Interview with Craig Ranke of Citizen Investigation Team - Part 1

[999II0OlllO0II666]

LOL!!! A debate between the CIT cult and the 9/11 "truth" cult would be like watching a debate between those who believe in leprechauns and those who believe in gremlins... what's the point?

They're ALL wrong!

[centrino105]

@999II0OlllO0II666

Keep on drinking the kool aid buddy you are in the same league as the mob from the dark ages who swore the earth was flat. Anyone not completely brain washed by the TV knows that the Government and media are covering up massive evidence proving 9/11 was an inside job. Too bad that part of your brain washing was to convince you that you are not brainwashed. Oh the irony.

[HardcoreJungFunk]

@999II0OlllO0II666 are you right then?

[Jugivadi]

How was the most protected military hub of the free world so easy to strick when by then the military was fully aware that America was under attack? Then the absurd kicks in. The Pentagon has no survailance video that shows the impact of an actual plane into the building. The most heavily survailed building on earth has no video of the impact. We all know the truth. They do have videos and they show that there was no plane. Show us. You showed us all the other ones. Show this one.

[centrino105]

The "honey pot" meme is laughable. If they had a trap to spring on the truth movement they would have sprung it by now.

[centrino105]

By the way Brian I do know what I think of the NOC witnesses testimony so don't put words in my mouth. I think they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane was NOC. I believe them to be describing what actually happened and furthermore I say that the chances all of them independently would be wrong about the same thing in exactly the same way are so small that it can be safely ruled out as impossible. The NOC witness testimonies DO CONSTITUTE HARD EVIDENCE that the plane was NOC period.

[josephortizgarcia]

The guy couldn't fly,now they want us to believe he's "Luke Fuckin' Skywalker"! Please!!

[punxsutawneybarney]

The flyover plane can't go to Reagan National. 757s and 737s did not use Runway 15 for landiing and it can't make the turn to go onto runway 19. Also, with highrise buildings across the highway, there was no way to stop people from

setting video cameras running on tripods just in case the Pentagon got attacked.

Flyaway from DCA requires a High-G 270 degree turn in full view of a 12-lane freeway. CIT won't discuss flyaway flight paths because they know there is none.

[centrino105]

@punxsutawneybarney

Who is to say if people saw a flyover or not? 2 people did see a flyover and many more may have seen it and have not been interviewed. Still more may have seen it and assumed it was a plane taking off from Reagan. Your statements about people setting up tripods and about requirements of "High-G 270 degree turn" are sheer nonsense. CIT discusses this issue and so have I so quit trying to falsely portray them as avoiding the question because they aren't and I am not.

[punxsutawneybarney]

@centrino105 So in your world dozens of people saw a plane flying toward the Pentagon from the west, but only two people saw it flying away from it, east, even though it had to do a screaming 3.5 G 270 degree turn to head back up the river. And the ATCs never saw it, no other pilots saw it, the planespotters at Gravely Point never saw it, nobody at the marina saw it, and nobody on the freeway saw it.

And you wonder why people think truthers are crazy?

[centrino105]

@punxsutawneybarney

Don't put words in my mouth, that is a disinformation tactic. Secondly this 3.5 G turn you are talking about it doing is a red herring since it did not have to do anything of the sort. Secondly your claims that no one saw it from all those locations you mentioned is total conjecture on your part. People may have seen it and NOT been interviewed. Oh and I don't "wonder why people think truthers are crazy" because I know those who think that are uninformed dupes.

[DanUuNoel]

CIT has arguably done the best investigation to date into the 9/11 Pentagon attack. Because some non-stupid criticisms have been leveled against their documentary, it would gain from a second pass. But it has the merit of offering a believable scenario.

That some 9/11 truth-seekers would aggressively berate CIT is unfortunate. After all, the Pentagon is a point of detail compared to the undisputable twin tower demolitions.

Love,

[punxsutawneybarney]

@DanUuNoel The Pentagon being a point of detail, it is irresponsible to put forth theories as evidence-free, discrediting, and loony-toons as flyover. There's nowhere for a flyover plane to go. That's why CIT won't discuss that question.

[centrino105]

@punxsutawneybarney

You said "There's nowhere for a flyover plane to go." which on it's face is ridiculous and obviously wrong. How about if the plane went over the pentagon? Or towards the nearby Reagan airport? Or away from the nearby airport along the usual departure path? It is false to state that CIT won't discuss the question since they do discuss it in great detail. So in your first post here you have made a ridiculous and irresponsible statement and a blatantly false statement.

[punxsutawneybarney]

@centrino105 There's nowhere for a flyover plane to go. Wherever it goes it's off the usual flight paths and extremely conspicuous.

[centrino105]

@punxsutawneybarney

Brian your points against CIT and flyover are exceedingly weak and based on an argument from incredulity (a logical fallacy). The plane has plenty of airspace to fly away and not be noticed by too many people simply because the people near the site would naturally be looking at the big fireball and smoke cloud coming from the pentagon. Illusionists use the same misdirection technique all the time to convince people that things have "vanished".

[punxsutawneybarney]

@centrino105 Griselda, "lack of airspace" is a straw man.

I too maintained the flyover possibility when I considered it only from the hwy 27 viewpoint. E of the Pentagon and there's no place for the plane to go without being observed. The original theory (now abandoned by CIT and PfT) was landing on runway 15. The plane must fly at low altitude over parks, freeways, marinas, and golf courses on a course crossing the airport traffic streams--right over the planespotters. It's impossible.

[centrino105]

@punxsutawneybarney

When you and your fellow CIT bashers find the courage to debate this on the record I will take you seriously Brian. Frankly speaking this argument you are attempting to make here is extremely flimsy and easy to debunk. You are arguing from incredulity (look it up) and you should realize it is a logical fallacy. Brian the fact is you, like the other CIT bashers, are not well informed about the pentagon and you are just out of your depth. Debate us and we will prove that.

[punxsutawneybarney]

@centrino105 Yes, the argument that the airplane has no place to go is easy to debunk. Simply tell us where you think it went. CIT won't do it. The original flyover hypothesis lands the plane landed on DCA runway 15. It can't land on 15--it would have been wrong way traffic, very conspicuous, and runway 15 at 5200 feet is too short for a safe landing. The flyover airplane would be very conspicuous. CIT's "dumb witness" theory gets old. Get out there and find some witnesses.

[centrino105]

@punxsutawneybarney

You continue to make the unsupported and ridiculous claim that the plane has no where to go after flying over the pentagon. I refuted that enough times already Brian.

I already said, and CIT already said, the plane flew over the pentagon. Where it went after that I do not know but I think it simply banked and flew away. All your blather about runway 15 means nothing because where the plane went after the flyover has no bearing on the flyover evidence itself.

[punxsutawneybarney]

@centrino105 The plane can't simply bank and fly away without being seen by people in the parks, golf courses, and marinas that are near the Pentagon. Not to mention freeway drivers, ATCs, pilots, and planespotters.

Where the plane went is essential to the flyover hypothesis because if it's got nowhere to go, flyover is impossible. CIT needs to test its hypothesis by seeking evidence (witnesses) of flyover. They won't even bother to try to find Eric Dihle's alleged witnesses. Why not?

[centrino105]

@punxsutawneybarney

You are repeating the same claims I have already addressed Brian. Below I said the following about your red herring argument from incredulity. "Who is to say if people saw a flyover or not? 2 people did see a flyover and many more may have seen it and have not been interviewed. Still more may have seen it and assumed it was a plane taking off from Reagan. "

Plus many may have seen it fly over and NOT been interviewed. Don't keep repeating things I addressed already.

[punxsutawneybarney]

@centrino105 What two people saw a flyover? Roberts didn't. He saw a second plane flying away to the SW. How is it that people seeing an east-bound plane west of Reagan would assume it was a plane taking off? Reagan flights were departing NW up the river on 9/11.

How come CIT won't lift a finger to try to track down Dihle's witnesses or Deb Anlauf? You'd think they were afraid of what they might find.

[centrino105]

@punxsutawneybarney

Furthermore Brian it is time YOU answered questions instead of just asking them. So here is a question you can answer before I answer any more from you.

Q: Do you think the witnesses who described a North of Citgo flight path in National Security Alert are mistaken, are lying, or are telling us what actually happened and are correct about NOC flight path? Which is it Brian?

[punxsutawneybarney]

@centrino105 I don't know, and neither do you. But I know there's only one way the Pentagon flyover plane can blend in with airport traffic, and that's to make a 120 degree 2000 foot radius turn to the NW, and at 500 knots the bank angle would be 85 degrees and 9 G's would pull the plane apart.

[centrino105]

@punxsutawneybarney

You did not answer my question.

[punxsutawneybarney]

@centrino105 Better read it again. I said: I don't know, and neither do you.

[centrino105]

@punxsutawneybarney

I read your evasive non answer which is why I pointed out that you did not answer the question. Which you still haven't by the way. If you are going to avoid the heart of the issue which is the NOC witnesses and refuse to address legitimate questions about that then you are being disingenuous and no debate is possible with you.

[punxsutawneybarney]

@centrino105 How is it being disingenuous to answer truthfully that I don't know? Do you think any of us who weren't there can know if they're telling the truth or not?

[centrino105]

Let me count the ways it's diningenuous.

1. The NOC witnesses are the key to the whole debate and therefore must be addressed honestly.

2. You've clearly taken a position that the NOC witnesses are wrong about what they saw, and are arguing from that perspective, yet you will not say openly that you think they are wrong which is disingnuous to the extreme.

3.Bypassing the key issue and instead focusing on issues contingent on the key issue is disingenuous.

4. Trying to control the debate.

[punxsutawneybarney]

@centrino105 I told you I don't know what happened. I don't know if the witnesses are right, mistaken, or lying. Neither do you. That's not putting words in your mouth. It's a fact, whether you recognize it or not.

The NOC witnesses are not the key to the debate. Note that Jesse ignored the NOC issue in his program. He said missile and flyover. You say bombs and flyover. Flyover is the key to the debate. What's the point of the NOC evidence if there's no flyover?

[centrino105]

@punxsutawneybarney

I am sure you would just love to ignore the NOC witnesses Brian and control the debate but the answer is no. You are disingenuous indeed Brian the witnesses are the key and the most important issue so they cannot be hand waved away by the likes of you. When you want to discuss CIT with me Brian you have to address their actual evidence FIRST. I am not going to chase after your red herrings or constant subject changes which are a transparent attempt to derail the debate.

[punxsutawneybarney]

@centrino105 I don't ignore the NOC witnesses nor hand-wave them away. If CIT had not married the NOC evidence to the flyover theory, they might have something significance--proof of damage fakery at the Pentagon and thus of an inside job. Instead of sticking with a common sense interpretation of the evidence, CIT chose to bet the farm on an impossible flyover scenario. You almost wonder if they are trying to discredit the important testimony of their own witnesses with their nonsense.

[centrino105]

@punxsutawneybarney

Oh and please do not tell me again that I don't know if the witnesses are wrong or right again. I do know. They are right and I clearly said so above and explained why if you cared to read it. Don't try to put words in my mouth or tell me what I know.

[punxsutawneybarney]

@centrino105 You don't know they are right. You've never even met them, you've never seen them cross-examined. You very much want to believe they are right, and that should make you very very careful in your judgment because people who want to believe can be easily deceived. They are highly motivated to lie. The Pentagon is highly motivated to pay them to lie--in order to distract from the serious questions of why there was no air defense on 9/11 and why no one was held accountable.

[punxsutawneybarney]

@centrino105 Adam, you are confusing knowledge with belief--worse than that, confusing fervent belief with rigorous knowledge. Very bad in a truth movement, or in any position of responsibility.

There are well-established standards for journalistic, scientific, and legal epistemology. Study them.

[centrino105]

@punxsutawneybarney

Save the BS Brian I think it is ridiculous for you to claim all those witnesses are wrong or worse lying. You do not have a leg to stand on. Let us just leave it here Brian, I know that the witnesses CIT interviewed prove beyond a reasonable doubt the plane was NOC. Your doubts are unreasonable and worse than that based on ZERO counter evidence. Have you shown even one reason to doubt the witnesses? No. Until you deal with the witnesses you can't refute CIT on anything.

[centrino105]

@punxsutawneybarney

Brian don't lecture me about subjects I clearly know more about then you do. I have actually been to the pentagon twice and I have been investigating 9/11 since early 2002. Save the disinformation tactics Brian. The witness statements do constitute hard evidence that can be used in a court of law. Their testimonies are not imaginary, they are real, therefore I am not basing my reliance on them on faith. According to those witnesses the FACT is the plane flew NOC.

[centrino105]

@punxsutawneybarney

Furthermore Brian my epistemology is just fine thank you, while yours is based on your faith in Jim Hoffman, Arabesque, Victoria Ashley, and their ilk's articles who Barrie Zwicker correctly described as "tricky and unreliable". Your faith based position is also founded partly on the laughable idea that the pentagon is some sort of a "honey pot" trap. When are they going to "spring this trap" Brian? It has already been over 9 years since 9/11 so what are they waiting for?

[punxsutawneybarney]

@centrino105 I don't claim the witnesses are wrong or lying. I don't know. You don't either. They have not been cross-examined under oath. The witnesses have reasons to lie and the Pentagon has reasons to pay them to lie--as I explained. Unless you are prepared with a plan B in case they swear they lied to punk an asshole truther, you are sticking OUR neck out.

[punxsutawneybarney]

@centrino105 Your faith in the witnesses and your own judgment is not justified. OK, you wanna end the war and prove inside job. Fools rush in. "Come on, the prize is here! No fear!" WHOMP! What is your Plan B when they provide the tapes and the plane parts and the witnesses say they lied as a prank? All you can say is "It's all fake! They're all agents!" My agnosticism is based on an awareness of what I do not and can not know. When do they spring the trap? Not until they need to.