Orange County Blog

If Craig & Aldo were really concerned about bringing the true perpetrators to justice...they would be in court seeking justice, not peddling DVDs and arguing with people on the internet.

What I see are 2 idiots who are doing all of this for personal gain. They talk the talk, but they certainly aren't walking the walk.

Before we get into it...

Some facts for the reader:

-Nick told us he watched the PentaCon before he interviewed us, yet as we showed him the clip of Sgt Lagasse and Brooks coming together he said, "Oh I want to see this, why didn't you put this in the movie?" Craig quickly corrected him that it was in the movie he claimed he watched.

-We tried getting right to the evidence, but he wanted to know about us and how we got to where we got, we didn't think much of this so we gave him what he wanted. We asked him not to focus on the drama leading up to the and after our trips although they were public record, we felt it was part of the story but not the main feature of what it is we have obtained.

-He was made aware of the fact that Chadwick Brooks told us that our movie was an "eye-opener" and that "anything was possible" when it came to being fooled. Mr. Schou did not report this.

-I did NOT want to go to Mike Walter's house. I made that very clear to Russell Pickering. I wanted to keep this "scientific" as he like to put it. But Russell insisted and insisted that he would make it so that we could all sit around at some point and put everything on the table. Mike Walter never got into the Pentagon attack until Craig brought it up.

-It is an absolute lie and a character assassination attempt by Mike Walter that we were there to try and prove a plane did not hit. We were open to things on our first trip when we met him and were dealing with the fact there WAS a large twin engine on/next to Columbia Pike, this had already caused us to readjust our beliefs and research. We were there to learn the true flight path and truth about what happened at the Pentagon, no matter where it led us.

-Mike Walter did not see the plane descend from over the Potomac river. We have no idea why Nick added this unless Mike Walter added this, which would be another change to his story.

-Craig asked permission to record Mike Walter at his house and he said ok, yet Mike Walter decided to leave this part out.

-We gave Nick Schou the phone numbers of Russell Pickering, Mike Walter, and Dylan because we figured he was going to focus on the evidence and ask/confront them about it. We weren't afrad of him talking to them, because we figured he understood the implications of the north side flight path and the flyaway Roosevelt saw. Again we asked him to ignore the drama. He chose to make this the focal point, rather than focus on the evidence. In fact, I gave him a blow by blow of how Mike Walter has blatanly lied and changed the flight path from the official south side flight path to the north side flight path with a bank, yet he completely ignored this.

-Mike Walter's friend Troy had no cause to believe we were trying to "unseat the US Gov't". In fact, by all accounts (other than his) he had a very civil and friendly discussion with Dylan, Craig and co about politics and world affairs.

-Nick cited information he obtained from Researcher's Edition, the only problem is we have never MADE or released a "Researcher's Edition"

-Nick did not even get the name of our organization right, he continued to call us Citizens Investigative Team throughout the whole article.

-He misspelled Sgt Lagasse's name repeatedly.

-He didn't ask Sgt Lagasse if he stood by the north side flight path he saw.

-He didn't seem to understand that a plane on the north side of the Citgo cannot hit the light poles, the generator/fence with the right wing/engine, show up low and level as seen in the gate cam video, or hit the building as outlined in the ASCE report.

-He did not contact Pilotsfor911truth, even though we gave him the contact information and a link to their findings.

Why are you insisting on spreading yet even MORE lies on us Nick?

"an accusation they also level at any eyewitness who contradicts their unproven flyover theory"

Predictably, you have no problem leveling more false accusations against us without providing a single statement to back up your libelous attacks.

I'll list each one of the inaccuracies, distortions, and blatant lies in your article, in order, here for the record.

Each with it's individual post.

Let's see if OC Weekly is willing to allow fair public scrutiny of the work of their reporter.

1. Inaccuracy: Indeed the very first sentence in his article contains a fatal error or else is further evidence of a military deception on 9/11. Schou reports regarding alleged witness Mike Walter, “When he first saw the passenger jet descending too low and too fast over the Potomac River…”

According to the official NTSB data the plane never flew near or over the river at all. Either Schou simply embellished this unquoted detail or else Mike Walter is seriously contradicting the official story with this claim that he has never been quoted as making in the past. Given the extreme importance of this matter we respectfully request that Schou clarifies which is the case.

2. Blatant lie: The lie seems to be on the part of alleged witness Mike Walter but Schou’s failure to request a response from us regarding this serious accusation indicates pure journalistic laziness if not a deliberate desire to run with any whimsical accusation against us. Schou reports, “Walter chatted casually with the pair, and at one point, he realized that Ranke was surreptitiously tape-recording the conversation.”

The claim is ridiculous. If it was “surreptitious” how would Walter know about it? The fact is that after more than one hour of generalized discussion regarding 9/11 as well as all world affairs, when Walter was being particularly candid about the state of mainstream media vs alternative media reporting, I openly pulled out my recorder and asked Walter permission to document his opinion. Walter was taken aback yet agreed but clearly became uncomfortable and clammed up after the recorder was turned on and set at the center of the table. After a few minutes of empty awkward discussion I opted to shut it off and that was that. It was never published because nothing of interest or relevance was discussed at that time. The notion that this was done “surreptitiously” is a lie for character assassination purposes that Schou eagerly lapped up without so much as a courtesy email to get my response.

4. Inaccuracy: Amazingly, despite the fact this was for a 5 page cover article, Schou was so disinterested in accurate reporting that he failed to reference the name of our organization correctly! We are Citizen Investigation Team yet he erroneously chose to refer to us as “Citizens Investigative Team” throughout the article. We are a registered California tax paying LLC and Nick failed to so much as take a cursory look at our website or pay attention enough to our video presentations to get this simple detail correct.

5. Misrepresentation/childish ridicule: Now came the time when Schou would sum up our alleged “theory” in his own words. Naturally he got it wrong but he made sure to not leave out unnecessary ridicule while misrepresenting our claims in yet another blatant effort to make us look crazy. First he said, “The Citizens Investigative Team[sic] claims to have obtained undeniable evidence that what happened at the Pentagon on Sept. 11 was not a terrorist attack by al-Qaida (the official story) or a covert operation by the U.S. military (the widely held conspiracy theory)…”

Now wait just a minute. How does this make sense? We repeatedly refer to it as a “military deception” and unabashedly suggest that it was an inside job. Of course it was a covert operation! We are quite clear in this throughout the interview. How could Schou get this wrong? Is he implying that we suggested it was some magical illusion created by space aliens without the knowledge of anyone in the U.S. government? I don’t know because he does not elaborate or quote us in this regard and simply makes this false comment in segue to ridicule us and further misrepresent our claims. He goes on, “-pause for circus music- a magic trick in which a military plane painted to resemble an American Airlines jet flew low over the Pentagon while explosives took down a wall of the structure in a convenient cloud of smoke, thus allowing the plane to fly away and secretly land somewhere, presumably at nearby Reagan National Airport. Unfortunately, their film The PentaCon, doesn’t provide any evidence of this.”

We don’t provide evidence for this because it is not our claim. We never said the decoy jet in question was painted to look like an AA jet and in fact we claim the opposite. The evidence we provide suggests that it did not look like an AA jet since most independent witnesses we spoke with describe different colors. Furthermore we have never claimed nor do we believe that it landed at Reagan National Airport. As stated earlier Mike Walter was simply lying about our claims and Nick apparently decided to run with it without bothering to check with us. This is why Schou does not quote us making this claim. Schou was not interested in asking us about the evidence or accurately report details regarding our complete theory. He instead chose to create his own theory while leaving out the evidence we present as a means to childishly ridicule us by suggesting that the reader pauses for “circus music”.

6. Inaccuracy/misrepresentation: Schou continued, “The fact that all those eyewitnesses and many more believe they saw the jet hit the Pentagon-which happens to be the official version of what happened that day as well as the accepted truth among most conspiracy theorists-doesn’t bother Ranke and Marquis”.

This unsupported statement is sheer lunacy. Most “conspiracy theorists” certainly do not believe a plane hit! Most believe a missile hit the building. That has been the widely held theory since day one that we are responsible for debunking with hard evidence. Once again Schou has no qualms speaking for us without quoting us or never having asked us our thoughts on this matter but this time he decided to do it for the entire 9/11 truth movement as well. He went on, “The ‘evidence’, they say, proves all those witnesses actually saw something else; another jet, flown by an unknown military pilot, soaring just over the roof of the Pentagon, while explosives planted by government operatives….”

While this is close to our claims it is not entirely accurate and it contradicts when Schou earlier and erroneously claimed that we said it was not a “covert operation by the U.S. military”. Is he paying so little attention to the very words he is writing about us that he can’t see this contradiction in his assessment of our beliefs? Furthermore we never said it was flown by an “unknown military pilot”. We make no claims in this regard since we have no evidence as to whether it was remote guided or who or what could have flown it. Once again Schou fails to provide a quote of us making this claim but has no qualms misrepresenting this as what we said anyway.

7. Blatant lie: Schou’s effort to demonize us as hated within the 9/11 truth movement is indicative in this statement, “Many conspiracy theorists-like Avery and Pickering- are no longer on speaking terms with Ranke and Marquis.”

Schou admitted that Avery declined to comment for the interview so why is he speaking for him? The fact is that we told Schou how Avery has remained cordial with us and even showed up in person for a presentation I did for the San Diego 9/11 Truth group only days after we spoke with Schou. Avery stepped right up, shook my hand, and spoke with me. He made a point to shake my hand again before he left and congratulate me on the new evidence that Schou failed to cover in his article. So that leaves Pickering as the sole person we are not on speaking terms with. Given the fact that Pickering publicly quit the movement after spiraling out of control in a flurry of personal attacks against us means that he is no longer a “conspiracy theorist” or member of the 9/11 truth movement so now Schou’s claim of “many” that we are not on speaking terms with has been reduced to zero.

9. Inaccuracy: This could be considered a minor mistake but detractors of ours have already used it as an example that I am inaccurate or embellishing my story when in fact it is Schou. Schou inaccurately states, “That’s when Ranke heard the cell-phone calls placed by terrified passengers on the planes that hit the towers.”

I stated that the reports of the cell phone calls are what convinced me. No actual recordings or transcripts had been released yet but reports of Barbara Olson’s alleged calls from "Flight 77" to her husband Solicitor General Ted Olson were reported by CNN early in the morning on 9/12/2001.

11. Inaccuracy/pigeonholing/demonizing: Schou went on to quote Walter’s friend Troy who attended the bar-b-que in regard to his opinion on us. Schou reported that Troy said about us, “Their objective was to unseat the U.S. government”.

Reporting Troy’s ludicrous opinion about us is fine but failing to get a response from us regarding this strong accusation that makes us out to look like terrorists is not. Our “objective” is to uncover the truth behind the worst attack on American soil to seek justice for the crime and put an end to the fraudulent war on terror. We are not anarchists; we are anti-war truth seekers who refuse to accept what we are told by the media and government without independent confirmation. Of course a rational response from us in this regard would not play out very well for Schou’s hit-piece so he simply chose not to ask us to respond to Troy’s baseless accusation.

12. Inaccuracy/lie by omission: Now that we are coming to the end of the article Schou finally decided to talk about the evidence a bit. Amazingly, Schou only talked about 2 out of 13 corroborated witness names presented seriously reducing the level of validation that we have obtained, but beyond this lie by omission, he got the name of 1 of the 2 he featured incorrect! William Lagasse’s name tag on his police uniform is prominently visible during our video taped on site interview with him in the documentary yet Schou spells his name “Legasse” throughout the article demonstrating further his blatant laziness and utter disregard for accuracy in reporting.

14. Blatant lie: This is probably the worst blatant lie of the bunch. When referencing Russell Pickering’s beliefs Schou said, “He still believes that 9/11 was an inside job, but Pickering strongly disagrees with Ranke and Marquis’ fly-over theory, which isn’t supported by a single eyewitness. ‘Nobody looked up and saw a plane fly over the Pentagon and fly away. Nobody reported a fly-over.’”

Roosevelt Roberts Jr. did. We told this to Schou. We provided Schou with the interview and Roosevelt’s number. So why did he fail to mention Roosevelt and insist on lying about what evidence exists or doesn’t exist? There is no way to know but we hope that Schou will publicly answer this question since his claim is utterly false and we had already provided the evidence proving it. Furthermore we explained to Schou how the 911 call tapes and transcripts from Arlington have been all confiscated and permanently sequestered by the FBI while they were released from New York. This implicates a deliberate cover-up of what people really did first report in Arlington so we are left to rely on the media. Apparently this doesn’t bother Schou or Pickering as they are happy to accept what they have been told regardless of the level of evidence there is to the contrary.

15. Inaccuracy: Schou went on, “Ranke and Marquis also interviewed several Arlington National Cemetery employees after receiving permission to bring cameras to the facility”.

Although it’s great that finally Schou at least made a cursory mention to the new evidence, he is once again reporting inaccurately when he said we obtained permission to bring cameras to the facility. This time we simply showed up and conducted the interviews without any permission. Interesting how Schou mentions the importance of the banking motion of the plane without having looked into why this is important or made any effort to confirm or refute this. But he also fails to mention the extreme high level of corroboration of the north side claim we have obtained. 13 witnesses independently corroborate the north side claim. Why do you suppose Schou has so much trouble stating this while he has not presented a single statement from any one of the 13 witnesses contradicting this or suggesting that we misrepresented their accounts? Why do you suppose he only attempted to contact one of these witnesses to verify or refute the information despite the fact that he chose to do a cover story on it? This is not the behavior of an investigative reporter with integrity or an honest desire to find the truth.

Pat Curley,

So we saw how about a month and a half ago you said you were "gearing up to take on the Pentacon boys".

Geared up yet?

We issued a public challenge to debate but have not heard from you. In case you weren't aware here is what we said:

Bring it on Curley.

Study up because you're going to need it.

I challenge you to a debate public or private, on the internet, radio, or over private phone lines recorded.

Like Mark Roberts you know better than to ever accept because you will be ultimately exposed for the pseudo-skeptic that you are.

Here is the simple premise....

We state our general beliefs in the beginning about what happened at the Pentagon and then provide independent verifiable evidence to support our beliefs.

Whoever provides the most evidence wins.

Simple isn't it?

Not a skeptic on earth would refuse such terms right?

Email me and we can discuss it further if you are willing but reluctant for whatever reason.

Craig Ranke
cit@thepentacon.com

16. Inaccuracy: Schou goes on to refer to our interview with alleged witness Keith Wheelhouse and suggests that it is in “The Researcher’s Edition of The PentaCon”.

However the Researcher’s Edition has not yet been completed or released so once again Schou is simply demonstrating his laziness and inattention to details and an inherent tendency to report inaccurate information. When discussing our interview with Wheelhouse Schou completely misses the point how Wheelhouse’s claim that "AA77" was literally “shadowed” by a C-130 up until the last moment when the C-130 veered away from the building immediately after the explosion is not corroborated by any other witness, the official data, and is fully contradicted by the actual pilot of the C-130 Lt Col Steve O’Brien, yet this proven false claim serves as perfect cover for the flyover. Perhaps if Schou paid better attention to the title of the presentation he was actually watching, The 2nd Plane Cover Story, he might have understood this.

18. Distortion/misrepresentation: Schou continues in regards to our alleged claims about the 2nd plane cover story, “How witnesses who saw a second plane high in the skies above the Pentagon could possibly be part of a conspiracy to fool the public into thinking that a plane nobody saw fly over the Pentagon actually crashed into a building is a question that is as ridiculously convoluted and inherently illogical as the very theory embraced by Marquis and Ranke”.

If Schou had trouble understanding our claims he could have asked us to clarify but his statement here proves he was either unable or simply refused to get it. He is not accurately representing our claim. We state that ambiguous media reports of a real 2nd plane that flew in to the scene minutes later were blended with false eyewitness reports of this 2nd plane flying away from the scene immediately after the explosion. If Schou believes Wheelhouse’s account of this then why doesn’t he think that everyone would have seen this shadowing plane flying away immediately after the explosion? You can’t suggest that this report is accurate and simultaneously suggest that no plane flew away at the same time as the explosion. This is where the confusion sets in but instead of trying to figure it out or asking us to clarify; Schou incredulously throws his hands up in the air and waves it all away. Wheelhouse doesn’t describe it “high in the sky” and Sucherman or Narayanan didn’t either until we interviewed them and forced them to nail down more details. Like many of the other USA Today employees, who conveniently and coincidently mention the 2nd plane in their accounts, they were ambiguous in regards to the 2nd plane details such as altitude, type of plane, and timing. It’s the ambiguity that left it floating out there to work as cover, yet combined with Wheelhouse being very specific about the 2nd plane allegedly “shadowing” the attack jet and flying away immediately after the explosion, this should ring warning bells for any honest researcher. It’s amazing that Schou can literally claim he believes this account while simultaneously stating that nobody saw a plane flying away from the building immediately after the explosion, yet he remains completely oblivious to this clear contradiction.

There can now be no question that Schou went into this article with an agenda and a clear desire to portray us a certain way. It’s rather apparent he was unwilling to put in the necessary effort to validate, refute, or even understand the evidence and preferred to focus on gossip instead. This type of behavior is despicable for any journalist and frankly the extreme level of blatant dishonesty as outlined in this letter leaves the OC Weekly vulnerable to charges of libel. Citizen Investigation Team demands that all errors are corrected and that a complete retraction of all the false claims and distortions outlined in this letter are addressed.

Craig, let it go. We know we're right. They're all disinfo anyway. Now, lets get back to the REALLY IMPORTANT aspects of this case.

We still have a lot of shit to peddle. Coffee cups and t-shirts don't come cheap, right?

Nick,

You did a great job illustrating the workings of a fringe, conspiracy-obsessed movement that has been shown to have no respect for, much less any concept of, thoroughly-researched, unbiased evidence.

As with any made-up story, conspiracists like CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth must continue to add layer upon layer of "explanations" as each of their "theories" are debunked. No doubt, anyone who easily debunks them is dismissed as a "plant" - to hell with the evidence. Now, the stories are so contradictory and muddled, CIT can not write a thing without contradicting themselves.

Craig Ranke's and Aldo Marquis' reaction to your well-researched article, as well as that of the equally nutty Rob Balsamo, only illustrates how absurdly these kooks are with reality. Unfortunately, it's a sad commentary that even in the 21st century, people are still easily susceptible to cults and the irrational preachings from them.

Though not as bad or influential by any means, the experience with cults like CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth show how easily people who choose to suspend critical thinking in favor of beliefs and political motivations can be influenced by even worse things like Holocaust Denial and cult leaders like Jim Jones who easily influenced hundreds of innocent yet gullible people to commit suicide.

The internet has made possible the expansion and protection of free speech to such an extent that anyone can write anything with impunity. Ranke, Marquis, and Balsamo aptly demonstrate what happens when fringe cults care nothing for personal responsibility, integrity, or the truth. Fortunately, they won't be remembered in the trash bin of history.

There can now be no question that CIT went into its "investigation" with an agenda and a clear desire to portray the real facts in a certain way. It’s rather apparent they were unwilling to put in the necessary effort to validate, refute, or even understand the evidence and preferred to focus on the bogey man instead. This type of behavior is despicable for anyone and frankly the extreme level of blatant dishonesty as outlined in this letter leaves CIT vulnerable to charges of libel. The World demands that all errors are corrected and that a complete retraction of all the false claims and distortions are addressed.

And while you are at it boys, can you spare a few minutes from your hysterical whining to actually provide a flight path? What do you say Cap'n Bobby?

Truthers: You bunch of losers should just drop it and go for the real conspiracy--the Rosicrucians.

Here is what the CIT thugs say about him: "This means that Lloyd England has now been shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have been directly involved with this black operation of mass murder." Pathetic.

Beyond pathetic, in my opinion. But Aldo and Craig, why have you not approached the DA with your "evidence" with a view to getting this poor old man hauled in for questioning? His guilt is beyond reasonable doubt, right?

Nick, excellent article - thanks.

R. Scott Moxley,

Gee how nice of you to chime in with sarcasm.

However despite the libelous character assassination from your colleague we are not the paranoid kooks he made us out to be. It's clear that his agenda on us is simply ego based as he didn't want to be outdone by a couple of citizen investigators.

Let us know if you are willing to do the job proper and actually investigate the evidence rather than report gossip.

I'd be happy to provide you with the contact information for the 13 witnesses that Schou refused to even discuss with us let alone attempt to refute their accounts.

Do you really condone this utterly lack of professionalism and pure disdain for hard evidence?

Is that how all reporters are at the OC Weekly?

Lyte writes:

"However despite the libelous character assassination from your colleague we are not the paranoid kooks he made us out to be."

I agree, you mutts are twice as bad.

You want to talk libel, Craig?

Here is what the CIT thugs say about him: "This means that Lloyd England has now been shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have been directly involved with this black operation of mass murder."

Here is the contact information for both the Arlington County District Attorney's Office and the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia:

Arlington
Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney
1425 North Courthouse Road, Suite 5200
Arlington, Virginia 22201
(703) 228-4410

District of Columbia
United States Attorney's Office
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
202-514-7566

Why do you refuse to contact them? Why aren't you having daily protests outside of their offices?

Craig and Aldo are just losers who don't have anything to do 'cause they can't catch any good tail. Go back to your circle jerk, boyos ;-)!

"However despite the libelous character assassination from your colleague we are not the paranoid kooks he made us out to be"

That's exactly what you are making yourself look. Your constant posting here shows you suffer from OCD, narcissism, paranoid delusions, delusions of grandeur and host of other ailments. Same goes for Captain Bob.

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/search/label/Craig%20Ranke >

Craig, keep ruining the good name of those of us who don't accept the Cheney regime's spin. Fuckface.

Craig and Aldo are enjoying this because they are getting way too much attention. The silence in support of their absurd and nonsensical claims is ridiculous.

Frankly, I'm a little disgusted that these hacks get any attention at all- they aren't even fringe. While lifting up this rock and exposing this rank[e] and vile goof troop to the rest of the world may actually be a good disinfectant, one has to wonder if this particular strain of stupid would have died off on its own.

Their little movie debunks itself for crying out loud.

First off (I am going to change the subject for a moment) GUSTAVO! FIRSTLY you are extremely intelligent and I love listening to you. SECONDLY ask a Mexican is the greatest thing ever! You are an absolute riot! I am married to a mexican and I am a white boy so there you go.

I also have the pleasure of living here in the OC and I am sad to say that Craig and Also represent the worst of the OC.

I had both the pleasure and subsequent DISPLEASURE of working with Ranke. Craig was (probably still is) one of the nicest people you could meet. That is up until his 9-11 obsession took a hold.

Craig went to the Pentagon with the PRECONCEIVED notion that Flight 77 never hit the Pentagon. He used to go on and on about how the plane was landed and the passengers were then executed by the government.

Ok ok I am pretty left leaning but I cannot imagine that they could find ONE GOVERNMENT person who would in cold blood execute men, women and children.

Ask the snake oil salesmen Aldo and Craig and they will tell you that well gee of course they could have they were just following orders.

Then there is the claims by Ranke and Aldo about how well gee sure they could have just planted all that DNA at the pentagon!
I mean DUH!

If you do about 2 minutes of research you can discover how impossible of a claim this is. Oh ya and lets not forget that these 2 frauds make the claim WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

About a year and half ago on the Jeff Rense show Ranke changed his tune and made the claim that flight 77 was remotely piloted into the Pentagon.
Uuuuuuuuuuh sure bud!
Again (shocking I know!) without a shred of evidence.

Recently on a radio show which one of his other former co-workers hosts on a no name internet radio show Craig IS NOW CLAIMING that CIVILIAN CONTRACTORS planted explosives at the Pentagon.
And guess what......
I think you are thinking what I am about to say.....
NO EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP!

Oh yes and a poster earlier mentioned how Aldo likes to threaten people.
About a year and half ago Aldo thought it would be a good decision to make statements
"You're going to regret. Don't forget we have your info too pal. Think about your kid and family"

Gustavo perhaps you can pencil these nutjobs in and we can have "Ask a raving lunatic".

I also want to thank Nick!
Your article was awesome!
Very well written!
I think that this is going to further alienate (if thats possible) the CIT from the rest of the truther community.
Their reaction to Nick has been WAY WAY over the top.
But maybe when you are as delusional as these frauds are there is no top!
Their reaction is proof that if there is even the tiniest bit of disagreement with a reporter then they will blast that reporter as being in on it or a hit piece.

Is there anyone (other than the 'enlightened') [i]not[/i] in on this conspiracy?

I think that the CIT and Dr. Judy Woods could be on to something.
Maybe the laser beams that brought down the WTC could have originated from the same Death Star that also had a tractor beam which pulled in Flight 77?
I think that is a lead that the CIT should pursue.
Killtown did you see any faces in the Pentagon smoke like you did the WTC smoke by any chance?
If you did please share this with the CIT to help with the tractor beam theory.
thanks in advance.

Bobert wrote: I think that the CIT and Dr. Judy Woods could be on to something.
Maybe the laser beams that brought down the WTC could have originated from the same Death Star that also had a tractor beam which pulled in Flight 77?
I think that is a lead that the CIT should pursue.
Killtown did you see any faces in the Pentagon smoke like you did the WTC smoke by any chance?
If you did please share this with the CIT to help with the tractor beam theory.
thanks in advance.

The straw men you are ridiculing does not refute thirteen eyewitnesses corroborating each other on the fact that the plane flew north of Citgo while no eyewitnesses saw it low and level on the south side knocking down light polls. If the plane flew north of Citgo hit could not have hit the building.

I don't know about any of the other people you mentioned, but I do know that most 9/11 truthers, and especially CIT, do not claim that laser beams, tractor beams, or deathstars were used on 9/11.

CIT definitely does claim that the plane flew north of the Citgo gas station because that's what all of the eyewitnesses told them on camera, on location.

They also claim that an approach of NOC means that the plane did not down the light polls or damage the building as outlined in the ASCE report because it's an obvious fact that even fools do not deny.

What you're doing is childish and intellectually dishonest.

Hi Craig and Alpo,

Would it be possible that the planes were made out of cardboard?

MIHOP wrote:

"Since the north of Citgo flight path and impact claims are mutually exclusive, only one of them can be correct. Which is it?"

No, that is a fallacious claim, they are not mutually exclusive. You've committed the fallacy of False Alternatives:

"This fallacy consists in assuming too few alternatives and, at the same time, assuming that one of the suggested alternatives must be true."
- T. Edward Damer, "Attacking Faulty Reasoning"

There are other alternatives that you fail to consider: the eyewitnesses could be mistaken, the eyewitnesses could be lying, the eyewitnesses could be misrepresented by CIT, and so on. In fact CIT has presented no evidence that a flyover took place.

"The plane flew south of Columbia Pike, south of the Citgo gas station, clipped five light polls, and hit the Pentagon low and practically level. No eyewitnesses saw any of this, but instead they all hallucinated that the plane was on the NOC flight path from multiple vantage points and Roosevelt Roberts, Jr. was also hallucinating when he saw a passenger jet less than 100 feet off the ground flying from the Pentagon seconds after the explosion."

You (and CIT) have committed the fallacy of Omission of Key Evidence:

"This fallacy consists in constructing an argument that fails to include some of the key or principle evidence that is critical to the support of the conclusion."
- Ibid.

CIT's entire claims have been based on the two above fallacies as well as many others. It has been CIT's aim from the outset to trying to claim that there are only two alternatives: the plane hit the Pentagon or the plane flew over it. CIT wants us to believe, as you do, in the fallacious reasoning that there are only two alternatives.

Which, of course, is nonsense. In order for CIT to claim it has no obligation to present other evidence for a flyover OR that AA77 did not the Pentagon, CIT has to commit the Fallacy of False Alternatives. If CIT believes it can get away with convincing you of that, it then can easily justify use the fallacy of Omission of Key Evidence to avoid having to present other key evidence.

Many of us have demonstrated during the last 2 years that CIT has committed these fallacies and why. It is not rocket science. And in every instance, they have refused to respond.

CIT refuses to respond to or discuss the implications its claims produce. Obviously, if a plane actually flew over the Pentagon, rather than hit it, the implications are numerous and crucial. We have made those implications clear: there would be eyewitnesses on the other side of the Pentagon to a flyover. CIT would be able to construct a flight path of the plane away from the Pentagon, based on those eyewitness accounts, just as it claimed to have done with the 13 approach-side eyewitnesses.

CIT cannot avoid dealing with evidence but it does so because it believes it can con people into believing there are only two possible alternatives. Obviously, CIT has successfully conned you into believing "mutually exclusive alternatives" and therefore have easily convinced you that no other evidence is needed.

CIT does this because it knows very well that no such eyewitnesses exist. If it can convince you none are needed, it can avoid dealing with that fact. CIT's consistent pattern of constructing their claims has one sole purpose: to avoid dealing with contradictory evidence. And it does so by conning gullible people like you that it's fallacious reasoning is valid.

"I am NOT a member of CIT, but I am a rational human being who has spent hours reviewing the overwhelming evidence that they have provided proving beyond a reasonable that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon."

Rational people commit logical errors all the time, just as you have. But really rational people will always acknowledge errors in thinking and logic they have made. It was very easy to show how CIT uses people like you into believing in the the fallacy of Omission of Key Evidence and the fallacy of False Alternatives.

Now, it is up to you to acknowledge your error in thinking, MIHOP.

Will you?

totovader wrote: Yes, it is nonsensical. At best this is anecdotal evidence- but in truth it's nothing but cherry-picking and leading the witnesses.

Asking them where they saw the plane is leading them to say NOC? Asking them if there was any chance it was actually on the south side is leading them to say absolutely not? This statement is blatantly false.

Anyone who has any sense at all can see that- including the author of this article and the vast majority of the population at large.

The author of this article is in league with you as far as dishonesty. The vast majority of the population at large has not viewed CIT's work.

To claim on the one hand that a couple of witnesses (who have all been lead into a certain line of questioning) trump all of the available evidence- when their ONLY discrepancy is the angle of the approach is NOT a justifiable means to exclude all the evidence and then invent a completely new scenario.

No one "invented" the scenario. If the plane flew NOC as all of these people say it did not hit the building. As I said even most skeptics won't dare deny this, but jthomas appears to have stepped up so I'll respond to him in a minute. Is it your view, totovader, that a plane NOC could have hit the building and caused the observed physical damage? Or do you at least conceded that that is not possible and simply insist that it was actually SOC and all of the eyewitnesses interviewed by CIT were simultaneously wrong in the same way?

Not only is witness recall not entirely reliable, but it's certainly not of greater value than physical evidence and the majority of witness testimony as a whole.

CIT has consistently agreed that "witness recall" is not entirely reliable, and pointed out why this testimony is particularly strong:

1) The high level of corroboration from independent accounts.
2) The simple right or left nature of their claim.
3) The perfect vantage point. (This was referring mainly to Turcios, Brooks, and Lagasse at Citgo, but all of the more recent interviews had excellent vantage points as well)
4) The high level of credibility of the witnesses themselves (a number of them are Pentagon police officers and employees)
5) The fact that their testimony was filmed on location.
6) The extreme magnitude of the event being something that is virtually impossible to forget.

Contrary to the claims of the two yokels referenced in this article, the seriousness of this event does not suddenly make details more clear- research shows this to be completely untrue
I'd be interested in reading that research (honestly). Please post it if you have a link. I've read things supporting both increased and decreased clarity, so I may agree with you here as far as that point being debatable. Someone may want to take issue with #4 too, so for arguments sake let's remove that too. 1, 2, 3, and 5 are the main points which make the testimony of these witnesses so strong, even without 4 and 6.

If these "yokels" are so clueless and no one takes them seriously why do you even have to bothers arguing. It's really time consuming arguing online, and if their evidence is going to make everyone thing they're nuts all by itself, why does it need your help?

That combined with the fact that the specific detail that Craig and Aldo set out to prove happened in the blink of an eye.

They've said over and over that they didn't "set out to prove" NOC. They entertained it as a possibility Lagassee and the Citgo manager both alluded to the plane being on the north side.

Expecting that the 3 or so witnesses which are sketchy on a couple of details would somehow recall perfect details while the hundred or so who disagree with them would not is self-defeating...

Have you honestly even looked at their work? It's not "3 or so", it's thirteen and one flyover witness. And there are most certainly not a "hundred or so" who had a vantage point to judge north or south of Citgo and said they saw it fly south. If you know ANY person who fits this description please tell me who.

and yes, the fact that nobody corroborates the absurd plane switcharoo that Craig and Aldo propose shows just how irrational and inconsistent they have to be to peddle their nonsense.

For starters: Operation Northwoods, the fact that the plane disappeared from radar near the Kentucky/Ohio border roughly 40 minutes before the explosion at the Pentagon, and the fact that most witnesses saw a plane that did not look like an AA jet (most say it was white), the fact that the FDR data is a transparent fraud.

When faced with contradictions like this (a couple people say the plane flew a different path, a hundred or more say it flew the path that is corroborated by physical evidence) how do you think you can resolve this contradiction?

You're skewing 13-0 into 2-100+

The only way that Craig and Aldo can go with this absurd fantasy of a NOC claim is to pretend that all of the evidence was planted

The physical evidence is all highly dubious and/or does not have a verifiable chain of custody.

all of the witnesses are paid shills

No, only a few who claim things that are physically impossible yet just so happen to bolster the official narrative. (i.e. 20-30 foot light poll hits plane and spears windshield and does not touch hood of car, even while being removed; C-130 was observed "shadowing" the attack yet for 60 seconds from Arlington Cemetary)

and then there is some kind of grand illusion with the impact- all of this lacks even a shred of evidence.

Except thirteen independently corroborated NOC claims which are not directly refuted by anyone, let alone hundreds as you imagine.

They make the NOC claim and then assert that it proves all of this and that the lack of evidence IS evidence, which is quite obviously fallacious. The widely accepted scientific theory, however, has a mountain of supporting evidence- and while that may be inconvenient or unsexy to conspiracists... it is what happened, and it's what rational people believe because they are able follow basic and fundamental scientific principles and not abandon logic at their whim. You don't just get to make stuff up to hold on to a ridiculous fantasy.

CIT has not abandoned logic or made up any unfounded claims.

jthomas,

Just to be clear, are you saying that a plane that flew NOC could have downed the light polls and caused the damage to the building outlined in the ASCE report? (Hypothetically -- I'm not asking whether or not the plane DID fly NOC)

Let's nail down what you are really saying here with regard to your first fallacy. I think you would agree that scores of eyewitnesses saw a large commercial airliner flying near treetop level towards the the Pentagon in the final seconds before the explosion, and that this is, in fact, what happened. Please explain what other scenarios might have played out other than the plane either hitting the building or flying over it.

Regarding the second logical fallacy that I have supposedly commit: ALL things considered, INCLUDING ALL OF THE OTHER FACTS SURROUDNING 9/11 AS A WHOLE, it is much, much more likely that the eyewitnesses are correct and that a military deception did take place than that all of the eyewitnesses imagined the plane on the same incorrect flight path. If anything it is you who is pretending that the Pentagon attack happened in a bubble and failing to take into account all of the other dubious details surrounding and blatant lies surrounding the government-endorsed narrative.

Nicepants wrote: But they aren't correct.....every eyewitness who says the plane was North of the Citgo and hit the pentagon is wrong (even according to CIT). None of CIT's evidence has anything to do with the military.

First of all, I am not Craig (or anyone in CIT).

It was clear that when I said "it is much, much more likely that the eyewitnesses are correct" that I meant "...in their placement of the plane NOC." In saying that a military deception took place, I am implicitly calling them wrong about the impact claim, yes.

If the plane did in fact fly NOC then a deception that most definitely did involve criminal elements within the military did take place. Therefore evidence supporting a NOC flight path is evidence of a military deception. (Note the difference between "evidence" and "proof". Proof can be defined as "evidence showing a claim to be true beyond a reasonable doubt")

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/overheadpolespath.jpg
http://thepentacon.com/Topic11.htm

Hey MIHOP, what are you doing here? You truthers just got your asses handed to you by NIST. Why aren't you over listening to CardBoard Gage make an ass out of himself?

"16.5, you do realize that I predicted that you would do that and preemptively responded, right? You are comparing apples to oranges."

Wow, you should apply for Randi's Prize! Anyhow, just so you people are aware, CIT thinks that it is immaterial that all of their witnesses say the plane HIT the farking Pentagon.

Except Lloyd, he is a triple confirmed CIT witness too, isn't he hey MIHOP?

Mopes.

16.5 wrote: Hey MIHOP, what are you doing here? You truthers just got your asses handed to you by NIST. Why aren't you over listening to CardBoard Gage make an ass out of himself?

You do not know whether or not I support Richard Gage or controlled demolition, and whatever he is doing right now is irrelevant to our conversation.

Wow, you should apply for Randi's Prize! Anyhow, just so you people are aware, CIT thinks that it is immaterial that all of their witnesses say the plane HIT the farking Pentagon.

No, CIT thinks that they were correct in their unanimous placements of the plane NOC and were fooled by a well-orchestrated military deception regarding the impact, as opposed to all of them being correct about the impact but simultaneously hallucinating the same incorrect flight path from various excellent vantage points.

Except Lloyd, he is a triple confirmed CIT witness too

Lloyd's account is absurd and physically impossible.

Nicepants wrote: Yes you are. You're not fooling anyone.

No, once again I am not Craig nor anyone else in CIT, as much as you'd like to pretend everyone thinks they are nuts. I am a person who has carefully reviewed ALL of their material and fully understand the implications. You do not meet one or both of these criteria.

So it's more likely for an eyewitness to be correct about the split-second, mid-air location of a jet flying 160+ mph than it is that they are correct about that jet hitting one of the largest buildings on the planet? Nevermind that the number of witnesses to the impact greatly outnumbers the number of people who say the plane was north of the citgo.

Edward Paik SAW the plane on the NOC path but DEDUCED the impact. All of the ANC workers SAW the plane on the NOC path but DEDUCED the impact. Brooks, who was one of the three people with the best vantage points, has admitted that he could have been fooled about the impact, but sticks by the NOC path. Even when the eyewitnesses come to understand the implications of the NOC flight path they do not back off of it. They are certain; it flew NOC.

Go take your evidence to a court, Craig. You claim to have proof of all of this, go get Lloyd put in jail for his crimes instead of peddling your DVDs.

I'm still not Craig, bub. I've watched people sling mud at CIT for a while now though and I think it's telling that detractors keep restoring to this line of "argument" lately. The point you made above ("they thought it hit the building too!") is tired and demonstrably inept, so now that you've failed at refuting the evidence that the plane flew NOC and thus over the building you resort insisting that he is only compiling this evidence for profit, and that he isn't seeking real justice, both of which are clearly false. Even if they were true, it would have no bearing on the evidence anyways.

"No, CIT thinks that they were correct in their unanimous placements of the plane NOC and were fooled by a well-orchestrated military deception regarding the impact, as opposed to all of them being correct about the impact but simultaneously hallucinating the same incorrect flight path from various excellent vantage points."

Hey MIHOP, I guess you tumbled into our little trap: please explain with supporting calculations the flight path that CIT's little fantasy requires? You know, down the turnpike, over and parallel to the Annex, north of the citgo, arrest the descent, up and over the Pentagon at the impact site. I’ve seen those calculations, ones that do not even need to take into account the descent nor pulling up over the Pentagon, and the forces are substantially greater than those needed to rip the wings off any airliner in the world.

Cap’n Bob tried to do the math, and failed, completely. CIT tried too. And rather than admitting that they failed, admitted that they had no flight path.

Show your math, MIHOP, or STFU.

# MIHOP says:
August 21, 2008 09:00

jthomas,

"Just to be clear, are you saying that a plane that flew NOC could have downed the light polls and caused the damage to the building outlined in the ASCE report? (Hypothetically -- I'm not asking whether or not the plane DID fly NOC."

It is crystal clear what I wrote.

Let's nail down what you are really saying here with regard to your first fallacy. I think you would agree that scores of eyewitnesses saw a large commercial airliner flying near treetop level towards the the Pentagon in the final seconds before the explosion,..."

I do not agree. You refuse to present the needed evidence to support your claims. Despite being asked repeatedly.

"... and that this is, in fact, what happened."

No, there is no evidence that it happened.

"Please explain what other scenarios might have played out other than the plane either hitting the building or flying over it."

There are no scenarios. None exist. We have only CIT's claims, and you have committed the fallacy of false alternatives. You can't claim to be ignorant of that.

"Regarding the second logical fallacy that I have supposedly commit: ALL things considered, INCLUDING ALL OF THE OTHER FACTS SURROUDNING 9/11 AS A WHOLE, it is much, much more likely that the eyewitnesses are correct and that a military deception did take place than that all of the eyewitnesses imagined the plane on the same incorrect flight path."

Committing the same fallacy of omission of key evidence over and over and over just shows that I am correct.

You can't weasel out of the implications of your claims that a flyover took place. Period.

"If anything it is you who is pretending that the Pentagon attack happened in a bubble and failing to take into account all of the other dubious details surrounding and blatant lies surrounding the government-endorsed narrative."

Ah, anything to avoid having to present evidence for your claims, just like you do on ATS, SPreston.

Thanks for illustrating my case so well for me. You're so muddled you don't even know you did.

Anytime you get around to either withdrawing your claims or providing the necessary evidence and eyewitnesses for a flyover, we'll be listening, SPreston.