If you don't know what he's claiming, it's the following. Ranke's "Pentagon flyover" theory basically says:
1. No plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11.
2. A large jet plane flew low and over the building, but pre-planted explosives were detonated at the moment it would have struck.
3. The light poles that were allegedly in the path of the incoming airliner were rigged to fall over in the pattern observed.
4. Some eyewitnesses lied about what they saw, and others were fooled into mistakenly believing the plane struck the building.
5. Other witnesses, whom Ranke and his Citizens Investigation Team (CIT) have found, are the true important witnesses that place the plane in a different place and on a different trajectory.
6. This different trajectory does not match the observed damage to the building, and so "proves" that no plane hit the building at all, based purely on alleged eyewitness statements which CIT has produced for The PentaCon.
I find the PentaCon theory weak and suspicious for several reasons. I also find it mostly irrelevant because it can't be "proven" with existing data, and only a complete disclosure of all evidence will show us what really happened at the Pentagon on 9/11.
Ranke, however delusional, claims that he has proven this theory. That claim is what is prompting me to respond to his false assertion of "proof."
As of now, Ranke claims that 13 "witnesses" say the attacking jetliner was on the "north side of the Citgo station," which is a landmark that would contradict the official flight path and damage pattern.
Ignoring the north and south question, Ranke has a major hole in his theory along the east/west axis. All of his purported "witnesses" were on the WEST side of the Pentagon, where they claim slightly different flight paths.
Zero of his witnesses were on the EAST side of the Pentagon, where they would have seen a low flying jetliner buzz the building and continue flying.
(Ranke's alleged "north side flight path", ie. the blue line, intentionally stops short, ignoring the obvious conclusion that the plane needed to keep going ... somewhere? Original image from: http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic11.htm)
This was in broad daylight, and a crowded highway would have been overflown by this jetliner that no one has seen.
Zero of his witnesses were in the Pentagon itself (26,000 employees), and no one at all has claimed they saw or heard a jetliner scream low over the Pentagon and continue on its merry way. That's a big zero, a very big zero indeed.
Far from being "independently confirmed," the utter lack of a single witness seeing the event Ranke claims happened is stark and telling. Low flying 757s are not subtle, quiet, or invisible.
That's enough of my time wasted on this topic. If you're interested in the endless details of the debate over CIT and the alleged "Pentagon flyover", see:
Well I had hoped to start my own thread to present the evidence in a more scientific manner but I suppose this will have to do.
First let me say that I don't appreciate the fact that the discussion is framed around a "theory" of CIT while the evidence is all but ignored in the OP. johndoraemi has not presented counter evidence or any information to refute what we present, therefore his post amounts to nothing but a big argument from incredulity which is a logical fallacy.
Faulty logic does not refute evidence.
A theory should never come before the evidence. For instance, it's not required to accept any theory about exactly what brought the towers down in order to accept evidence demonstrating it could not have been from the impact of the planes or subsequent fire.
So the scientifically validated evidence we provide proving the plane did not hit the Pentagon should not be preceded by any theory about exactly what happened to it afterward.
johndoraemi is correct in that we believe the evidence we have amounts to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane did not hit.
He is correct in that it focuses on the simple notion that the plane flew north of the former citgo gas station which is irreconcilable with all the physical damage and official reports. We can refer to this as NoC for "north of citgo".
For the record, we have a rabid group of pseudo-skeptics who work to debunk us around the clock and none of them are willing to suggest that NoC is reconcilable with the official story in any way.
Bottom line....if NoC is true....a military deception has been proven.
It is in essence the magic bullet of 9/11.
Ok so let's get into the evidence.
Most are aware of the 4 first-hand accounts filmed on-location presented in our first presentation, The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version.
They independently corroborate each other as to the location of the plane in relation to the gas station.
They unanimously place it on the same side even though this would be a drastic mistake for any of them to make from that vantage point. The notion that any of them could have gotten it so wrong is rather slim but the notion that they all got it so drastically wrong in the same way frankly makes it a virtual statistical impossibility.
Faulty eyewitness accounts don't match. Especially when their "mistake" is so drastic.
Most here have probably read Arabesque's "critical review" of The PentaCon linked by johndoraemi.
If you were convinced by Arabesque that all 4 of these witnesses have been discredited for one reason or another and that their entire testimony should be thrown out.......fair enough.
I don't wish to argue irrelevant inaccuracies in their accounts. No eyewitness is ever 100% perfect. We understand that. But the fact is that they all perfectly corroborate the north side approach so whatever else they were incorrect about....the scientific process of corroboration helped us to determine that the north side approach is the detail they were correct about.
But the validation didn't stop there.
We returned to Arlington and now the citgo witnesses are all backed up by an additional 9 more independent accounts.
Many of whom had been previously officially documented by the Center for Military History of the Library of Congress days after the event describing the same flight path!
The workers who were at the Arlington National Cemetery maintenance buildings directly across from the citgo are also 100% sure that this is where the plane flew.
In addition to these Arlington Cemetery workers heliport air traffic controller Sean Boger also supports the same banking north side approach as you can hear in our exclusive interview with him.
So there is a whole host of new evidence unaddressed by Arabesque that ultimately proves the citgo witnesses were correct about the north side approach from all surrounding perspectives.
To have evidence independently validated on such an astronomical level that proves the official story false is too important to dismiss over any "theory" including a 757 impact theory.
Evidence should not be dismissed based on an argument from incredulity simply because the implications are hard to believe.
Oh and did I mention we also have an interview with yet another police officer who saw the plane flying away from the building after the explosion?
Roosevelt Roberts Jr. is the first critical flyover witness so we now have a first hand account validating what the north side approach already proves.
Complete article outlining all of this evidence in detail here.
Video presentation containing all the new interviews:
So there is a whole host of new evidence unaddressed by Arabesque that ultimately proves the citgo witnesses were correct about the north side approach from all surrounding perspectives.
What Craig is forgetting to mention of course is that virtually all of his witnesses claimed the plane hit the Pentagon.
So his theory is basically a "mass-hallucination" theory. I refuse to call it a "flyover theory" because there is no "evidence" for this theory. It's actually the "Pentagon Mass Hallucination Theory" and that's how it should be correctly understood.
He says he doesn't believe that his witnesses could "hallucinate" a flight path and then he turns around and says that they hallucinated the plane flying into a building.
Traveling at around 500 m.p.h., I think it's clear which is more memorable and less easy to forget, be mistaken about, or "hallucinate".
Each and every time they claim it hit the Pentagon they are contradicting the claim that it flew north of the CITGO. In other words they are giving impossible testimony. They are contradicting themselves, which is a tip-off that their testimony is not reliable.
The plane CANNOT have flown north of the CITGO and hit the Pentagon because the physical damage "fingerprint" lines up with a south approach. As I explained earlier, if you examine the structural damage inside of the Pentagon, it will line up quite nicely with the downed light poles. So, not only would they have had to have pre-fabricated the light poles, they would have pre-fabricated them to match the structural damage inside of the Pentagon. Not to mention plant the landing gear and various small debris found around the crash site.
And what I find particularly funny is this. Assuming that they took the care to plant the light poles so perfectly to line up with the damage path and internal structural damage inside of the Pentagon, why didn't they bother to fly the plane where they faked this "faked" flight path.
The theory is very improbable because the Pentagon is surrounded not only on all sides by highways, but by another highway just south.
One witness turned on a video camera and you can see that it was literally seconds after the attack because the smoke does not touch the top of the view. All it would take is ONE single photograph or video to expose a plan to fly a plane over the Pentagon.
So his theory is basically a "mass-hallucination" theory. I refuse to call it a "flyover theory" because there is no "evidence" for this theory. It's actually the "Pentagon Mass Hallucination Theory" and that's how it should be correctly understood.
He says he doesn't believe that his witnesses could "hallucinate" a flight path and then he turns around and says that they hallucinated the plane flying into a building.
Arabesque,
This doesn't make sense.
The NoC approach and an impact are mutually exclusive.
They can not both be true.
For the witnesses to be incorrect about the north side approach it would require simultaneous mass hallucination.
For them to be right it proves deliberate deception in regards to the impact. That's a big difference.
Deception is not hallucination.
So what's more feasible......mass hallucination or mass deception?
Since we all agree that 9/11 was a world wide psychological military black operation I think the answer should be obvious.
But the point is that it is YOU who must accept mass hallucination to continue to hang on to your 757 impact theory.
I reject mass hallucination in favor of mass deception.
Just curious, have you viewed/heard the first-hand accounts from all 13 north side witnesses as well as the first critical flyover witness Roosevelt Roberts Jr?
Oh and in regards to the video you posted by Anthony Tribby.
He re-uploaded it here where he specifically states at the beginning that he started filming "approximately one minute" after the attack.
60 seconds is more than enough time for the plane to be long gone.
Realize people.....the Pentagon is right next door to Reagan National Airport.
There are low flying planes making fast ascents over the Pentagon all day long every 2 to 4 minutes!
Listen to our interview with heliport tower controller Sean Boger. He describes in detail how low and close regular air traffic flies to the Pentagon at all times. He says they are so close you can "read the numbers off the bottoms".
It's a constant part of the landscape and the locals are plenty used to it.
A DC local in our forum described it perfectly:
Quote:
All this talk on other forums about somebody had to have seen the plane after it flew over the building, preceded by a huge explosion
I dont know about anybody else, but planes fly around DC all the time, they are a staple of the landscape.
Huge explosions, alternatively are not, they never happen.
Why anybody would pay a grain of attention to a plane, when if they were in any position to see a sudden explosion, would 100% focus on exactly that.
I am thinking to myself, i am driving down the road, minding my business, sipping on a soda, all the sudden out of the corner of my eye i see a huge fireball/explosion, my brain is going to first be riveted to that for several seconds , then get my bearings on the road, then focus right back on the explosion/fireball, and likely at this second "go round" note, likely, that its the Pentagon.
By this time that plane is several miles away,at least, and would be the last thing that would enter my mind, it flat is highly unlikely it would regisster.
I cant imagine anybody, not having basically the same opinion as mine regarding this....see it, freak out, get bearings(make sure you are still on the road, lol), and refocus on the explosion once again.
Even were a person walking down the street, the spectacle would completely rule your thought process for at least a few seconds, to the exclusion of anything else, you might perhaps bump into somebody while walking having seen this.
But we don't deny that some people saw it.
Namely......Roosevelt Roberts Jr.
We DO have a flyover witness and he was previously documented saying the same thing to the Library of Congress on 11/30/2001.
There is no way to spin this data.
We would not have all this validation proving the official narrative false if it were true.
The plane CANNOT have flown north of the CITGO and hit the Pentagon because the physical damage "fingerprint" lines up with a south approach. As I explained earlier, if you examine the structural damage inside of the Pentagon, it will line up quite nicely with the downed light poles. So, not only would they have had to have pre-fabricated the light poles, they would have pre-fabricated them to match the structural damage inside of the Pentagon. Not to mention plant the landing gear and various small debris found around the crash site.
For the life of me I will never understand why people who believe the same perpetrators who were able to pull off 3 covert controlled demolitions of massive skyscrapers in downtown Manhattan on live tv would have difficulties covertly causing the relatively insignificant damage at the Pentagon, their own secure headquarters where they had COMPLETE control.
We already know the damaged portion had been under renovation for years giving them plenty of time to plant the explosives/plane parts in secure rooms without all the normal employees out of the way.
That's also why there were relatively so few deaths.
Another convenient "coincidence" like the barely full planes?
Quote:
And what I find particularly funny is this. Assuming that they took the care to plant the light poles so perfectly to line up with the damage path and internal structural damage inside of the Pentagon, why didn't they bother to fly the plane where they faked this "faked" flight path.
We believe this was done on purpose as cover.
This way if someone saw it fly over they could more easily be told that they saw a different plane. No doubt this is also why most of the independent witnesses we talked to did NOT describe AA livery.
There is a lot of evidence for a very deliberate and elaborate 2nd plane cover story and this is critical to how they were able to pull it all off.
The NoC approach and an impact are mutually exclusive.
They can not both be true.
That's exactly what I said. You should re-read what I said.
Craig Ranke CIT wrote:
For the witnesses to be incorrect about the north side approach it would require simultaneous mass hallucination.
For them to be right it proves deliberate deception in regards to the impact. That's a big difference.
It would also require a
Quote:
simultaneous mass hallucination
For them to all claim that the plane hit the Pentagon. So we are in agreement on this point.
Craig Ranke CIT wrote:
Deception is not hallucination. So what's more feasible......mass hallucination or mass deception?
So now you are claiming that when people claim that they saw a plane hit the Pentagon it is "NOT" a hallucination? In fact: You are precisely making this claim.
There is no difference between your concepts of "deception" and "hallucination". They are one and the same.
Craig Ranke CIT wrote:
But the point is that it is YOU who must accept mass hallucination to continue to hang on to your 757 impact theory.
This is spin.
Craig Ranke CIT wrote:
I reject mass hallucination in favor of mass deception.
Ranke has pulled a witness out of his hat. Amazing. I told you he was a chess player.
Only, Roosevelt Roberts makes a mistake in his description. He claims that he made it outside in "10 seconds." And then he repeatedly tells how the plane was heading "southwest" at that time.
Well now. Just how feasible is it for a speeding 757 traveling near due east at GROUND LEVEL (still just above the light poles accoring to Roosevelt) and 500+ mph. to turn course 120 degrees and be flying southwest IN TEN SECONDS?
How long does it actually take a 757 to turn 120 degrees at 500 mph? Is this even possible at ground level?
Sounds implausible. Sounds like botched testimony. Sounds like a glaring hole in the story, once again.
Also to be noted, Roosevelt admits that he currently works on a "terrorism" task force of some sort. Okay.
In the LOC audio, Roosevelt also claims this was at "9:12, 9:11 in the morning."
That's another discrepancy. Almost half an hour, and he's not unsure of that point either. He claims that right after the WTC was struck, then the Pentagon building was struck ... which not even the official story claims ... and so how is this feasible?
Was Roosevelt's sense of time off by nearly half an hour? Could be.
Do you think that deception/illusion is the same as hallucination?
When an audience is simultaneously fooled by the magic trick at a magic show are they mass hallucinating?
Clearly not.
You suggest the official narrative is true therefore no physical deception was involved.
I suggest the opposite.
You suggest the north side witnesses all hallucinated the same thing.
I don't agree.
I think they saw the same thing for real and were deliberately deceived into believing an impact.
Similar to how the people in NY saw the planes hit the towers for real but were all deliberately deceived into believing that is what caused them to collapse.
No hallucination was required in either case.
Last edited by Craig Ranke CIT on Tue Sep 02, 2008 4:40 am; edited 5 times in total
You can certainly choose to simply dismiss Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr. as not credible and proceed to throw out his entire testimony.
Obviously that is your prerogative.
I maintain that no eyewitness is 100% accurate and the fact that a few inaccuracies exist is not a valid basis to completely dismiss an account all together.
Frankly....the plane that Roosevelt describes HAS to be the flyover so the only other option is that his account is completely fabricated all together.
Is that really what you believe?
I understand that you have already deemed the corroborated citgo witnesses as all not credible so your pattern in dismissing eyewitness accounts that contradict the official story has been established.
But don't forget.....you have an additional 9 north side witnesses that you haven't addressed and are forced to demonstrate as not credible.
That's a lot of witnesses who validate each other and prove the official story false to dismiss as not credible.
Is preserving the official narrative really that important to you?
Have you even viewed the new witness accounts yet?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
