Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

I simply refuse to speculate over invalid government supplied evidence.

CIT says any evidence from the "government" is invalid, a priori. So none needs to be examined.

So much for CIT claiming to be an "Investigation Team."

posted by djeminy
What is your take on this white 'thing' then?? What is your explanation?

posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I simply refuse to speculate over invalid government supplied evidence.

Once we embrace it we set a precedent and fall into their trap and our entire scientific approach becomes breached.

We must stay vigilant in our refusal to use what they provide or treat it as valid in any way.

Even if some of it is valid.

We will never know for sure what is and what isn't and THAT is the point.

This can only be solved with independent verifiable evidence.

This is what we have always said and what we have always provided and what we will stick with until the end.

We have changed the entire landscape of the Pentagon discussion with this approach and we will continue to work vigilantly to get others to understand the extreme importance of this when investigating a complex deception of this nature.

Theorizing is out.

Evidence is in.

Government provided data is out.

Independent verifiable evidence is in.

We have no other choice or 9/11 truth will be relegated to conspiracy forums forever.

However since I am not a member of CIT, although I for years have carefully studied and agree with most of their research, then I am not under the same self-imposed restrictions. I do agree with Craig's reasoning here. So to a limited degree, I allow myself to freely theorize and speculate a bit, to generate interest to more recent naysayers to the official fantasy. This applies to my association with Pilots for 9/11 Truth also. They do not speculate nor theorize either.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by djeminy


What is your take on this white 'thing' then?? What is your explanation?

I simply refuse to speculate over invalid government supplied evidence.

Once we embrace it we set a precedent and fall into their trap and our entire scientific approach becomes breached.

We must stay vigilant in our refusal to use what they provide or treat it as valid in any way.

Even if some of it is valid.

We will never know for sure what is and what isn't and THAT is the point.

This can only be solved with independent verifiable evidence.

This is what we have always said and what we have always provided and what we will stick with until the end.

We have changed the entire landscape of the Pentagon discussion with this approach and we will continue to work vigilantly to get others to understand the extreme importance of this when investigating a complex deception of this nature.

Theorizing is out.

Evidence is in.

Government provided data is out.

Independent verifiable evidence is in.

We have no other choice or 9/11 truth will be relegated to conspiracy forums forever.

Thanks for clarifying your position, which I can easily understand and fully respect,
seeing it from your and CIT's perspective.

But as Preston points out with his concerns, neither am I subjected to these same restrictions, and therefore, of course, can also in a more speculative way continue to,
and further investigate inconsistencies or anomalies that inevitably will show up now and again.

This particular video clip still fascinates me, so will pursue it a bit further and urge
other readers to take a very close look, then express their honest opinion, as
this requirement will naturally exclude jthomas and cronies!

My own gut-feeling still tells me they must have overlooked this particular little
segment in question. I think they mistook it for a car, and left it at that!

I don't think it makes any sense they would have left the 'white body' there on purpose,
as it actually indicates a fly-over much much more than anything else.

For my part it would have made exceedingly more sense, had they instead erased this
incriminating little glimpse of a white 'something' which clearly, and because of its
speed, quite easily can be identified as a flying object.

We see this white object suddenly appear, rising up from nowhere, lifting itself up over
the road now appearing larger than the cars in the vicinity, and then reducing in size
disappearing toward the pentagon, where a huge explosion a short moment later shows
itself on the screen, a little bit to the right from where the white object came from.

I think it's rather telling, but full-proof? No, not really...unfortunately, but certainly
pretty close, I would hasten to add!











[edit on 22-11-2008 by djeminy]

Why is it so hard for people to understand?

The witnesses all definitively place the plane on the north side of the CITGO gas station, so that's where it definitely was. Wait, that makes it impossible for it to have caused the damage to the building? This is a mystery. The physical damage and the flight path completely contradict one another. The simple and reasonable answer to this mystery is that the airplane didn't actually hit the building. This is confirmed by Robert Turcios' account of seeing the plane 'pull up' before impact, as well as the accounts of an airplane flying away from the Pentagon after the explosion.

Further, many people inside the Pentagon all thought that it was a bomb blast. Two witnesses smelled high explosives in the area. Many witnesses reported a shockwave. Witnesses reported a bright flash. Also, the plane 'hit' in the only area that was being 'renovated'.

All of this seems to indicate that bombs went off...

So now all of the puzzle pieces fit together. The reason for all of these accounts in support of the idea that explosives were used is because explosives were planted in the building. There was a perfect opportunity for this (renovation). This fits in with why the witnesses said that the plane flew on the North Side and pull up, making it impossible to have caused the damage. This also fits in with the witnesses who saw a plane flying away afterwards.

The reasonable explanation is that the damage was caused by the detonation of strategically set explosives. These bomb explosions were timed with the overflight of an airplane flying on the north side of the CITGO gas station that pulled up, flew behind the smoke, and flew away.

Mystery solved. 9-11 Was An Inside Job.

Originally posted by SPreston

Note that Turcios demonstrates that the jet passed by pointing to the south side part of the canopy (the south side flight path AA77 took), and shows with his hand how it passed toward the Pentagon behind him.

Originally posted by SPreston

Why does the explosion occur at 9:34:11?

Wasn't the official crash time 9:37:46?

The security gate cameras also have different time settings too...

Are there two clocks in the entire county that agree with each other within two seconds of accuracy?

Welcome to the USA, where they need a lesson from the Swiss in telling time.

Originally posted by LordCarpainter

If it flew on the North Side, as all of these witnesses confirm, then it could not have hit the building.

That's why I am asking for the eyewitnesses to a flyover.

Also, there were witnesses who saw a plane flying away.

Then please present those eyewitnesses, their names, and their verified evidence of a flyover.

That's what I've been asking for.

Is this flight path even possible?

Looks kind of extreme if you ask me.






[edit on 23-11-2008 by CameronFox]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
*snip*

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

*snip*

Ahh... to have my argument summed up in a sentence. Perfect.

You have inference of a fly-off... not evidence.

Proving the damage to the light poles was not caused by a 757 is not evidence of a fly-off.... it proves the light poles were damaged from a different source.

I've never seen or heard of a 757 crashing into a building w/ 12" steel-reinforced concrete walls and support structures, nor am I an expert in accident reconstruction, so I can't say that the damage is incorrect.

Waving around photographs and saying "LOOK! IT'S ALL WRONG!" is proof of ... photographs.

Am I surprised that the structurally weakest part of a 757 wasn't able to penetrate a 12" steel-reinforced concrete wall at an estimated 500mph? Not really. The force of the impact would have been spread along the length of the wing as each portion came in contact with the building. The fuselage would have acted like a nail through wood.

I don't understand how if physics says "Yes" how is it you can say "No"?

CIT/P4T should write a book about accident reconstruction and crash analysis. From what I've seen you could absolutely revolutionize the science.... that is... if your tale of the facts about Flight 77 are true.

All you need are eye witnesses and a list of things that couldn't have caused the damage.

[edit on 23-11-2008 by cogburn]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

Absence of evidence that any jet flew over and away from the Pentagon is not evidence of a flyover.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Back on topic.....do you agree that if a north side approach in general, as independently reported by 13 witnesses, is accurate that it proves a flyover?

Your witnesses either stated they saw a jet hit the Pentagon or believe one did. They are in agreement with all of the other people who witnessed AA77 fly into the Pentagon.

You have provided no positive, verifiable eyewitness or media reports or any evidence of any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon.

Knowing that you do not have that evidence, why do you pretend you do, Craig?