New full feature presentation from CIT now realeased!

What's interesting is how not a single claim or quote in this entire hour and 40 minute long presentation has been cited or successfully called out as incorrect.

Boone tried the hardest but floundered.

Caustic Logic has been virtually silent.

The testimony of Steve Chaconas is pretty rock solid evidence of a military deception.

It seems like so far nobody has disagreed.

Here is something for those who have questions ...

answer them yourself.

If you want to interview the thousand+ people, do it. It would be interesting. Make sure to put every interview unedited on a video so we can judge for ourselves any inconsistencies and have behavior specialists analyze their actions to see if they may be fibbing.


Show me a airliner and section of building worth of debris. Just because there was a lot of energy doesn't mean the matter disappears. Unless you imply that there was enough force to vaporize things selectively. Prior crashes show that theory to be incompatible with reality.



The burden of proof is not just on CIT, but on the 'official' story as well.


Yes, we need video evidence, physical evidence, and proper crime scene investigations. This was not done at all on 9-11. Videos, interviews, and statements are still held from the public, even against the family members' wishes who lost loved ones. For it being such a tragedy, they sure treated the crime scene like spilled milk instead of trying to retain all evidence in its condition that day for proper evaluation by investigators from every country that lost citizens that day.


Just because someone has 'authority', doesn't mean their story is the truth.

Have kids? Ever told a lie to protect yourself or influence their opinion? Ever had it done to you by a parent or other 'authority' figure because 'they' thought it was in their or your best interest?


Intelligence requires us to question everything, see proof, evaluate things and come to our own conclusions.

Only idiots accept whatever they are told. I am not calling a single person an idiot, only you can place that label on yourself.


Deny ignorance and use your brilliance for truth, not what is popular, or is commonly accepted, sometimes the few that question find the truth is not what the masses accept. This is how we have progressed as animals and had proved things are not always as they appear on the surface. We went from riding horses to traveling space in 100 years by questioning status quo. Imagine if Germany questioned the Reichstag fire ... how different would history have been?

Originally posted by jthomas
An excellent collection of photos of the wreckage of AA77 after it crashed into the Pentagon:

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

One has to wonder why Craig Ranke thinks Boeing 757 wreckage can fly over the Pentagon.

Weird.

[sarcasm]WOW, thanks, jthomas, before you linked to this pic I thought that A77 had crashed into the Pentagon.[/sarcasm]

Good thing that the grounds remained intact . . . I would hate to think how much it would cost the American people to re-sod the yard around the Pentagon . . . probably less than the $500 BILLION that we've spent so far . . . but who knows!!!


[edit on 5-3-2008 by DrZERO]

Part 1.

Originally posted by johndoex
I dont have much time to address all of jthomas' obvious strawmans, but i'll address some of the blatant ones really quick.

I am amused that your reply is entirely made up of strawman arguments and evasions.

Correct. Rescue and recovery cannot determine positive ID.

That's right, they don't have to ID the parts to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

However, you continue to use them in your strawmans. Why is that? Aircraft Accident Investigators determine positive id. If you need a few to educate you on how it works, we have several in our organization, or you can email the NTSB, or you can just click links to what the NTSB has said and shown as precedent. Or not... but others will.

Evasion noted. I repeat, positive ID of the parts is irrelevant to knowing that AA77 hit the Pentagon since we have multiple lines of evidence that demonstrates it conclusively.

All these people must be irrational. Why are the lists growing?

pilotsfor911truth.org...
patriotsquestion911.com...

Red herring. The issue is simple. No matter how many people you produce, each one of them must acknowledge ALL of the evidence from ALL sources. It is indeed irrational to suggest, as you have, that you may discard inconvenient evidence.

Keep an eye out for more. We just picked up an "Irrational CEO" from an Aviation Corporation and a few other professionals in command positions. Who of course are "irrational", according to jthomas.

Argument by innuendo. When you claim that you have the unique privilege of discarding inconveneint evidence, it is not only irrational, it's hysterically funny.

No investigation in the entire world would ever state, as you do, that it is permissible to discard all the evidence.

We said that? Where? Please be sure to quote it from the exact page at pilotsfor911truth.org.... Thanks!

Your website is based on that very premise.

The convergence of all the evidence about AA77 demonstrates that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Again, it appears you do not know what positive identification means or how it is established. If you need help, we do have a member who taught aircraft accident investigation at one of the premier Aviation Universities in the country. Let me know if you need a lesson or two. It might cost you though.

Evasion noted. - Again, your claim is based on the premise that ALL evidence of what the wreckage was, where it came from, and why, is irrelevant. Positive identification of individual parts is still irrelevant to the fact that ALL of the evidence must be considered and not just what you choose. And ALL of that evidence demonstrates conclusively that AA 77 hit the Pentagon.

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the wreckage is NOT from AA77 as you claim.

Any one of you other "critical thinkers" want to explain to jthomas how you cannot "prove a negative"?

Evasion and strawman noted. One immediately notes the obvious: The evidence exists, overwhelmingly, that the wreckage was from AA77. That evidence is from multiple independent sources which you are obligated to refute to support your claims. It has nothing to do with "proving a negative." It has everything to do with your refusal to refute existing evidence.

Im sure you'll probably ignore this one, as he is on your side. But you sure love to use it when it works for you. Right? At the risk of straying off topic.. I'll give you an example of "critical thinkers" using the same logic...

Truther - "Prove the WTC was NOT a controlled demo".
"Duh-Bunker" - You can not prove a negative Troofer!

I just demonstrated your strawman.

First, please quote from pilotsfor911truth.org... where we claim the "wreckage is not from AA77". I'll give you a hint, we dont Mr Strawman.

It's even worse. You resort to the classic Truther position of pretending not to take any position to "protect" yourself from the evidence and you resort to innuendo:

" Pilotsfor911truth.org does not make the claim that "No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon". We have analyzed the Flight Data Recorder data provided by the NTSB and have shown factual analysis of that data. We do not offer theory.

While we do not make this claim in these words, the analysis we present on the basis of the NTSB's own data factually contradicts the official account that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon--if trends are continued beyond end of data records--and therefore supports the inference that American Airlines Flight 77 did not hit the building based upon that data."

The US Govt has claimed the wreckage is from AA77. You blindly believe them..Numerous Accident Investigators, Aviation professionals, FDR Experts etc do not.... the lists are growing...

That is the classic strawman of the 9/11 Truth Movement - and while you and that movement are failing miserably. The fundamental lack of logic in your statement makes us all shake our heads. Let me educate you, Rob, so you understand why you are failing.

1. What happened at the Pentagon does not depend on what the government says or doesn't say about.
2. The evidence of what happened comes from multiple lines of independent evidence and thousands of eyewitnesses to the even and to the wreckage after the event. The entire body of evidence is independent of any government claims; they neither possessed All of the evidence nor can control it (that includes eyewitness evidence.)
3. Different government agencies are responsible for different aspects of the investigation. The investigation depended on ALL of the multiple lines of evidence that was never in those agencies controls to begin with.
4. It is fallacious to claim the government is to be believed or not believed. The evidence exists independent of the government.

(continued in next post)

Part 2.

Originally posted by johndoex

You seem to blindly follow a govt known for corruption, spin and lies and cover-ups. We require proof of their claims. It is up to the US Govt to prove their claims. So far the US govt refuses, providing unlawful excuse. This doesnt seem to concern you too much. Why is that jthomas? Oh, thats right.. the rest of us are just all "irrational"... according to you.

Entirely false as explained above. A really bad strawman, Rob. First, I follow the evidence and the evidence, as I must repeat to you until it sinks in, does not originate with the government. The government is not making any claims not supported by the the independent evidence of which it never controlled (that very evidence which you and the 9/11 Truth Movement evade entirely.) Second, the government is not a suspect and it demonstrably is not required to "prove" anything because you say so. (You only have to read my exchanges with Craig Ranke to know that he cannot possibly acknowledge the existing evidence without his whole house of cards coming crashing down on him.) The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claims and, quite obviously, your strawman arguments here demonstrate that you continue to evade your responsibility.

The same applies to your claims and website. It is depended on rejecting all evidence inconvenient to your claims and the fallacious premise that the government has to "prove" something."

Back to the original question(s). jthomas, you cannot establish postive ID of the parts. We uinderstand. Thanks for your participation.

Back to the obvious answer, Rob. No one needs to establish positive IDs of the parts to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon. ALL of the evidence demonstrates it.

Ok, that was enough fun for this post.. have a nice day..

Sorry to have ruined your day and point out the irrelevancy of your website, Rob, but thems the licks. Your website is based on a fallacious premise, you avoid dealing with ALL of the evidence, you resort to strawman arguments to defend an untenable position.

In the end, your website serves no purpose.

I'll point out that you completely failed to debunk the evidence I presented, let me remind you:

1. Refute all of the overwhelming evidence that it was AA77 that hit the Pentagon. Please include the statements from the 1,000 people who saw and/or removed the wreckage. What did they state the wreckage was?

2. Provide conclusive evidence that the wreckage is from something other than AA77 and demonstrate how it got there.

3. If NOT from AA77, please provide proof of what happened to AA 77 and its passengers. If it flew over the Pentagon, please provide the eyewitness testimony from those on its flight path AFTER it flew over the Pentagon.

For the record, no one from the 9/11 Truth Movement has ever been able to answer any of these questions, and the hundreds more that result from your claims, in the six years we have been asking for your evidence and proof.

Just to remind you once again, the burden of proof is on you. Just when are you going to get around to it?

You've got a lot of work to do, Rob. Better get at it.

I would recommend a book on critical thinking to help you see the hopeless position you are in and why rational people cannot ever tale you seriously. I think the best is this, now in its sixth edition:

www.amazon.com...

jthomas,

Please present one piece of evidence that positively identifies AA77 as the aircraft which caused the damage at the pentagon, which is also not controlled by the suspect, eg. US Govt agencies.

Aircraft Accident Investigators are waiting. Thank you.

In the meantime... watch our "failing lists" grow.

pilotsfor911truth.org...
patriotsquestion911.com...

Perhaps you can look up "denial" in the dictionary?

I also notice you skipped the quote made by Lee Hamilton. How convenient.

Regards,
Rob

typo

[edit on 5-3-2008 by johndoex]

Edit to add:

1. Refute all of the overwhelming evidence that it was AA77 that hit the Pentagon. Please include the statements from the 1,000 people who saw and/or removed the wreckage. What did they state the wreckage was?

AA77 was never positively Identified as the object which caused the damage at the pentagon. either through parts, radar or witnesses. A witness cannot positively ID a Flight Number, unless you believe it was painted on the side.

2. Provide conclusive evidence that the wreckage is from something other than AA77 and demonstrate how it got there.

Provide the part numbers and mx logs and we'll get right on it.

3. If NOT from AA77, please provide proof of what happened to AA 77 and its passengers.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

If it flew over the Pentagon, please provide the eyewitness testimony from those on its flight path AFTER it flew over the Pentagon.

I believe CIT just did in their presentation on the OP. Did you watch it?

For the record, no one from the 9/11 Truth Movement has ever been able to answer any of these questions

For the record, i believe your research skills are poor to piss poor. Either that or you do not know how to click links.



[edit on 5-3-2008 by johndoex]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
What's interesting is how not a single claim or quote in this entire hour and 40 minute long presentation has been cited or successfully called out as incorrect.

Boone tried the hardest but floundered.

Caustic Logic has been virtually silent.

The testimony of Steve Chaconas is pretty rock solid evidence of a military deception.

It seems like so far nobody has disagreed.

I have never heard of anyone disagreeing with a fictional story. Fiction is fiction; it is not real.

As a side issue, is the C-130 referred to in this thread the same one reported here by Colonel Alan Scott in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission?

At 9:09, Langley F-16s are directed to battle stations, just based on the general situation and the breaking news, and the general developing feeling about what's going on. And at about that same time, kind of way out in the West, is when America 77, which in the meantime has turned off its transponder and turned left back toward Washington, appears back in radar coverage. And my understanding is the FAA controllers now are beginning to pick up primary skin paints on an airplane, and they don't know exactly whether that is 77, and they are asking a lot of people whether it is, including an a C-130 that is westbound toward Ohio.

Originally posted by johndoex
jthomas,

Please present one piece of evidence that positively identifies AA77 as the aircraft which caused the damage at the pentagon, which is also not controlled by the suspect, eg. US Govt agencies.

Eyewitnesses to the crash are not controlled by the government. Eyewitnesses to the wreckage are not controlled by the government. Those who recovered the wreckage are not controlled by the government. The few hundred of American Airlines and airport employees at the airport that were responsible for the flight are not controlled by the airport. (perhaps you are not familiar with airline operations.) The families of the passengers are not controlled by the government.

You're welcome to demonstrate otherwise.

Aircraft Accident Investigators are waiting. Thank you.

The NTSB will have nothing to do with you. They are professionals.

Perhaps you can look up "denial" in the dictionary?

That's why you are part of the 9/11 Denial Movement, Rob.

I also notice you skipped the quote made by Lee Hamilton. How convenient.

Irrelevant. Please return to my 2-part post which you could not address.

Edit to add:

1. Refute all of the overwhelming evidence that it was AA77 that hit the Pentagon. Please include the statements from the 1,000 people who saw and/or removed the wreckage. What did they state the wreckage was?

AA77 was never positively Identified as the object which caused the damage at the pentagon. either through parts, radar or witnesses. A witness cannot positively ID a Flight Number, unless you believe it was painted on the side.

So, answer the question. Just exactly WHAT wreckage did 1,000 see and recover from the Pentagon?? Why are you and Craig Ranke so scared to present their statements, huh?

Then tell us why the 1,000+ people who saw and/or recovered the wreckage never objected to the reports that began within one-half hour of AA77's crash into the Pentagon that, in fact, it was AA77? Nor the relatives of the passengers, nor anyone.

The burden of proof is on you Bubba Rob. Americans want your evidence now.

2. Provide conclusive evidence that the wreckage is from something other than AA77 and demonstrate how it got there.

Provide the part numbers and mx logs and we'll get right on it.

Don't need to. The rest of the evidence is conclusive unless, and until, you get around to refuting it. Why do we have to wait more than six years for it, Rob?

3. If NOT from AA77, please provide proof of what happened to AA 77 and its passengers.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Sorry, your site is scared to let me in. You'll have to present your evidence here.

If it flew over the Pentagon, please provide the eyewitness testimony from those on its flight path AFTER it flew over the Pentagon.

I believe CIT just did in their presentation on the OP. Did you watch it?

I prefer non-fiction. And Ranke, as you well know, crashed and burned over a year ago (no pun intended.) Try to prop his fiction up only worsens your crumbling position.

For the record, no one from the 9/11 Truth Movement has ever been able to answer any of these questions

For the record, i believe your research skills are poor to piss poor. Either that or you do not know how to click links.

The record demonstrates what I showed in my 2-part post above. You can't refute the massive evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Just like Gerard Holmgren, Dick Eastman, Muhammad Columbo, and Craig Ranke before you.

You're stuck, Rob. It's time to find something productive to do and learn why you cannot possibly get anywhere with your untenable position. There is no substitute for critical thinking and now you know you can't keep fighting it.

Hit that book I recommended, Rob.

[edit on 5-3-2008 by jthomas]

reply to post by coughymachine


It's not really a side issue coughymachine, it's one of CIT's main smoking guns. To answer your question, yes it is the same C-130.

reply to post by coughymachine


Great catch thanks!

"westbound towards Ohio"

That makes perfect sense with the pilot's statements and our claims and of course the pilot's final destination which was Minnesota but does not make sense with the RADES data which depicts southwest.



[edit on 5-3-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Why do you keep saying SouthWest Craig? I pointed this out to you before, but you ignore it.

Blue = West
White= Southwest
Red = C-130 flight path

The red line depicting the flight path of the C-130 is obviously closer to West, why do you keep saying Southwest? You don't have to answer that because I already know why.

Add to that, the 10° West magnetic variance and Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien would be flying west according to his instruments.

Why would Washington departure be directing aircraft over the mall and through P56 airspace?

It's southwest as opposed to northwest.

Get as technical as you want and call it westSOUTHwest for all I care because it doesn't change the fact that the pilot said NORTH which is opposite south or the fact that he said the south side of The Mall as opposed to the south side of Reagan or the fact that Ohio and Minnesota are BOTH north and west.

Plus if the RADES data were true he would have seen the plane approach from his right and he would have seen the alleged impact or IN THE VERY LEAST know that the explosion came from the Pentagon.

All of these facts support our report and fly in the face of the official data.

[edit on 5-3-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Boone 870

Why would Washington departure be directing aircraft over the mall and through P56 airspace?

South side of The Mall is not P56 airspace.



You are wrong again.

Care to be a man this time and admit it or are you going to deny the facts to protect your ego again?

He was headed that direction because it's on the way to his final destination which was Minnesota.

westsouthwest would not be on his way nor does it make sense with his statements.

Your arguments with me have been plain old silly and it really shows how desperate you are to deny what the C-130 pilot says.

He specifically SAYS more than once he flew by the south side of the Mall yet you insist on arguing that he did not really fly where he said even to the point of suggesting north (which he says) means south (which he doesn't say).


North means north Boone.

South side of The Mall means south side of The Mall Boone.

The plane flew over DC Boone.

The evidence is overwhelming.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
Thanks for posting this image Craig. Notice that the southernmost part of P-56A extends below the title basin.

I modified your image of what you consider to be the flight path of the C-130 and you have it flying through P-56 airspace. The short red line on the south side of the mall shows how far down the restricted airspace goes. Once again, since when does Washington departure direct aircraft through the P56 restricted airspace?

You are wrong again.

Care to be a man this time and admit it or are you going to deny the facts to protect your ego again?

Sorry Craig, I'm not wrong again. Would you like to point out where I was wrong the first time?

Debunking your conspiracy theory has nothing to do with being a man or my ego.

Ok great!

Perfect.

Thanks for correcting me.

I accept your red line as a more accurate placement of the C-130.

But your red line still contradicts the RADES data because it is south side of The Mall and is STILL north and west just like the C-130 pilot says.....so the exact same point of the initial graphic still stands 100% even if it may be slightly too high north. Of course you can't even see The Mall in the initial graphic at all so it was just an estimation.

I'm glad to see that you are now willing to accept the pilot's statements of flying by the south side of The Mall and having just passed The Mall headed westbound when he first interacted with the decoy jet.

However....you were wrong by stating that he would have to be in P56 airspace in order to fly by the south side of The Mall as he states.

South side of the Mall is not in P56.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

I accept your red line as a more accurate placement of the C-130.

The red line is not a placement of the C-130, it represents the southernmost boundary of P56A airspace.

But your red line still contradicts the RADES data because it is south side of The Mall and is STILL north and west just like the C-130 pilot says.....so the exact same point of the initial graphic still stands 100% even if it may be slightly too high north. Of course you can't even see The Mall in the initial graphic at all so it was just an estimation.

Just an estimation is the point. Your initial flight path was to far north, what keeps it from being even farther south?

I'm glad to see that you are now willing to accept the pilot's statements of flying by the south side of The Mall and having just passed The Mall headed westbound when he first interacted with the decoy jet.

I've never denied the pilot statements. I've denied your interpretation of them though.

However....you were wrong by stating that he would have to be in P56 airspace in order to fly by the south side of The Mall as he states.

I never stated that he flew through P56, you did with your flight path. My point was that it is highly unlikely that Washington departure would have sent him through that airspace.

Originally posted by Boone 870
The red line is not a placement of the C-130, it represents the southernmost boundary of P56A airspace.

Which is where the pilot said he flew.

] Just an estimation is the point. Your initial flight path was to far north, what keeps it from being even farther south?

The fact that the pilot SAYS he flew NORTH and west which took him by the south side of the mall, not westSOUTHwest or south at all by the south side of Reagan.

Big difference.

I've never denied the pilot statements. I've denied your interpretation of them though.

Whether or not you deny them you dismiss them.

You dismiss the fact that the pilot SAYS he flew [B]NORTH[/B] and west which took him by the south side of the mall, not westSOUTHwest or south at all by the south side of Reagan.

I never stated that he flew through P56, you did with your flight path. My point was that it is highly unlikely that Washington departure would have sent him through that airspace.

And I agree.

He says he flew north and west to the south side of the mall which is not P56.

I never thought he flew over p56.

Caustic Logic asked me to make another thread regarding the important evidence in this presentation but I don't see the need since this one already exists.

Although the OP has an embed of the google video version the megavideo version is better quality and can be watched here:
The Pentagon Flyover - How They Pulled It Off.

The new independent verifiable evidence we present in this full feature documentary proves 9/11 was an inside job completely separate from the north of the citgo evidence we present in The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version.

In this new presentation we prove that the plane came from east of the river which completely destroys all official data.

So now we have the north of the citgo (NoC) and east of the Potomac (EoP) claims that BOTH independently prove a military deception on 9/11.

The typical pseodskeptic CIT detractors haven't really offered ANY argument for the EoP claim and have chosen for the most part to ignore this extremely damning evidence instead.

Caustic Logic has also avoided this information while remaining admittedly "obsessed" with us in general and continuing to publish blog after convoluted blog about us and our previous work.

It simply surprises me that he would stay so dedicated yet remain so silent about the new smoking gun witness Steve Chaconas and the incredible amount of corroborating evidence proving that the plane really did fly over DC skies fatally contradicting the NTSB and 84 RADES data released many years after the event.