Truth News Radio Australia features Craig Ranke of CIT
Hereward Fenton with TNRA welcomes Craig Ranke to discuss the important evidence CIT presents in their latest video National Security Alert and to address the latest paper by Australian truth movement personality Frank Legge.
For those fence sitters who haven't taken the time and have only a vague idea of what CIT's research is about, perhaps based on a quick skim of the blogs, and aren't sure whether CIT or their opposition are closer to the truth, it is interesting to note that within the first couple minutes of the show, the host makes it clear that he takes a very strong stand against disinformation. He points out that the "no planes at the WTC" is a blatant example. Then he makes clear that the Pentagon is another story, and indeed, that the video National Security Alert goes beyond speculation; it provides a very fine compilation of verifiable information.
Ranke is asked to respond to the charge that he himself is spreading disinfo or intent on "selling a claim." One thing he clears up is that, contrary to what their critics often claim, they did not set out in the beginning to prove a flyover. To the contrary, they were fed up with the speculation that occurred early in the movement (i.e. the missile hypothesis didn't seem to have a shred of eyewitness support) so they decided to do some on the ground investigation and compile as much eyewitness testimony as they could.
A point on which there is universal agreement on all sides, which Legge discusses in his paper, is that the government has deliberately kept things very confusing with regard to the Pentagon attack, by way of only releasing dubious "videos" of the attack when and how they want to, making legitimate investigation into the attack extremely difficult, with very muddied waters. This is very true of the way the missile theory worked in tandem with those mysterious, ambiguous five frames leaked in 2002. Apparently (and I didn't know this before), transcripts of calls to 911 operators were also sequestered by the FBI and have never been released.
Fenton addresses one of the most common criticisms of CIT's flyover hypothesis, namely: Even though we have Roosevelt Roberts' and Erik Diehle's testimony in favor of flyover, shouldn't there be lots of flyover witnesses, given that there's a freeway that goes more or less parallel with the south side of the building and parking lot? Ranke explains how Reagan National Airport is only one mile away from the Pentagon and that airplanes landing and taking off, at low altitudes, are seen every two to four minutes every single day. Insofar as people on the freeway would notice the event at all, a low flying plane would be of little consequence; everyone's eyes would be caught by the huge fireball and subsequent smoke; that is where the eyeballs would be fixated. Not only that, but people would be experiencing everything with not just a pre-9/11, non-"conspiratorial" mindset, but in addition have been conditioned over the past hour (the WTC) to understand that airliners were crashing into buildings. Given the intense propaganda campaign especially in the very beginning, there is no way the media would, even if they spoke with flyover witnesses, would actually report them. In any traumatic event there are going to be anomalous accounts, and so any flyover witnesses would be written off as such.
Toward the end, Craig touches on the The Second Plane Cover Story and the interview with Keith Wheelhouse (who critics of CIT cite as a "south of citgo witness"). He is the one eyewitness (whose testimony was cited in mainstream media) who claims that a "second plane" was shadowing the Boeing 757, in other words, right behind it; and that this second plane veered off and flew away at the very last second. Not only is he the ONLY witness who claims such a thing, his behavior while interviewed is very telling. He was reluctant to agree to an interview and when he finally did, after a year of CIT trying, he was surprised that Craig and Aldo followed through and showed up at his house; apparently he turned white as a ghost. When you watch the interview with him, it is clear that he is nervous, fidgety; clearly a suspicious demeanor. He even nervously asked, "You're not going to make me out to be a liar, are you?" His behavior is clearly at odds with the genuine north side eyewitnesses who were relaxed and not nervous when the camera was on them. CIT believes, and I concur, that Wheelhouse's testimony was fabricated as a means of answering any eyewitnesses who might report a plane having flown away: that there were two planes. However, NONE of the independent eyewitnesses report two planes at the moment of the event. Yes, a C-130 was on the scene (at a high altitude) about three minutes later. BUT... all of the confusion surrounding the event, people who remember a plane flying away could simply convince themselves that they plane they saw flying away MUST have been the photographed (and videoed and shown on CNN) C-130. In other words, a multi-layered deception.
Fenton and Ranke also speak extensively about Lloyde England and his account, along with the physical evidence re the light poles as illustrated in photographs. After discussing possibilities about how the light poles might have been prepared the night (or weeks) before, Fenton utters his main objection so far: That this whole idea of a staged plane crash, light poles, fake eyewitnesses, just tends to sound ridiculous on its face. Craig reminds us that many people who don't look at the evidence feel the same way about the WTC: A triple controlled demolition, in downtown Manhattan, in broad daylight, in front of the world?! Wouldn't a natural collapse sound like a simpler explanation? But the scientific evidence proves otherwise. If you've ever taken a "statistics and probability" class during your years of studying mathematics, 13 eyewitnesses disproving the official flight path (with no CREDIBLE witnesses countering them, witnesses who would have been in appropriate vantage points to tell where the plane was relative to Citgo) does, mathematically, constitute scientific evidence. In every court in the land, the process of corroboration is the tried and true scientific method of verifying the veracity of eyewitness testimonies, since isolated individuals can in fact be so subjective and prone to error.
Craig's main points of criticism of Frank Legge's paper are as follows: The eyewitness evidence presented by CIT is not even addressed at all. Only one eyewitness, William Lagasse, is mentioned, in a footnote. Second, Legge did not even present a hypothesis at all until the third version of his paper. Third, this "hypothesis" is really a double negative: "There is no scientific proof that a plane did not hit." As such, it is not even a real hypothesis. Fourth, there IS scientific proof. As explained already, if you've ever taken a statistics and probability course, the chance of the north side witnesses all being wrong is infinitesimally low; so purely mathematically, this is scientific evidence that the official flight path is not true and that the damage to the light poles, generator, and directional damage within the building was staged. It should be noted that everyone across the spectrum ranging from Jim Hoffman all the way to the JREF debunkers seem to realize that a north approach = no impact. There would be no reason for all those things to have been staged in advance if a 757 really hit; it makes no sense. CIT's critics do not argue in favor of a north approach and an impact; as such, they attempt to cast doubt on the veracity of the eyewitnesses.
I was very glad and heartened to see that Hereward, over in Australia, was willing to provide a forum for Craig to address Legge's paper directly. Cheers to him for rising above all the pseudo-controversy and providing this voice for CIT. Now what I'd really like to hear is a direct debate with CIT and Legge or with some of their most vocal detractors in the U.S like Jim Hoffman or Michael Wolsey.