| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Why is CIT evidence omitted frequently? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Aug 3 2009, 08:49 AM (1,918 Views) | |
| Citizen Pawn | Aug 3 2009, 08:49 AM Post #1 |
|
Its evidence....not proof. It helps build a larger picture of what happened at the Pentagon. I visited the 911 blogger site after avoiding that place for over a YEAR. Same characters...same lock down clique feel to it. It's strange and also so redundant. There are papers linked from there with the subject of "Pentagon", yet no mention of CIT's evidence. How could that be? CIT goes to the area, canvases witnesses, gets their testimony on tape, draws diagrams, does phone interviews, flys out there on their own dime, makes numerous trips, compiles the MOST evidence regarding the Pentagon online.......and yet they're obsolete? Okay, yeah, the flyover theory is hard to swallow at first. It's hard to envision. But does CIT's conviction with that discount everything? Like I said, same people there after all this time, avoiding the same evidence. Victronix....seems to have personalized it all. Arabesque....who is he. I still have yet to know who this 'major voice' in 9/11 is after 6 years. Steven Jones' blog for 9/11 'truth and justice' has Arabesque as a guest writer for a Pentagon piece, but it is scant compared to the wealth of evidence here on LoosChangeForums. Why? Jon Gold is still linking to his trusty 'fact' papers in 2009, as some sort of 9/11 template. I saw a poster there refer to Jim Hoffman's work FROM 2004!!!!!!!!!!!!! As the lead work on the subject. Huh?? 2004????? Either Hoffman or his readers need to catch up. Steven Jones and DRG are still treated as God's among us. Caustic Logic seems like a nice fellow.....but....is the remote control theory where it lies in the end? Yes, I agree, if it was a fly over, then where the hell are the passengers? Craig, maybe you can explain for me in a brief sentence. But the damage and the witness testimony from OFFICIAL sources, don't blend. So I go over to Truthaction.org...another site I avoided like the plague for over a year... Same characters, same hatred for CIT. Okay yes Craig, you should work on your patience with people sometimes, you're kinda high strung, but it's no need to dismiss your work. (In my opinion) You're okay in my book personally. Alex Jones won't even talk about your work. Yet, CIT are the most comprehensive researchers in the 'biz', and together with P4T, need to at least be listened to. Yet Alex Jones runs stories STILL linking to Glenn Beck the lunatic, and still on about Birth Certificates and taking calls from people that cite 'scripture' in almost half of his phone calls. Seems like the people that are doing the most legwork are the ones getting the shaft while personalities are to the forefront. How did this happen? Do people ever think about the constant gatekeeping that goes on? It's bizarre to me still. Isn't the evidence in CIT's work worthy of recognition? Does it need to be one or the other? Can't we accept that almost every witness asked on tape RECENTLY (key word) points to a NoC flight path or something other than the official one? I'm just trying to understand here. ETA: Scratch the question about the missing passengers. Since I feel flight 93 didn't even hit Shanksville, there are two case scenarios of 'where did they go', and I haven't been able to answer that hypothetical in 6 years. Edited by Citizen Pawn, Aug 3 2009, 09:04 AM.
|
 |
 
|
| Citizen Pawn | Aug 3 2009, 08:59 AM Post #2 |
|
And I just thought of a couple points. Your debate/ discussion with CL had him conceding many points and stumbling around for answers. The funny thing I thought of is the PROFOUND nature of Lloyd giving his 'this thing is bigger than me' speech. That right there is such an odd thing to say. Rantings of a senile man with conspiracy wishes, or someone who got caught? Seems fitting that is the statement he made while he thought the cameras were OFF!!! That lttle gem right there is hilarious by itself. You can take away a pile of evidence , just leave that one statement, and it would be enough to go "Huh, what the fuck did that guy just say?'' |
|
|
|
| Lin Kuei | Aug 3 2009, 11:19 AM Post #3 |
|
This is really beginning to annoy me. The division and anti-CIT bias is even causing rifts here in the Australian truth movement. To be honest, and I am trying to be fair and see both sides here, I can to some extent understand why some people have had problems with Craig and Aldo in the past, whether it was of a personal nature or to do with (what some people described as) jumping the gun with a definite flyover theory... But it is not early 2007 anymore. CIT have done tremendous work, as you say CP, canvassing the large number of independent witnesses and their testimonies. Their latest project NSA is representative of CIT becoming more polished and mature. And it shows. NSA in my opinion absolutely destroys the official version of pentagon events. People I once had great respect for in the truth movement are letting their personal biases and disbelief in a flyover theory (which I can kind of understand) get in the way of where the actual evidence points to. People shrug off the DEFINITIVE evidence of a North side approach just because a couple of years ago CIT were overly vocal about it proving a flyover, and were at times confrontational about it. The thing is, people who claim to be for the truth simply CANNOT deny the North side evidence and be able to justify it, otherwise they are not for the truth, or for greater exploration into where the truth leads. The bottom line is this: the plane was on the North side. The damage path and damage to the pentagon is inconsistent with a north side approach. That's all there is to it. Further theorizing is not necessarily needed - even in light of one or two witnesses who witnessed a commercial plane flying away from the pentagon. What we have is absolute proof that there are lies being told about the plane which approached the pentagon. That's all we need to know to justify a new formal investigation, at least into this particular aspect of 9/11. Thanks for all the hard work CIT. I even remember when I had a personal problem with you guys back in 2007, and at times for good reason, but the time for that bullshit is long gone. People need to grow up and accept that there are multiple discrepancies between where the govt says the plane was and where (credible) witnesses saw it. And it's only because of people like Craig and Aldo that we can have the luxury of knowing that information. Truth on! Edited by Lin Kuei, Aug 3 2009, 02:20 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Flippy | Aug 3 2009, 07:18 PM Post #4 |
|
I seriously thought about just quoting each of these posts as replies. Boggles my mind as well. 9/11 research has always had a very credible case for questioning the day. All of that combined with the case CIT has made, one wonders why the "truthers" are the crackpots, while the "birthers" are on every damn cable channel. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Aug 4 2009, 01:56 AM Post #5 |
|
Thanks a lot for the support guys. Just a couple of things... 1. If you believe the north side approach has been sufficiently demonstrated you have no choice but to believe a flyover. That is a scientific fact and why we have always stated this case so confidently since we interviewed the citgo witnesses and first released The PentaCon, and also why none of our detractors have argued in favor of a north side impact. Ignoring the implications of a north side approach would be like ignoring the implications of the freefall collapse of building 7. It's not our fault that some people don't appreciate that we have confidently stated the obvious. 2. Aldo and I are actually pretty laid back guys who are not the type to be kicked out of parties. Dylan didn't ask Aldo and me to meet him in Arlington in 2006 to be research consultants for LCFC because we were assholes. We only became angry and defensive after obtaining the citgo interviews and being forced to fend off a very deliberate and focused attempt at a personal discredit campaign from Russell Pickering who was supposed to be in the trenches uncovering truth with us. I'd like to see anyone completely keep their cool at all times under such circumstances. Frankly I think we've done pretty well considering the extreme level of irrational abuse we've had to endure. I expected it from mainstream media and jref types and perhaps a few misguided truthers but people like Pickering were supposed to be "rational" and at the forefront of this. Bottom line he didn't take down his website and disappear forever because he was right and same goes for that proven liar John Farmer whose subversive behavior was virtually a mirror of Pickering's. We handled it as best as we could. Sure we're not perfect but who is? We're still around because truth and evidence is on our side. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Aug 4 2009, 02:06 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Aug 4 2009, 02:07 AM Post #6 |
|
amen brother!!!! theres a reason why you and aldo never lost sight of why any of us did this in the first place and russell pickering is selling antiques or whatever it is he's doin now........ |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Aug 4 2009, 02:11 AM Post #7 |
|
Exactly. And we won't stop because we can't stop. Truth will prevail. |
|
|
|
| tuatara | Aug 4 2009, 07:49 PM Post #8 |
|
If you take the starting point that 9/11 actually planned out completely as planned and then presume that the Pentagon incident did happen as the CIT eye-witnesses point to - NOC flightpath and fly-over. Your post-9/11 planning would have to take into account that this would come out eventually if somebody went beyond the confusing eye-witness statements that are all over the internet and did some serious analysis. Once this happened, how would you lessen the impact of it? By having in place your own "truthers" who have already decided what is and isn't on the table for Pentagon discussion and have gained some fame and/or notoriety. Hence the constant references to the "honey-trap" of thinking a plane didn't hit the building, the constant references to the 20 lightpole strike witnesses long after we all know that the ones that can be verified never saw a plane strike a lightpole. I see it all over with 9/11, key evidence marginalised either by ignoring it (CIT), roaming the internet rubbishing it (molten metal under the towers/Judy Wood acolytes) or else linking the evidence to wild theories (burnt-out cars/JW acolytes again). Just my NZ10c worth ........ |
|
|
|
| bretwalda | Aug 6 2009, 01:34 AM Post #9 |
|
A good rant there CP. Frustrating. I think it's too fantastic and too hard to maintain the argument in sound bite sized quips for what CIT has put forth, so lazy, half baked generalizations suffice for most - and so the Pentagon remains at the bottom of credibility for evidence of a conspiracy, in spite of time-reversing time stamps on surveillance footage, and 8yrs and 2 of 80+ tapes with no sign of a plane hitting. It should be about evidence. But its about property. Unintellectual property. Stupid. Who knows what else would surface if it was allowed to go viral. |
|
|
|
| roundhead | Aug 6 2009, 11:22 AM Post #10 |
|
To me, seeing all the witnesses being interviewed on camera, and in particular, being asked to draw the flightpath, makes it a no brainer that all these people are on the same general page regarding where the attack jet flew. If you add the fact that supposed" testimony" of seeing the plane on the south side unravels when held up to scrutiny like a wet cardboard box, it makes the evidence pretty darn open and shut that the Pentagon attack was a huge black op. The fact a scene was staged(Lloyd's cab)to make it appear to the masses and to those who only scratch the surface that the plane flew that path only supports the fact that the Govt felt poorly enough about its deception that it had to throw in another piece of cheeze to be able to say" Look, it clipped the lightpoles, so it had to be a plane that did this damage" What CIT's excellent research has done is smoke the " fake truthers" out of the haystack for all to see. At least to people like me who actually want to get to the bottom of 9/11 and see those responsible tossed into the water with lead around their necks where they belong. Bottom line, those who have watched the latest presentaion by CIT, and still question and try and throw under the bus these patriots arent real truthers |
|
|
|
| noeffects | Aug 6 2009, 05:46 PM Post #11 |
|
bingo! good post roundhead 
|
|
|
|
| Citizen Pawn | Aug 6 2009, 06:19 PM Post #12 |
|
I question people who ignore valid evidence. When I first heard CIT's claims they had 4 witnesses. I said to myself "That's interesting". After 13, I said to my self "That's valid evidence". If you ignore valid evidence, no matter what your brain would tell you is 'logical', it's fantasy and not fact. Logic is different with every person. Someone's logic may is another man's folly. Deduction is a better method. Deduction is not evidence in itself, but it zeros in on the possibilities. It removes what could NOT have happened from what is speculated to HAVE HAD happen. Now given that there were witnesses that gave written and oral testimony about what they saw, pertinent people saw otherwise. The original people that gave accounts were not scrutinized in the same manner as in CIT's interviews. Therefor CIT's method is more reliable as an investigation. If there was a North Side Approach, then you must deduce that the damage to the Pentagon is inconsistent with those accounts. Then you must deduce something else happened. And from there you must deduce that the Government got it all 'wrong' (accidentally) or they lied and willfully misled people. BUT, if after the fact, the Government conceals findings and omits very pertinent facts, they are GUILTY of a cover up, and are no longer just negligent. 13 people's testimony proves the story is a lie or the explanation is flawed. North of Citgo means flight 77 could NOT HAVE hit the Pentagon. That fact alone is enough. I'm highly suspicious of anyone ignoring CIT's accounts or banning CIT for their research. |
|
|
|
| Stundie | Aug 6 2009, 06:45 PM Post #13 |
|
Hear, hear!! CIT are doing excellent work. 
|
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Aug 6 2009, 07:35 PM Post #14 |
|
It is being omitted because it is too conclusive. For some it means they actually have to get up and do something now, rather than keep making movies or radio broadcasts. It means they have to take a stand on a piece of evidence and forge ahead with it. A lot of people think this shit is a hobby where they can sit around all day and talk about it or profit from it, while it inflates their ego as 9/11 or NWO Information Gurus or Oracles. Some want to be 9/11 Heros or Oracles and concentrate on 50 multiple lines of research, rather than focusing all their energy on one event. And people still haven't gathered up the balls to go out to locations and investigate ANYTHING on site. That is another issue. People still think they can accomplish something by pointing out what they think are discrepancies from the comfort of their computer chair thousands of miles from who or where the event took place or by just "asking questions". I personally believe now the 9/11 truth movement was co-opted and infiltrated from the beginning. I think they knew they were going to have to control it and steer it from virtually the beginning. They simply did not count on a couple of wild cards actually going to Arlington multiple times and having the luck in contacting and reaching genuine witnesses. Perhaps they didn't think anyone would put the two flight paths together, along side the physical damage. And really no one did, other than Dick Eastman, Jerry Stanley etc. and even they didn't have any kind of solid evidence of a north side flight path. We didn't do anything wrong. We just happen to be very aggressive in our goal of learning what happened there. We didn't do anything except talk to eyewitnesses and follow the clues and hunches. The cat is out of the bag now. There is no way the plane caused any of the damage. Right now they are just trying to contain. I know with some people it has been ego and a clash of personalities ( you know who you are) and with others make no mistake that they are infiltrators and NSA/CIT are fast becoming the litmus test for real truthers versus the disruptor's/cointel. I almost don't have to do anything, this thing has grown legs of its own and people are talking about it everywhere so it can only grow. Most people shit their pants by the time they get to the Lloyd part, so this can only go viral from here. You all just have to do your part and be the front line for the info, since so many of you are close to us and know our saga. We need you to know how to effectively argue the evidence and to stick to your guns on the matter and keep pushing and keep spreading the links everywhere. The more people get it, the more viral it will get and NSA is the perfect tool for it. The more you watch those interviews and try to visualize that plane coming on the south side hitting pole 1 while these witnesses are showing you where it really flew, your realize how big and how serious this really is. Thanks for all your thoughts on this CP and co. It is great to finally see people come around. Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Aug 7 2009, 12:26 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Aug 6 2009, 11:13 PM Post #15 |
|
Word. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Aug 6 2009, 11:16 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Lin Kuei | Aug 6 2009, 11:40 PM Post #16 |
|
That certainly is a distinct (and rather discomforting) possibility. Another problem I am seeing with this, is certain people who are prominent truthers, dismissing in-your-face evidence just so they don't upset their buddies over at blogger and truthaction.org. There's so much image-maintenance going on in the movement, and when verifiable evidence is shrugged off for no legitimate reason it's upsetting that this is often the cause. |
|
|
|
| infowarpatriot | Aug 7 2009, 12:50 PM Post #17 |
|
Visibility 9-11 Welcomes 9-11 Researcher Jim Hoffman... http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1351 |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Aug 7 2009, 01:08 PM Post #18 |
|
And? Your point? Doesn't that belong in the skeptics section? So does someone want to inform my daughter, my mom, my family, my friends that I am a disinformation operative for the gov't? Michael Wolsey is a bumbling fool. Speaking of bumbling fools... Jim Hoffman is wrong on so many levels. I mean the guy fucking used Google Earth to provid POV'sfor flyover witness (using the old absence of evidence argument) and claim us driving around the highways with a video camera is deceptive. The idiot uses Google Earth flattened out then writes an article on it, then advises everyone to use Google Maps Street View which is what he should have used in the first place. Which,keep in mind, also is a camera sitting mounted a feet on the roof of a car, not a person sitting inside of a car. The guy sites people who weren't even at the Pentagon as witnesses. Ask him why he refused to debate or discuss his concerns with us? We called his house and left a message, no return call. Because he is a coward who would rather cobble together a weak ass argument to save face and not admit he was wrong. What a pathetic excuse for a truthseeking researcher. Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Aug 10 2009, 02:48 AM.
|
|
|
|
| bretwalda | Aug 9 2009, 09:45 PM Post #19 |
|
'infowarpatriot'... talk about blatant disinfo. How about 'Super9-11Truther' or 'TotaleeLegitPatriot' or 'ImNotDisinfoIpromise'
 I used to pass it off as simpleton numbskulls who want to run a new angle for lack of attention and discernment. I'm not so sure anymore. Cryptogon readers posting idiotic shyte on Hopsicker and Edmonds the other day as well...it can't get more stupid. |
|
|
|
| Rhymenoceros | Aug 12 2009, 10:28 AM Post #20 |
|
everyone should listen to the jim hoffman interview linked to by infowarpatriot above. |
|
|
|
| noeffects | Aug 12 2009, 02:52 PM Post #21 |
|
blah, blah.. here we go again... "To many people would have seen a flyover..." x 100.. What ever happened to keeping your eyes on the road..? according to Jim here...everyone just stopped paying attention to the highway traffic that is right in front of them or the radio broadcasting the 911 news... "Look at google maps"..blah blah... "poor Ol' Lloyd"...Hey Jim . Why don't you guys go and interview Lloyd and ask him what he means when he says..."This was for the people with all the money, lying about the placement of his Supercab...The fuckin deaf and dumb unnamed samaritan helping him and his pole problem.? just for starters... @1:07:00+ in the interview...what a titbaby..."I don't want anyone to laugh at me, you are just going to get laughed at." whaaa!! |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Aug 12 2009, 09:05 PM Post #22 |
|
Sure, if you want to hear hour long error riddled argument from incredulity. From guy who won't even debate us on the matter or confront the witnesses or any witnesses. A guy who cites people who weren't even there as witnesses to the event. I suggest everyone go to our forum as there is an answer/response for all his BS allegations. http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT Rhymenoceros is just blending in. He is not a truth seeker. |
|
|
|
| Rhymenoceros | Aug 13 2009, 09:53 AM Post #23 |
|
I've rarely seen such a poor effort at rebuttal in my life - the pentagon IS surrounded by highways and any flyover would have been abundantly evident to a large number of people. The new CIT video ignors the witness testimony of 100 people and instead fixates on the memories of 13 people, none of whom incidentally agree with the CIT's final conclusion. Were there any semblance of humility in CIT's conclusions one could forgive some of their factual errors but they continue to behave as if as they are sole source of truth and belittle anyone who disagrees. I repeat to anyone that still has a semblance of independent thought, listen to the jim hoffman interview at visibility911.com. |
|
|
|
| Flippy | Aug 13 2009, 10:25 AM Post #24 |
|
Why do people keep pushing out this Jim Hoffman crap. Who did he interview again? |
|
|
|
| noeffects | Aug 13 2009, 10:34 AM Post #25 |
|
Why do you say...testimony of 100 people. Then say memories of 13 people? Are you implying something...? I did listen to the interview, they conveniently left out plenty of info... and IMO it was weak...weaker than my weak rebuttal...sorry. And add the fact he won't debate CIT is the kicker for me... Why did you leave out my part about Lloyd ?...you believe him don't you ?...well...that is your prerogative. Keep the dream alive man...peace |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. Learn More · Register Now |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
1:16 PM May 21