" is comprehensive, or that your conclusions are valid.

No, the PentaCon is not a hoax. It's more like a tabloid story that sensationalizes a tiny sliver of eye-witness reports and then misleadingly extrapolates this data into a pre-determined conclusion.

Someday I'll probably be watching you explain your "smoking gun evidence" on the next incarnation of the Rosie O'Donnell show, along with watching the "truth movement" sink further out of the mainstream and into the realm of the alien autopsy video.

Originally posted by nick7261








Nick7261, thanks for the post. I'm interested in your sources and list of witnesses that can corroberate the 3 stories above that you have seen:

(1) That U.S. Forces have captured Satan himself in Iraq
(2) How microscopic aliens live in our carpets, and
(3) How Bigfoot is battling space aliens to protect his home turf.

I have used several search engines with no luck. Please let me know where I can verify your stories. Thanks.

Weekly World News, September 2006.



Weekly World News, May 2006.

I hope this helps.

Originally posted by nick7261






Nope. Couldn't find those or the one about the aliens living in the carpet. It may be your posted dates. Weekly World News is published weekly. Its possible that you are being less than honest Nick7261 and that you made those stories up. There is a note in the T&C about posting information you know to be false. Unless of course you have personal information about aliens in a carpet. So which is it?

The north side claim is not a theory. It is what the all the witnesses saw and is undisputed. First hand eyewitness testimony is EVIDENCE not a theory.



Whatever you say king straw man.



How do you know? The FBI confiscated and permanently sequestered the 911 calls just like they did the video of the event so you will never know what was reported. Why do you think they did this unless they had something to hide?



What are you talking about? Why are you lying about what I have said? Either back up you claims with a quote from me or you have proven yourself a liar.

I have said NOTHING about "arrests" and have only stated that our research will likely be included in any Grand Jury that may materialize based on ALL the evidence.

I knew from jump street that this information would be ignored by the authorities and media for as long as possible just like all evidence against the 9/11 official story is.

I may be a "top notch researcher" even if I have never said this as you claim but you are certainly not a top notch comprehender of the English language.

I used the northwoods reference simply to cite a PRECEDENT for the consideration of a military plane swap during a false flag operation of deception. The other extrapolations you are making have nothing to do with my claims OR reference to northwoods.



That has nothing to do with the evidence we present and nobody can bully us into speculating things. Feel free to speculate all you want but that does nothing to disprove the evidence we have presented that the plane flew on the north side of the citgo.



This does nothing to disprove the evidence we have presented that the plane flew on the north side of the citgo.



We do not speculate. We certainly hypothesize based on solid evidence and since we have evidence that proves the plane flew on the north side of the station the only logical alternative is that it flew over the building. The flyover concept is not really a "theory" it is an alternative. If the plane didn't hit it had to have flown over and because it flew on the north side it could not have caused the physical damage as officially reported.



Argument from incredulity. The citgo witnesses are not "stray". You can not minimize this undisputed groundbreaking independently corroborated testimony from 2 Pentagon police officers and 2 civilians filmed on location by talking about bigfoot.



Straw man. This says nothing that disproves the evidence we have presented that the plane flew on the north side of the citgo.



Incorrect. You have not provided a single witness account that directly contradicts them. The conclusion is strictly a result of this testimony. You will not find a single quote attributed to me before 11/07/2006 asserting a flyover. So either back up your claims or post another retraction or you have admitted you are lying about what I have said.



The north side claim is not a theory. It is hard evidence. You are reaching pathetically hard and it is transparent.

NOTE TO MODS: Does this comment about my personal ability to comprehend the English language fall into the category of a personal insult? I've really tried to see how this comment applies to forwarding any discussion about the points I raised, but for the life of me I can't seem to find any other way to describe it other than a personal insult.

On the other hand, I did not take offense at the comment and found it humorous. Please don't penalize Craig for this comment. I've come to realize it's just Craig's style of debating from a weak logical position.



Sorry, I'm having trouble keeping track of what you mean by this, and what I should retract.




This is where there is a difference of opinion on what is "hard evidence." You believe that your witnesses provide "hard evidence." I disagree with this. Even if the witnesses actually believe their accounts are accurate, it doesn't make them true. This is why in a court of law the opposing sides has the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Very often, on cross-examination problems with a witnesses story is are exposed, and a once credible witness becomes impeached.

Stating that your witnesses provide "smoking gun," "hard evidence" based on leading questions and who knows what other type of prep work does not constitute hard evidence in my opinion. And I think it's misleading at best to make such claims. I.e., if the witnesses claims are "hard evidence," what would "soft evidence" be? A psychic seeing a vision of a plane flying over the Pentagon?

Best of luck convincing anybody who is not already a CTer of your fly-over theory.

I think I see where you're coming from here, Nick, with the checking up suggestions (as in the locked thread). Yes, poor taste IMO, and possibly even "creepy," but stil valid. Thing is, I say real people or no, it doesn't do so much to change the inside job angle. Northwoods was what it was, and it DID involve killing real people - either a boatoad of refugees from Cuba (real or simulated, it says) and possibly people who'd die in the bombings in Miami and DC. So they were lookin' for some of that casualty list to be real if necessary, and 9/11 was for much higher stakes, so...


Yeah, THAT's not creepy.

So what's the next step in your theory? That U.S. government black ops gassed the passengers, burned their bodies, and snuck their remains into the Pentagon when nobody was looking? How did they get their DNA? Did they falsify the entire DNA results?

Ignoring your baseless accusations; eyewitness testimony becomes hard evidence when it is corroborated. Particularly when it is quadruple corroborated and two of the witnesses are police officers who were on duty.

I know you have a penchant for ignoring the facts but Lagasse is on record as making the north side claim in 2003.

Robert's manager confirmed he made the north side claim on 9/11.

Do you think perhaps I was there to coach them back then?

[edit on 13-6-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Interesting since you have not given a single reason as to why this undisputed testimony should be causally dismissed or how the completely supported evidence we present could possibly harm the image of the 9/11 truth movement.

Well you also have triple corroboration from your own witnesses, and dozens of others, that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Yet you ignore this decaduple corroboration that the plane hit the Pentagon and instead favor a lone witness who claims to have seen the flyover.

But you know this is nothing new. It has been properly described, in my opinion, that you selectively promote only the evidence that supports your fly-over theory (not fact). You discredit any and all evidence that does not support your fly-over theory. That's fine. As the producer of a commerical endeavor like The PentaCon, you can promote your efforts any way you see fit. Just don't expect to have your efforts be free of criticisms, or for anybody but yourself to believe that you have "smoking gun" evidence of a government conspiracy.

In my opinion, your claims of "smoking gun" evidence are on par with Rosie O'Donnell's claims that fire never melted steel. Overzealous conspiracy theorists will embrace your claims; reasonable people who value logic and informed opinions will simply roll their eyes.

Repeating over and over that we "ignored" the fact that they believed the plane hit the building does not make that lie correct.

The north side claim disproves the impact regardless of the fact that they were deceived.

Sorry John, I'm not that creative. I cited the issues of Weekly World News where these headlines came from. Sorry that's not enough for you. I suggest you use the telephone and call Weekly World News to confirm these stories. Or maybe write to them. Here's their contact information:

Weekly World News
1000 American Media Way
Boca Raton FL, 33464-1000

Please let us know when you complete your ground breaking research on this.

NOTE TO MODS: I'm not sure how topic derailment is defined, but is John Lear's ongoing questioning about the source of the carpet alien story fit into this category? Just curious...

Ok, so maybe you didn't ignore the fact that they believed the plane hit the building. You're right. You didn't ignore this fact. You simply concluded they were wrong about this portion of their account of 9/11. This fits into the category of evidence that you concluded was simply wrong.

I hereby formally retract my comment that you ignored this evidence and instead claim that you selectively concluded that this portion of the witnesses recollections were simply a result of them being fooled by the precision plan to set of explosions at the precise time the decoy plane flew above the Pentagon.

Don't you find it odd that they were able to time the explosions to the millisecond but somehow missed the flight path by 20 degrees?





Or maybe the preponderance of both eye-witness and physical evidence that corroborates American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the Pentaon on a flight path south of the Citgo gas station is what disproves your witnesses' north-of-the-Citgo recollections.

But it is not merely "selective" because everyone MUST make that choice because the claims can not be simultaneously true. Since they obviously all had a much better view of the plane passing by the station then the alleged impact the choice is clear.




We believe this was likely done on purpose as cover for the people that DID see it fly over. Remember......there were reports of a "2nd plane" that "shadowed" the AA jet and "veered away" over the pentagon immediately after the explosion.

They wanted to blend the planted reports of this mysterious "2nd plane" with the flyover. If someone claimed the plane they saw flew over they would simply be told it was a different plane.





Well no because there are no specific eyewitness accounts of the plane on the south side of the citgo station and Lloyd the cab driver's ludicrous account shows that the light poles were staged.

Originally posted by nick7261






I called them and they checked for your stories in their data base. No stories matching alien bugs in carpet. I also had them check the month you said the stories appeared. Nothing matches.

Maybe you just pulled those stories out of your hat thinking nobody would check? I'm not trying to derail the thread. I am trying to check on your honesty. You stated that you had read 3 stories and then told us what the stories were. None of them check out.

You are accusing someone of making up a story about the alleged Boeing 757 crash or overflight of the Pentagon and here you are making up stories yourself to prove they are making up stories.

Get a grip Nick. Admit your attempted hoax and lets move on.