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.

Noted 9/11 research Dr. Frank Legge has published a revised version of his paper with additional notes and discussion, “What Hit the Pentagon?” The paper is available at the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf

His first version of the paper generated a great deal of discussion about this important issue. In presenting this revision, Dr. Legge notes:

“This version has been prepared to take into account a number of issues raised by critics and defenders of the original paper. Discussion of the implications of accepting or rejecting the official position that a 757 hit the Pentagon has been expanded and clarified. I am very grateful for the help provided. All significant alterations have been identified and discussed in footnotes.”

No doubt this revised version will encourage further discussion of what hit the Pentagon, and perhaps more importantly, a renewed push to obtain release of withheld video footage that will show unequivocally what hit the Pentagon – and a renewed interest in the whistleblower testimony of Secretary of Transportation (at the time) Norman Mineta.

Hyperlinks here:
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/peter-dale-scott-does-not-endorse-the-pentagon-flyover-theory-and-neither-do-i-...

Dr. Peter Dale Scott, researcher, author and UC Berkeley Professor Emeritus, recently praised the latest video from CIT, ‘National Security Alert’. However, due to receiving many emails critical of CIT’s work, he issued a qualifying statement, which I asked for and received permission to post publicly. CIT’s film presents witnesses whose statements indicate, or seem to indicate, that American Airlines Flight 77 did not fly the path that we have been told knocked down light poles and caused the damage at the Pentagon, as well as the testimony of an apparent eyewitness to a plane that flew over the building. The film also contends that it is “conclusive” that AA 77 did not hit the Pentagon, that instead it flew over the building. However, in his qualifying statement, Dr. Scott says, “I do not personally believe it.” He explains, “All I endorsed was their assemblage of witnesses…. I do not draw the conclusions from their testimony that CIT does.”

This is Dr. Scott’s statement at CIT’s website:

Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Researcher Jim Hoffman

This episode of Visibility 9-11 welcomes back to the program long time 9-11 researcher Jim Hoffman. Jim is a software engineer who has specialized in developing new algorithms, applications is computational geometry, and scientific visualization. His work has been instrumental in significant new scientific discoveries and has been featured in articles in Nature, Scientific American, Science Digest and Science News.

(Update: this transcript is now no longer a transcript of the edited interview seen in "National Security Alert", but a transcript of the full version of the interview as shown in "The North Side Flyover", part 2.)

This is a first in a series of transcripts of CIT interviews. It is not an endorsement of CIT or flyover.

Transcripts can help to eliminate confusion about what witnesses literally said. If you find any crucial errors in this transcript, report them with a comment. If justified they'll eventually be corrected. Since blog posts go through a moderation queue the number of updates will be minimized.

You can either link to this blog post or you can copy & paste from it. For copying and pasting there is a HTML version at the bottom that you can use to improve readability.

Given the recent promotions of the latest version of the flyover theory, 911Review has added another ERROR page to it's collection of Pentagon errors:

ERROR: 'The Jetliner that Appeared to Crash into the Pentagon Actually Flew Over It'

In contrast to the the "no-plane" or small plane theories that deny the crash of a jetliner into the Pentagon on 9/11, a theory circulated since 2003 maintains that a jetliner with American Airlines livery did indeed approach the Pentagon, as reported by scores of eyewitnesses but fooled the same witnesses into thinking that it crashed there in a spectacular "magic show" in which the plane flew through the explosion and over the vast office building, slipping away unnoticed.

On Wednesday night, I posted this poll:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/15478

Because I knew that the 911blogger user base was sharply divided on the Fly-over theory, I was not seeking a wide-range of opinion. I wanted to see how many were for, or against, the specific theory. Yes, there could have been one more, or many more questions added to the poll, but I was interested in identifying the split.

On Thursday, I posted this blog entry from Craig of CIT:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/15472

Responding to criticism from user "jimd3100", I posted links to three blogs critical of the CIT work on Friday:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/15502

Shortly afterward, I was accused by Aldo of CIT:

"You are now guilty of promoting disinformation."

This was followed by Craig's comment:

"Let's be frank.....it's no secret that 9/11 blogger has coddled the 757 impact conspiracy theory and has marginalized information that counters this notion."

This, despite the fact that I was (let me stress, WAS) an early supporter of the Pentacon film, and posted it on the front page of blogger, as soon as I finished watching it, in February of 2007;

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6423

Domenic of CIT added after that:

"Your support of government agent John Farmer and toilet scrubber Adam Larson and some obsessed clown named Arabesque exposes you for the gatekeeper you are Reprehensor. Let me guess you're just another anonymous clown in the gatekeeping world. Perhaps one of Randi;s kids from the JREF Forum posing as a truther."

All of this for posting one blog entry, with 3 links to criticism of CIT's work.

People seeking future releases from CIT, the "Citizen Investigation Team", should go directly to the Pentacon website.

They won't be promoted here.

My apologies to the user base here, but if the editor of the website can't provide a few links (links!) to some criticism, without being accused of "promoting disinformation", (with the history of my support for the early version of the Pentacon completely ignored), and then the ultimate insult, a JREF'er... a JREF'er indeed, what does the 45% user base in opposition have to look forward to? This kind of behavior is just not wanted here. It's disruptive.

Arlington Topography, Obstacles Make American 77 Final Leg Impossible

By Rob Balsamo, Pilots For 9/11 Truth

03/13/08 - "Beware The Ides Of March" could not be a more appropriate introduction to this article as it appears the government story regarding the events at the pentagon is officially dead. Thanks to the hard work done by Citizen Investigation Team, they alerted us to review figures regarding topography and obstacles along the flight path of American 77 according to the government story. Physically and aerodynamically, Arlington's unique topography and obstacles along American 77 "final leg" to the pentagon make this approach completely impossible as we will demonstrate.

According to the government, American 77 final approach to the pentagon is depicted below.

(Picture Courtesy Citizen Investigation Team, Click to Enlarge)

Props to Caustic Logic, creator of The Frustrating Fraud blog for agreeing to accept my challenge to a recorded debate. He has declined to discuss the info over the phone in the past but the fact that he finally agreed does add a notch of credibility/legitimacy to his truth seeking efforts in my opinion.

I must admit it was strange to hear him verbalize his contradictory explanation for the north side evidence.

Although he is a self proclaimed LIHOPer he has stated that he believes the most likely scenario is that all of the CITGO witnesses are part of the conspiracy and are planted operatives put out to spread disinformation that proves the official story false.

The irony in this is that he has to accept this wild conspiracy theory (with no evidence) as a method to dismiss what he asserts is a wild conspiracy theory (that is supported with strong evidence).