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!
|CIT Response to Chandler & Cole's Joint Statement on Pentagon Attack|
|Topic Started: Feb 5 2011, 03:19 AM (2,023 Views)|
|Lin Kuei||Feb 5 2011, 03:19 AM Post #1|
|Michal||Feb 5 2011, 11:04 AM Post #2|
||how come this happens within truth movement? I really do not understand ... Lin - your thoughts?|
|911ARTISTS||Feb 6 2011, 10:49 AM Post #3|
Good question. I don't know, sir. It's brutal. Working on it.
I think everyone needs to take a good look at the nature of power, technology, and phenomenon of gangs and how these things effect the human spirit.
|Craig Ranke CIT||Feb 7 2011, 12:31 PM Post #4|
I think the answer to that is obvious.
It's because counter-intelligence and black operations go hand in hand.
9/11 can't be an inside job without the "truth movement" being heavily infiltrated with liars to focus on targeting the strongest, clearest, simplest, and move obvious evidence that exposes the deception.
Barrie Zwicker put it best:
What's sometimes difficult is figuring out exactly who's waging the campaign vs those who have been effectively duped by it.
|tuatara||Feb 7 2011, 02:51 PM Post #5|
My thoughts - CIT's discovery of the north of the gas station flightpath is so dangerous because it doesn't rely on the people behind CIT such as Craig. Anyone can look at their work and see that it is what the witnesses say which is critical. Most of the other work in the 9/11 world is based on the views/science of particular people - thus if the person is discredited, then so is their theory.
This is why CIT are often attacked personally in order to try to link them to the evidence. This evidence is very, very dangerous to a lot of people. For a person to watch NSA and not conclude the plane flew a different path to the official flightpath requires them to discard all of their common sense and believe in the impossible. It becomes a tough choice :-
1. Believe the witnesses and realise that 9/11 was orchestrated by "insiders".
2. Believe the impossible and stay in the cosy, media-generated world.
|Aldo Marquis CIT||Feb 8 2011, 12:46 AM Post #6|
||A very succinct and sobering comment, Tuatara.|
|Michal||Feb 8 2011, 06:31 AM Post #7|
I fully agree with all above ... but Chandler??? guy seems to have a lot of common sense and thinks twice before he says something ... his attitude here is pretty confusing
... no doubt CIT's findings are most comprehensive and most telling this was an inside job.
by all means please do not get me wrong, because I fully support your efforts, but If I were you guys I’d keep something in case spooks try to mess around. They need to know that once they do rumble, their shit will hit the fan and spread worldwide.
I hope Corey has got something like that.
Edited by Michal, Feb 8 2011, 09:04 AM.
|darion||Feb 8 2011, 10:39 AM Post #8|
||That reminds me theres a really nasty piece of shit named ctcole77 on youtube. When I saw Jonathan Cole I just thought that was strange. Maybe there is no connection from one Cole to the other. Just wanted someone to know about it.|
|JackD||Feb 17 2011, 07:56 PM Post #9|
I support many of CIT's research finds. However, and it pains me to acknowledge this, CIT has in some cases overstated the data, constructing an elaborate "flyover" theory.
There is no need, repeat, no need, to attempt to "solve" the Pentagon crime. CIT, and Barb Honegger, and others like them, need only focus their efforts on pulling down the false narrative of the 9/11 Commission report, showing that it cannot be true.
The methodology goes "we show the official story cannot be true using X Y and Z. No thinking person should accept this story. We demand a new investigation with subpoena power and criminal indictments."
I do not fault CIT for wanting to go farther, possibly find a Lloyd England link proving complicity ("the first known accomplice") and try to establish a possibly "where did plane go? a flyover?" scenario --
But none of these worthy efforts is actually required. In fact, trying to pull off a triple back flip can sometimes land you on your face.
I think CIT is most effective when sticking to the key points it is able to show
1) official story is demonstrably false - AA77 piloted by hani hanjour through 300 degree turn crashing into lightpole path and Pentagon -- a lie!
2) eyewitnesses dispute the official story flight path
3) damage to Pentagon cannot be explained by a 757 impact alone.
|Aldo Marquis CIT||Feb 17 2011, 08:35 PM Post #10|
Overstated? I am not sure what world you are in, but I am in the real world where people demand answers, including ourselves. You may be content being a theorist. But I am not. Everyone can be a monday morning quarterback, 'Jack'. Especially anonymously from behind their computer where they casually check in and post on a nearly dead board. The fact that you even lump us in with Honegger speaks volumes about your research into this matter. Did you even read the article in the OP? Or are you strictly interested in hanging with what you think is the "In-Crowd"?
FACT: North side flight path=flyover. This is accepted worldwide and even with aviation professionals.
FACT: What those people saw including Roosevelt Roberts is not a theory, 'Jack'.
Did you speak with Roosevelt Roberts, 'Jack'? Well I have. He saw the attack airliner flying away after the explosion.
The fact that you even need a flyover witness to begin with to call it a flyover, after seeing the corroboration of north side witnesses, highlights your lack of research into this matter. Hell if you can't even see it after Robert Turcios illustrates a 'pull-up', I am not sure why you would support any of our findings. You clearly don't get it.
Let us know if you need any further help understanding this.
|Craig Ranke CIT||Feb 17 2011, 10:24 PM Post #11|
From what I recall we have personally met in San Diego right?
Aldo may have forgotten who you are but I remember you as a good guy who understood the importance of our work.
Let me explain this a little more diplomatically....the flyover is not our theory. In fact it is not a theory at all.
It is the ONLY POSSIBLE CONCLUSION once you accept the north side approach evidence.
It's the same with controlled demo of building 7. That is not a theory. It is the ONLY POSSIBLE CONCLUSION given 2.5 seconds of free fall that David Chandler so amazing got NIST to admit.
This is why we have only spoken out in favor of his work and the work of AE911truth and why this recent hostile action on their part is so upsetting and damaging to the movement as a whole.
But people in the movement don't call it "the controlled demolition theory" or shy away from calling it proof. Once you accept 2.5 seconds of freefall speed it makes no sense to call it a theory just like it makes no sense to call the flyover a theory once you accept the north side approach.
People have no problem coming to the conclusion (and openly stating it) that building 7 was a controlled demolition based on science, facts, and evidence. Well if that is the standard of proof it makes no sense to shy away from stating the flyover has been proven after accepting the north side approach because science, facts, and evidence 100% prove the impact is impossible for a plane in this location.
This is agreed upon not only by a team of pilots, aeronautical engineers, and aviation professionals every bit as knowledgeable as the professionals who make up AE911truth, but ALSO our most studied and prolific detractors such as Jim Hoffman, Frank Legge, John Bursill, Adam Larson, and even Arabesque.
The notion that NoC = flyover is non-controversial which is why people are so freaked out by it, why we are such targets, and why our detractors work so hard to discredit the witnesses while insisting that the plane was on the south side.
From what I recall you were convinced of the north side approach. Is this still the case?
Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Feb 17 2011, 10:28 PM.
|Craig Ranke CIT||Feb 17 2011, 10:34 PM Post #12|
I'd like to add this....it's true that it is impossible to know everything about what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 just like it's true that it is impossible to know everything about what brought down the WTC.
For example we will never know for sure exactly what type of explosives/weaponry was used to destroy the WTC or the Pentagon.
But we don't need to know that because we know that building 7 fell with 2.5 of freefall acceleration proving an engineered destruction and the plane flew on the north side of the Citgo and therefore did not hit the light poles or the building.
These two little things we KNOW for a FACT based on evidence, science, logic, and reason and these two little things blow the entire case wide open.
|Aldo Marquis CIT||Feb 18 2011, 01:16 AM Post #13|
I remember him. I am obviously disappointed in his statement here. It's BS and I won't let it slide. I don't take kindly to part-timers reversing logic because they are falling under the same group think kool aid the infiltrators stirred up for everyone else.
I love how people can sit behind their computers and tell us how it is, when they don't what it is.
|Michal||Feb 18 2011, 04:19 AM Post #14|
Hi Craig !!!
maybe CIT goes to far maybe not ... but their research does prove flyover ... it's pure logic
|Big Z||Feb 18 2011, 01:09 PM Post #15|
Here is the update:
Complete Withdrawal of Support by Richard Gage, AIA, for CIT’s "National Security Alert"
Peter Dale Scott withdraws endorsement of CIT
P.S. Who else saw the overflight, except Roosevelt Roberts (if he saw the overflight)? there should more than one eyewitness..no?
|JackD||Feb 18 2011, 01:13 PM Post #16|
CIT: I remain a supporter. It is not that i disagree with conclusions -- i dont, in general -- and I think Hoffman Arabesque et all have been aggressive a-holes in attacking the methodology with ad hominem stuff. Craig & Aldo did the leg work, did good stuff.
However, this business of "truthing" requires a certain tact and footwork. Don't give the h8ers a "stick to hit you with"
|Craig Ranke CIT||Feb 18 2011, 02:03 PM Post #17|
Thanks for reiterating your support JackD but you got a negative reaction because your comment is simply out of line and entirely false.
We have not 'construct[ed] an elaborate "flyover" theory'.
We did not construct it, it's not elaborate, it's not a theory, and your dismissive use of scare quotes to describe it was out of line. Do you also call it the elaborate theory of "controlled demolition" and recommend that AE911truth and their supporters avoid stating this conclusion? If not it demonstrates that you have an inconsistent approach to discussing evidence exposing the 911 operation.
Either the plane hit or it didn't. The north side approach evidence is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not hit.
And it's not "h8ers" who have organized this campaign against us. It is liars and counter-intelligence operatives along with help from their dupes. This is not the result of us stating the factual implications of the evidence we have uncovered.
The illogical statements in your post demonstrate that you have been influenced by the unwarranted attacks against us or that you simply do not grasp the definitive nature of what we have uncovered.
But you didn't answer my primary question.
Are you convinced from the evidence we present that the plane was on the north side of the gas station?
|Big Z||Feb 18 2011, 02:14 PM Post #18|
Where is your critical thinking? Some people saw the plane on the north side of citgo vs some people saw the plane on the south side of citgo. But... here is the hook. The south side approach is corroborated by physical damage.
And the north side is corroborated by ...?
|Craig Ranke CIT||Feb 18 2011, 02:18 PM Post #19|
Please stop your trolling.
Clearly you did not read the article in the OP.
There are zero witnesses who could see the Citgo station and definitively place the plane on the south side.
From the article:
|Big Z||Feb 18 2011, 02:18 PM Post #20|
||But believe what you want to believe, I am not here to debate you guys.|
|tuatara||Feb 18 2011, 06:19 PM Post #21|
What are you here for then? If you want a location to post your views without contradiction, start a blog.
Or you could always give an example of
Who are they? Names please.
|Big Z||Feb 18 2011, 07:22 PM Post #22|
Ok.The south side witness:
http://www.youtube.com/user/brokenstyx#p/a/u/1/WMSQ1YYRkHI (at 1:52)
Many other witnesses who saw a jumbo jet hitting the Pentagon:
An interview with John Michael Talboo & Adam Taylor:
http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-69500/TS-446658.mp3 (set the seeker at ~136min)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoJUBRxmRSE (start listen at 2:12:30)
I urge you to listen to these conversations. And then ask yourself.. do you really believe that a plane flew over the building and nobody saw it?
Edited by Big Z, Feb 18 2011, 07:47 PM.
|JackD||Feb 18 2011, 07:47 PM Post #23|
No doubt I have been influenced by all the mudslinging over Pentagon, which unfortunately obscures the most important stuff.
I think the fact that CIT has multiple *(how many?) independent witnesses who contradict the OCT Southside flight path is already amazing. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, our memories get reshaped with time, BUT WHEN YOU HAVE 12 or so you cant deny there is something there.
Does that "prove" a NOC flight path? It convinces me, but falls short of any reasonable proof burden.
caveat - "where did plane go?" is NOT a question CIT or anyone else is req'd to answer. It is more than enough to bring forward testimony and other evidence that shows OCT/govt story cannot be true.
If there was truly a plane in the sky, seen by many people, which then disappeared, it's logical to ask what the hell happened to it - but again, not required.
Did it crash into Pentagon? (seems unlikely based on NOC path)
Did it fly off somewhere else? (maybe..._)
Was what was seen truly a physical plane not a projection or hologram? (bizarre, but what the hell do we know?_)
Did it get "cloaked" and blend into surroundings while flying off to points unknown? (bizarre but what the hell do we know?)
Just like in the TwinTowers story, these able researchers (CIT) are not supermen with crystal balls. S keptics say to AE911Truth "so how did buildings get wired? who put in the thermite?" which AE shrugs shoulders and says "How the hell can we know that? This is why we need an investigation with subpoena power" -- as they should.
Where I think CIT was strong was lining up that evidence that casts doubts on OCT/SOC flight path -- mostly eyewitnesses, since physical evidence is hard to come by (cough which is why we need real investigation) -- and CIT did a good job with basic responses to the "what about the lightpoles?" rebuttal.
I am on record for saying the entire lightpole downing and Lloyd Cab issue seems very very fishy. I cant tell you how lightpoles came to be there, nor Lloyd's cab -- and lloyd's cab story is a linchpin of the SOC version.
Where I think CIT was less strong was the degree of certitude with which CIT talked about their eyewitness evidence as proving a NOC flight oath --- and the bigger-picture issue that what happened on the OUTSIDE of Pentagon is small potatoes compared to what was happening on INSIDE -- meaning, why get lost in minutia of what hit or flew over Pentagon -- it takes focus off the core issue of who-what-where was being INSIDE Pentagon.
Summary: CIT's biggest contribution is simply to point out, in various ways, evidence for us to STRONGLY DOUBT if not INVALIDATE the official account at Pentagon, and why a true independent investigations is needed.
|Big Z||Feb 18 2011, 08:57 PM Post #24|
The similarities between CIT and AE911Truth:
Eyewitnesses to NoC / Eyewitnesses to explosions ; The overflight/ WTC "collapse";
Regarding forensic evidence:
red-grey chips/ ____ ?(no physical evidence to the fly over)
"Did it crash into Pentagon? (seems unlikely based on NOC path)
Did it fly off somewhere else? (maybe..._)
Was what was seen truly a physical plane not a projection or hologram? (bizarre, but what the hell do we know?_)
Did it get "cloaked" and blend into surroundings while flying off to points unknown? (bizarre but what the hell do we know?)"
That's the point. Why debating, fighting when you have forensic evidence in 9/11 dust, and you have the documents (how A. J. says )
Why I "Support" the Official Story
And the Facts:
Why not concentrate the energy on what you can prove ( that "9/11 was an inside job", therefore we need a new investigation).
"AE shrugs the shoulders", but there is possibilities how the explosives/thermitic materials got in the buildings. Theory: during elevator modernization (to me very likely);
How the plane vanished and no one saw it when it flew over the Pentagon? Theory - maybe another dimension, maybe it was a "cloak", "magic trick" (is this very likely?) rather than crashing an airplane right into the Pentagon.. how about that? simple and effective, no?
Edited by Big Z, Feb 18 2011, 09:08 PM.
|Craig Ranke CIT||Feb 18 2011, 11:26 PM Post #25|
This is a very important admission. But I certainly don't agree with the notion that the Pentagon attack isn't "important" if that's what you meant.
This is another important admission. You have admitted that you “can’t deny” that there is “something there” with regard to the north side approach evidence. Of course that “something” can only be that the plane was on the north side of the gas station otherwise there would be nothing there. This is what you just admitted that you “can’t deny” but you went on to contradict yourself in your next sentence…
If it “convinces” you and you “can’t deny” it then it does not fall short of “any reasonable proof burden”. Not according to YOU and I am talking to you here. What would it take to NOT “fall short of any reasonable proof burden”? It would seem that the only way you could say such a thing is if you feel that your own personal judgment is so off the wall that you would be unlikely to find 11 other people for a jury who would unanimously agree with you that you “can’t deny” the north side evidence.
Is your judgment/logic really that unsound?
Agreed which is why we have never bothered trying to answer that question. How long has it been since you have watched our presentations? Have you even viewed National Security Alert? Yes the north side approach evidence shows that the OCT/govt story cannot be true because it proves the plane did not hit the light poles or the Pentagon.
Why would you introduce speculation regarding exotic weaponry into the discussion after falsely claiming that we have constructed an elaborate theory? We avoid theory and speculation like the plague. We are stating facts and presenting evidence. ALL of the options you just listed involve a flyover other than perhaps your hologram theory which is obviously you have no evidence for. The fact is that if you are “convinced” that the plane was on the north as you said then you must accept that the plane did not hit. This is the only logical conclusion. Anybody can come up with illogical conclusions but obviously that is not relevant within the context of a discussion where you are literally lecturing us against constructing elaborate theories (which we have not done).
Don’t forget that we provide evidence that people saw the plane flying away as well which of course would be a ridiculous coincidence of astronomical proportions if this didn't happen and makes it entirely pointless to suggest it could have been "cloaked".
And as we do regarding things we don’t have evidence for.
So now within the same post you are moving from being "convinced" to suggesting the evidence merely “casts doubt”. You are contradicting yourself.
If you personally are truly convinced regarding the north side approach evidence as you said then it should be 100% clear WHY the light poles and cab scene is “fishy”. It is not necessary to know exactly how they got there when it’s clear the evidence that you are convinced regarding proves it wasn’t from the plane. There's no reason to act ambiguous regarding the implications particularly if as you said you feel we even provide a good hypothesis for how they got there. For the record our light pole hypothesis is here.
This statement is very odd. You think it’s a weakness of ours for being “convinced” regarding the north side approach just like you.
You are suggesting that although we have evidence so strong you “can’t deny” it demonstrating that the plane did not hit the Pentagon, that this is “small potatoes” or “minutia” compared to something that we don’t claim to have evidence for at all.
How does that make sense?
You started out criticizing us for constructing an elaborate theory (which we haven’t done) while stating how the unanswered questions don’t matter (to which I agree) yet here you are in the same breath saying that we focus too much on the evidence we have obtained that has convinced you, and that we should focus on more important things like the unanswered questions. You must understand now how contradictory this response is. Right?
You are dancing around the implications. It contradicts the official impact narrative. Plain and simple. This is not “small potatoes”. It is enough to bring the entire official narrative house of cards tumbling. THIS is why we are targeted so heavily and why you have been admittedly “influenced by all the mudslinging”.
By the way I personally think it's pointless to call for a "new investigation" since it's already been done and we already have proof at the WTC even without considering our findings at all. We need indictments. The question of "if" 9/11 was an inside job has been answered so the only new investigation we need is into who the perpetrators really are.
I agree with you that the unanswered questions regarding the "minutia" don't really matter much anymore. Apparently we disagree on what the minutia is since you feel that the plane not hitting the Pentagon is "small potatoes".
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
|1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)|
|Go to Next Page|
|« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »|