IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Citizeninvestigationteam.com Launched!, NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT released.

Craig Ranke CIT
post Jun 7 2009, 12:34 PM
Post #1





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



This is it.

The time for theorizing, discussion, and even investigation has passed.

It's now time for action.

Check out our new and definitive website laying it all out on the table:

http://www.CitizenInvestigationTeam.com/


And make sure to view our new 81 minute definitive piece for CIT's work:

NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT

Thanks for your attention and action.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alanj
post Jun 7 2009, 05:51 PM
Post #2





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 36
Joined: 20-November 08
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
Member No.: 3,996



Excellent work fellas.
An impressive site, very well laid out, with easy access to the facts that you present.
Your research and dedication is first rate.

This post has been edited by alanj: Jun 7 2009, 05:51 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
richard cranium
post Jun 7 2009, 07:42 PM
Post #3





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 276
Joined: 30-December 06
From: california
Member No.: 390



Great video Craig and Aldo!!! I just finished watching the whole thing and it was excellent. Very professional. I love the " I dare you to deny these FACTS!" feeling I felt. Very well done indeed.

thumbsup.gif


rc


(Are you sending a copy to Nick at the OC Weakly? hehe)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jun 7 2009, 08:17 PM
Post #4





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Thanks guys!

We worked real hard on this with the goal to make as clean, concise, and professional as possible.

Yeah I think we DEFINITELY need to get this to Schou although of course we already know he'll never reply.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
maturin42
post Jun 7 2009, 11:53 PM
Post #5





Group: Core Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 18-February 07
From: Maryland, USA
Member No.: 633



Nice work, Guys. I really look forward to meeting you in July.
SFL
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Jun 8 2009, 09:52 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 843
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



Just finished watching it, well done to everyone involved. The use of the 3-D graphics and overhead maps stress the importance of the North Side/South Side issue and in the end it is the eye-witnesses speaking.

I wonder how people new to 9/11 and particularly the Pentagon incident would view this film, it is always hard to judge when you already know so much about it before viewing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jun 10 2009, 03:01 PM
Post #7





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Replying to Aidan's post here.

QUOTE (Aidan Monaghan @ Jun 9 2009, 12:36 PM) *
Watched the film. A good production.

Didn't know Lloyd's wife worked for the FBI.



Yes she not only works for the FBI but when I asked Lloyde what she does for them he said "we don't talk about it".

If you watch our full length presentation on Lloyde, Eye of the Storm, you'll hear what she has to say about all this. She not only claims that she knows why the cab wasn't taken in for evidence by her employer but also reluctantly agrees with me that the plane did not hit the building and kept on going (when she didn't know she was being audio recorded).

QUOTE
And AA 77s reduced appraoch speed is very interesting. Perhaps the extreme speeds apparently falsely attributed to AA 77 were to create a perception that so little wreckage of AA 77 could be discovered because it could not have survived an alleged 400-500 mph impact.


Yes it's clear now that the plane was going much slower than initially reported as it was making a significant bank to south parking.

But please, Aidan, do not refer to the north side approach Pentagon attack jet as "Flight 77" because there is zero evidence that this is the case and much evidence to the contrary as we state here.

It's important for us to not use rhetoric that assumes the official narrative true in any way particularly in light of the conclusive evidence we have proving it false.


QUOTE
I can't recall for certain, but did the Pentagon officer who described a low-flying plane after the alleged AA 77 explosion via phone also describe a similar scene during his official interview?


Yes. That's why we contacted him in the first place. He simply wrote it off as "another plane" but there was no other "commercial airliner" with "jet engines" that was "just above the light poles" banking and flying away immediately after the explosion.

Certainly not the C-130 that wasn't in the airspace until 3 minutes later and was MUCH higher as proven by photographs and video.

We have listed all witnesses who have been officially documented by the Center for Military History or the Library of Congress with links to their official interviews here. Roosevelt is the last one listed.


QUOTE
By the way, I have a lawsuit underway with the FBI seeking all Pentagon records, plus more. Within a few weeks I should be able to force the FBI to at least declare what records they do have and why they are holding them.


Good luck with that. Please keep us posted on the results.

Of course I don't have much faith that they will be honest with you regardless of the law.

QUOTE
I must confess, the collective acounts and building damage do imply at the very least that the light posts and C-Ring hole were likely staged in anticipation of a south-of-Citgo approach.


Don't forget the generator trailer.





It's impossible for a plane on the north side approach to cause any of the physical damage.

That is explained in detail here.

QUOTE
And one obvious reason for staging crash evidence would be to create the appearance of a crash that wasn't supposed to take place.


Quite true.

And as you have seen we have a significant amount of direct evidence for a flyover as well as a significant body of evidence for a very deliberate and elaborate 2nd plane cover story as outlined in detail in our previous presentation How They Pulled It Off.

I'm really glad you watched it and are keeping up on the info Aidan!
thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Jun 10 2009, 04:35 PM
Post #8


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



Really now there is no reason to not do anything. Everyone who views this thread should get a copy of this or show a copy of this to their local media, law enforcement, or gov't representative.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jun 11 2009, 10:25 AM
Post #9





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Jun 10 2009, 09:35 PM) *
Really now there is no reason to not do anything. Everyone who views this thread should get a copy of this or show a copy of this to their local media, law enforcement, or gov't representative.



Operation Accountability
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JFK
post Jun 11 2009, 10:44 AM
Post #10





Group: Guest
Posts: 564
Joined: 2-June 08
Member No.: 3,485



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Jun 10 2009, 03:01 PM) *
Replying to Aidan's post here.

Yes she not only works for the FBI but when I asked Lloyde what she does for them he said "we don't talk about it".


I am reminded of a dear childhood friend's dad.
He almost never spoke and on the rare occasions when he was home he always had his nose buried in a newspaper.

Once I asked her ( my friend ) what he did for a living and her reply was "I don't know."

This was in the mid 1970's.

The last time I saw my friend was during my memorial day vacation in 1989 and with guilt and tears in her eyes ( because she had lied to me so many years earlier ) she confessed to me that he worked for the CIA, but did not know what he did for them.

So yes, "they" do not talk about it.
Reason for edit: grammar
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jun 11 2009, 01:18 PM
Post #11





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Aldo and Craig!

I just watched it and am very proud of you. Actually taking in hand a matter of serious national concern is real patriotism. "Serious" is actually too mild a word to describe the implications.

You guys really tightened up the "fly over" (or it it a "fly by" given what Roosevelt and the other new witnesses said). I liked how you highlighted the testimony of older witnesses, like Turcios saying the plane started to pull up. I have watched his interview a couple of times and never caught that nuance.

I know you guys don't have much of an opinion of the RADES data, but the following connected as I listened to Roosevelt and the other two fly.over/by witnesses. Her's a Google earth diagram that Dmole posted on the Pentagon Forum:

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/19354

Note the Purple RADES return for 9:37:48. In the South Parking Lot! And here I always thought that return was an anomaly, preferring much more the other purple RADES return at 9:37:38 in a North Of Citgo Location. I always thought the latter return could be lining up a fly/over/by toward the other (north) side! Now it looks like both together could be consistent with what Roosevelt and your other witnesses saw.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jun 11 2009, 06:59 PM
Post #12





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Hi tnemelckram.

Thanks for your kind words.

But there is nothing valid about the RADES or the NTSB data as the flight path we have uncovered by the witnesses is 100% irreconcilable in every way shape and form proving both govt controlled data sets fraudulent.

The independent witnesses prove the plane flew over DC skies and therefore approached from east of the river contrary to RADES and NTSB.

The independent witnesses prove it flew over the Army Navy Country Club contrary to RADES and NTSB.

The independent witnesses prove it crossed over from the south to the north side of Columbia Pike directly over the Navy Annex contrary to RADES and NTSB.

The RADES and NTSB data are both further proof of a deliberate cover-up as we know that evidence manipulation implicates guilt and of course is a crime in itself. For this reason, analysis of these two proven fraudulent data sets is important.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jun 11 2009, 10:13 PM
Post #13





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Craig!

I'm planning to be at the Conference on July 11 and looking forward to meeting you guys.

I also liked the way you broke Lloyd down. He capitulated when he said that thing about little people getting involved in things. As far as I'm concerned, he let you guys know that there's something on the other side of the door in the form of some kind of shenanigans.

As for the rest of your post and the part of mine you responded to, it just goes to show how two people who agree 99% of the way can still find something to quibble about. I guess its doctrine or theory.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jun 11 2009, 11:56 PM
Post #14





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Jun 12 2009, 03:13 AM) *
As for the rest of your post and the part of mine you responded to, it just goes to show how two people who agree 99% of the way can still find something to quibble about. I guess its doctrine or theory.


There is nothing to quibble about.

These are all facts:

The independent witnesses prove the plane flew over DC skies and therefore approached from east of the river contrary to RADES and NTSB.

The independent witnesses prove it flew over the Army Navy Country Club contrary to RADES and NTSB.

The independent witnesses prove it crossed over from the south to the north side of Columbia Pike directly over the Navy Annex contrary to RADES and NTSB.

The RADES and NTSB data are both further proof of a deliberate cover-up as we know that evidence manipulation implicates guilt and of course is a crime in itself. For this reason, analysis of these two proven fraudulent data sets is important.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
P45
post Jun 12 2009, 07:56 PM
Post #15





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 24-March 08
From: Scotland
Member No.: 3,029



Dear CIT

Outstanding.

handsdown.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jun 13 2009, 02:45 AM
Post #16





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Craig! I'm responding to your Posts No. 13 and 15 but am going to take your points out of order because I think it's the best way to show how narrow the grounds o disagreement are.


1.
QUOTE
The RADES and NTSB data are both further proof of a deliberate cover-up as we know that evidence manipulation implicates guilt and of course is a crime in itself. For this reason, analysis of these two proven fraudulent data sets is important.


I agree that analysis of the data sets is important. I also agree that one reason for analyzing them is to prove that they contain fraudulent information. And I agree that proof that any aspect of them are fraudulent implicates guilt and is a crime in itself.

However, I do not agree that this is the only reason to analyze the government data. There are at least four other reasons.

a. Whether the data is true or false, if it supports you, there is no reason to discard it. How is a government loyalist going to argue with government data? For example, one of the key points you make in your video is that there were no other planes in the area to create confusion. The government data does not show any other planes in the area. Fraudulent or not, it supports this key point that you make! In addition, my post above that started this said that the RADES data, fraudulent or not, may contain data that corroborates Roosevelt's account about the plane flying over the South Parking Lot. Why look these gift horses in the mouth?

b. The government data contains a zillion pieces of information. The vast majority of it is irrelevant. Perhaps only 1/100,00th of it really matters and is the only part of it that there is any reason to falsify. The government wouldn't falsify all of the data, or any parts of it that are irrelevant and not necessary, because that would geometrically increase the chance of having their tracks discovered without providing any benefit to them. So I'm convinced that only very few really important parts of it are fraudulent, not all of it.

c. Given the vastness and interconnected nature of the data, it is impossible to alter everything that is relevant without leaving inconsistencies or other tracks or evidence of fraudulent alteration. So analysis might reveal telling patterns of falsehood and otherwise provide leads to other things.

d. A large part of what we have is not raw government data but Farmer's interpretation of it. So therefore, it is important to determine what errors or outright misrepresentations Farmer made in his interpretation.


2.
QUOTE
The independent witnesses prove the plane flew over DC skies and therefore approached from east of the river contrary to RADES and NTSB. . . . . . The independent witnesses prove it flew over the Army Navy Country Club contrary to RADES and NTSB.


Your key points, which you have well established, and indeed are the only ones that matter, are (a) independent witnesses establish that the plane took the North Of Citgo Path and the light pole and building damage is inconsistent with that Path; and (B) the plane did not strike the Pentagon but instead flew over/around and past it. At best, where the plane flew in the fifteen seconds before it reached the Pentagon is the only thing that matters. Whether are issues that took place prior to the critical time and are irrelevant to these key points.

I think you already recognize this because as far as I recall, your video does not mention the plane approaching from east of the river or flying over the country club. If not, I think your shooting yourself in the foot by insisting on them being correct when they do not matter in connection to what you have already established.

a. It gives GL's something beside the point to carp about and distract people from the thrust of your proof.

b. With particular regard to the country club, that moves the plane to the south earlier on, while the further north at all times the better for the North Of Citgo Path. This forces you into a "Lazy S" when a straight line is always a simpler explanation.


3.
QUOTE
The independent witnesses prove it crossed over from the south to the north side of Columbia Pike directly over the Navy Annex contrary to RADES and NTSB.


I agree with you all the way up to the "contrary to RADES and NTSB". All these jokers did was provide dubious support to the 911 Commission. None of them expressly said that the plane took any specific path in the final 15 seconds. I agree with you that in various places, such as the ASME Pentagon Damage Report and the Video shown by John Farmer The Good at the 911 hearings, there are depictions of the South Path. Where we differ is you say that this was a formal claim by the government to a specific South Path, while I say that these were just a subliminal suggestion of that Path to the public, leaving the government an escape route in case somebody came along with hard proof of another path, as you have.


4.
QUOTE
There is nothing to quibble about.


If you look at the above, there is, and it is quibbling because the issues are narrow. I offer them because I think they might be a way to pack a few more megatons into the warhead.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Jun 13 2009, 02:50 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jun 13 2009, 03:29 AM
Post #17





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



You conveniently left out the most important fatal flaw proving the RADES data fraudulent.

You quoted it but did not address it.

The independent witnesses prove the plane flew over DC skies and therefore approached from east of the river contrary to RADES and NTSB.



Witnesses, media, air traffic controllers, and of course the C-130 pilot himself prove this.

Do you understand this or no?

Do you understand the implications of the east of the river/DC flight path or no?

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Jun 13 2009, 03:30 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jun 13 2009, 03:34 AM
Post #18





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



And I never said to "discard" the data so please stop suggesting that I have.

But it is proven fraudulent data therefore this proves evidence manipulation which is a crime and implicates a much deeper crime.

The independent evidence proves it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jun 13 2009, 03:37 AM
Post #19





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Furthermore we have about 15 videos of evidence.

We have never claimed that this new one would cover all of it nor does that make any of the other independent evidence we have presented less valid.

Plus your notion that the govt data makes for an "easier" flight path than what the eyewitnesses prove is ridiculous!

Something being "easier" has no bearing on it's validity particularly within the context of a deception on this level.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jun 13 2009, 03:45 AM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



One point of clarification- those "official" RADES returns on the "loop" are primary (transponder off) returns purportedly from some unknown aircraft that flew back from the WV area- the first "un-stealthy" primary return was at 9:09:30 EDT, 38.4213 deg. N, 80.7823 deg W from the PLA (The Plains, VA) RADES site.

The AA77 "3743" transponder code went offline at 8:50:39 EDT, 35000 feet Mode C altitude, 38.8308 deg. N, 81.9414 deg. W (PLA site). As far as what happened in between those times- who knows (unless one wants to dig in the J. Farmer FOIA FAA data, which is "dubious" at best- then how much/which part(s) does one believe)?

There is also completely no continuous RADAR "identification" of "AA77" per se (from "IAD takeoff to Pentagon") as the GL's are so fond of claiming (always without supporting data, I have noticed).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 12th December 2019 - 04:04 PM