truthaction.org

[Arcterus]

[Joshua]

[truthmover]

[Jon Gold]

No one wants to be bothered by Troy.

[truebeleaguer]

The CIT debate provides an opportunity for the rational and independent-minded to show themselves, the lemmings to show themselves, and the thugs to show themselves.

The movement has long been due for a thorough house-cleaning and CIT will help catalyze that, I hope.

I note that Barrett endorsed CIT on his radio program while admitting that he had not watched their DVD and while expressing bewilderment at (and thus ignorance of) why anybody would object to their program.

[Arabesque]

There are some things about CIT that I haven't discussed much publicly and thanks Jenny for posting some info about one of them. Unfortunately, I can't reveal the details of what I know at the present time.

A family member of one of the witnesses contacted me about a year ago. And this was very interesting. He told me that their interview was recorded without permission. The witness did not wish to be recorded and stated this to CIT. CIT secretly recorded their interview. The family member told me about this story and then he also told me he posted on CIT's forum pointing out that CIT had recorded the witness without permission. What happened was very interesting. This individual told me that his posts were edited, deleted, and moved to another section of the forum when he revealed that CIT recorded the witness without permission. What was Ranke's public response to this? He claimed that he simply moved the posts to another section of the forum. The family member tells me that in fact, he edited the content of his posts when he exposed that CIT recorded a witness statement without permission.

And to be clear, this isn't even the only example of recording statements without permission. An article about CIT reported this, and there is at least one other example I know about. CIT has recorded several witnesses without permission, and according to what a researcher told me, his phone conversation was recorded without permission.

Does this strike you as behavior that should be supported or endorsed by the truth movement?

The Melissa Data connection is even more interesting. Turns out that they were caught red handed using sock puppets from their work place. Turns out they promote PentaCon during working hours and even admitted to it on this very forum. What seemed strange to me is how openly they admitted this, like they didn't even care if they were caught. Which begs the question.... what's the deal with Melissa Data and why are they allowing TWO of their employees to promote PentaCon during work hours with no repercussion? Based on the information I have, it seems to suggest that Melissa Data endorses their PentaCon forum spamming. This is a small company with few employees, so it's not like they are doing this secretly or anything. Do a search on the internet and look for the amount of forum posts by Ranke and Aldo and it reveals just how much time and effort they put into promoting the SINGLE topic of PentaCon. It is literally all they promote. I love how Aldo calls me an "operation" because that's exactly what they are, if you define operation as a single minded mission.

Promoting PentaCon IS their full time "job", it looks like.
_________________
Arabesque: 911 Truth
2008 Declaration: Standards and Strategies for 9/11 Truth
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

[Arabesque]

Very good interview and it raises a lot of good points. The most important are I think, how deceptively CIT's material is presented in their videos. As Jim Hoffman explained, it's as if no other eyewitnesses existed.

About the issue of "disinformation" and "agents" and all of that. I think it is best to reject labels altogether and just give the information. Particularly since there are disinformation enablers who will use these kinds of characterizations and attacks to defend CIT and their endorsements of CIT. I have seen time and time again how this is used as a straw-man to deflect attention away from the bad information and behavior. Instead of addressing these issues, enablers of disinfo/misinfo will point to the "attacks" and accusations of "disinfo" and simply ignore the information. And I have seen this from so called "leaders" of the 9/11 truth movement on several occasions. The best approach therefore is to not describe CIT as a "disinformation campaign", but to point out their behavior and information. The word "disinformation" by definition means intentional. That can rarely be proven despite how intuitively obvious it may be to those who know all the facts. The problem is that there are many who do NOT know all the facts.

I have always believed that simply pointing out the statements of Ranke is enough to discredit him.

He probably agrees since he calls it a "personal attack" to point out his many personal attacks.

Based on what I have seen, CIT is deliberately withholding witnesses who support a south path. They attempt to discredit witnesses who support a south path, calling them agents, and liars. Which is really strong evidence to suggest that they are very selective in reporting witness statements.

How many witnesses have they ever shown on the highways? A very simple concept here: People are going to describe the plane as closer to them than it really was in reality. Which means if you interview witnesses south of the CITGO, they will describe the plane as being farther south.
_________________
Arabesque: 911 Truth
2008 Declaration: Standards and Strategies for 9/11 Truth
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

[truebeleaguer]

I know someone who had an email-exchange-with-witnesses with Ranke to discuss an upcoming review of the NSA DVD.

Ranke very aggressively challenged my friend to a public or video debate. My friend, not being as glib or as charismatic as Ranke, suggested that they debate in writing instead.

Ranke claimed he had scientific data supporting the flyover, and linked a long video by Rob Balsamo that analyzed in excruciating detail the airplane's g-forces on the various north-path flight paths. When it got to the flyover, Balsamo qualified the analysis by saying that, depending on issues like the configuration of the aircraft and the airframe involved, the necessary turn was possible. In other words, Balsamo seemed to be admitting that his turn was impossible for a 757.

Balsamo's video also showed a hypothetical flight path that he claimed showed the plane crossing the Pentagon parking lot at the east end. In support of this he offered a google satellite image that was very dark so the parking lot could not be seen.

My friend took a legible version of the satellite image and superimposed it on the flight path, and showed that Balsamo's path did not in fact cross over the parking lot. It was close, but it missed.

The question of whether the plane flew over the parking lot or a hundred feet east of the parking lot does not mean a whole hell of a lot in terms of what happened on 9/11. But the basic dishonesty of Balsamo's effort to finesse the issue is very important.

Balsamo's flight path pointed right at runway 15 at DCA. Roosevelt Roberts said the plane did a U-turn and flew away to the south west, back across highway 27.

After my friend pointed all this out, Ranke went "poof!" and vanished.

[President Ford]

[Visibility 9-11]

I think that has been proven. The only question is was he north or south of the citgo station?

[Arcterus]

Update: The CIT thread has discovered the "CIT Watch" blog and has addressed it as a "CIT attack" blog. You know, because keeping an eye on a fringe, unscientific group like CIT is equivalent to an ATTACK!
_________________
http://arcterus911.blogspot.com

[dicktater]

[victronix01]

Yes, but an enemies list is something else altogether. No debate necessary.

[Joshua]

[truebeleaguer]

We need better than that. We need denouncements of CIT's attacks on Mr. England, their sneaky taping of someone who invited them into his home, and their irrational belief that one witness who thinks he saw a 757 make a U-turn in 5 seconds justifies the flyover theory.

Obviously Craig and Aldo are not truth-driven; they're ego-driven Dylan Avery wannabees.