Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

[Twist_U_Up]

'A three year independent investigation into the September 11, 2001 attack on the Pentagon has yielded new eyewitness evidence which, according to the Southern California-based researchers who conducted the investigation, "conclusively (and unfortunately) establishes as a historical fact that the violence which took place in Arlington that day was not the result of a surprise attack by suicide hijackers, but rather a military black operation involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception."

They have compiled the most pertinent testimony into an 81 minute video presentation entitled National Security Alert, which has earned the respect and praise of a growing number of distinguished academics, journalists, writers, entertainers, pilots, and military personnel.'

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/08/30/investigation-pentagon-attack-show-monst

[LARED]

1. l'm guessing but "Southern California-based researchers"

is an translation of the English words "two guys in mom's basement" into CT'er vernacular.

[KDLarsen]

2. Oh look..

It's the Clowns' Investigation Team. Again.

I wonder if they've bothered telling Lyndie England yet, that they consider him part of a mass murder coverup?

[spooked911]

14. What do you want them to say to Lyndie England?

And what specific problem do you have with what they've done?

[zappaman]

15. spooked, are you a pilot?

it's all right here

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-and.html

[spooked911]

24. dude, what is your problem?

I already said I wasn't.

As far as Ranke and CIT, I think they have some valid points, but I am not supporting everything they say. Certainly there is some question about the official AA77 flight path.

[KDLarsen]

18. Oh, just the fact that he seems to be their 'main' witness

.. while at the same time they've been posting how he must have been a plant, how it was impossible for the lightpole to end up in his cab, etc. etc. Funny enough, they never seem to mention that while interviewing him.

[spooked911]

25. He's not their main witness,

just that he contradicts other versions of where the plane came from-- several other people say the plane came from a different angle. North of the gas station.

The light pole story is weird, for sure.

http://www.thepentacon.com/LloydEngland_AccompliceVideo.htm#FirstKnownAccomplice

[Ghost in the Machine]

42. Lyndie England was the female soldier in the Abu Ghraib torture & abuse scandal

Why should anyone take you seriously when you can't even get a simple fact, or name, right?

Talk about clowns...

[MinM]

3. NOVA | The Spy Factory | PBS

NOVA is going to deal with some of the omissions of the 9/11 cOmmission tonight...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/spyfactory/

[Mist]

5. Thanks for the heads up! nt

[Mist]

4. Thanks for posting this Twist. This is the most complete recording of actual

eyewitnesses at the Pentagon I've seen so far.

[defendandprotect]

20. And it should be posted in General Discussion . . .

for all DU'ers to see --

This is getting really silly -- !!

[zappaman]

21. no it shouldn't

this is where bullshit resides.
and this is bullshit.

[zappaman]

6. Congrats!

You've convinced Emmy-award winning actor Ed Asner!
What a couple of douchebags...

CIT is infamous for their “take no prisoners” debating style best explained by Aldo Marquis, “I hate to say it, but unless anyone here can provide any new information and not their OPINION to effectively refute any of the evidence we have obtained, they should politely keep their comments to themselves, sit their quietly, and LEARN… This is not a debate club. This is war. Either you believe 911 was an inside job or you don't.”

Craig Ranke explains similarly, “I am not here for debate. Sure I can debate with the best of them and I may come off as heavy handed or even arrogant… but… I have done the work and came back with proof.” When challenged about peer review of his flyover theory Ranke replied, “Peer reviewed! Sure! We want the entire world to review it.”

ALL Witnesses who claimed to have seen a plane strike the Pentagon were simultaneously “fooled”.

lotta laughs here
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-and.html

what a joke.
keep digging, guys...you're almost there.

[spooked911]

7. "douchebags" "lotta laughs" "what a joke"

Quite a hard-hitting rebuttal there.

The only thing funny really, is how desperate you are to write this all off as a joke. Your link is similarly desperately biased. If it were promoting something you didn't agree with on 9/11, you would rip it to shreds.

[zappaman]

8. maybe you should check the link, spooked

that is where my opinion (not a hard hitting rebuttal) came from.
that link does an excellent job rebutting these 2 idiots.
go ahead and read it. I think even you might understand it.

[spooked911]

9. I did read the link, as I indicated in my post

the piece is quite biased.

[zappaman]

10. I agree it is biased

biased towards reality.

[SDuderstadt]

11. How, specifically, is it...

"biased", dude?

[spooked911]

16. Jesus, only some kind of full-time intel operative

would be able to keep track of all that crap. It's ridiculous. Actually, I think all the guys in that post, including Arabesque and Ranke, are agents, putting out distractions.

[zappaman]

17. "putting out distractions"?

how could anything be more of a distraction than maintaining that aliens have the earth under quarantine?
wait a second...Spooked, are you a disinfo agent?
now it all makes sense.

[spooked911]

27. The quarantine is the ultimate conspiracy.

It is not a distraction. It is the ultimate end of all conspiracies.

What could be more profound than this, really?

Now, if you disagree with it, please let me know why!

[zappaman]

28. I actually agree

it is the ultimate end of all conspiracies.
once you embrace it, everything makes sense.
see...we can agree!

[William Seger]

22. By "quite biased" I assume you mean...

... it includes information that the "CIT" finds convenient to ignore.

BTW, gotta love it when CT'ers debunk other CT'ers and then they accuse each other of being "disinfo agents."

[spooked911]

26. Arabesque911 also ignores inconvenient facts, is the thing

And since he supports 9/11 being an inside job, not sure why you are promoting his obviously biased stuff.

As far as when "when CT'ers debunk other CT'ers and then they accuse each other of being "disinfo agents" I think it's fucked up.

[William Seger]

29. No, he doesn't ignore any "facts"

You and the "CIT" just have a non-standard definition of the word. All of the actual facts -- and all of Ranke's witnesses, btw -- say that a plane plowed into the Pentagon. Ranke tries to prove that all that real evidence must have been faked, based on absolutely nothing but the recollections and perceptions of a tiny handful of witnesses about the path of the plane. The enormous problem he faces goes beyond the absurd implausibility and the irrationality of his arguments: He blinds himself to the near impossibility that the plane could have flown over the building an nobody noticed, and just tries to justify his willful blindness by throwing more ridiculous speculation onto the pile about how the plotters confused and fooled everyone with the fireball.

I sometimes think that Ranke is mentally ill to continue pressing this absurd line of "evidence," but on the other hand it's fairly well known that Ranke was extremely jealous of Dylan Avery making money and gaining fame from Loose Change. So it is possible that he is just another huckster and opportunist who is just too stupid to realize that the only opportunity available to him with those arguments is to make a complete fool of himself.

[spooked911]

30. What is so absurd about the fact that

1) many witnesses swear they saw the plane come in from another (non-official) angle?
2) the NTSB put out conflicting info on the flight path from the official story?


Also, the black box data presents data that conflicts with the official story, and there are other physical anomalies with the impact site and a notable lack of major aircraft debris. The huge tail of the plane simply disappeared. AND the final plane descent was extremely challenging and essentially impossible for a poor pilot.

The issue has always been how to reconcile all of this.

I know you want to think CTers are dumb or deranged, but it's not that simple. The official story is untenable for endless reasons and at this point, it is more reasonable to support an inside job than not. And once you have an inside job, it's only logical to assume there was sort of fakery with the planes.

[William Seger]

32. What's absurd about it

> 1) many witnesses swear they saw the plane come in from another (non-official) angle?

Many witnesses to many events are mistaken in either their perceptions at the time or their later memories of the events. There are accepted methods for judging the credibility of conflicting witness accounts, the most important being comparing each to the physical evidence. There is exactly one reason that "CIT" considers these particular witnesses to be infallible and accuses all the other witnesses of lying, and then attempts to use that claim as a basis for claiming all the physical evidence must have been faked, too, and that the plane must have just disappeared as it flew over the building. That's beyond absurd.

> 2) the NTSB put out conflicting info on the flight path from the official story?

There's nothing unusual about that in the early stages, when information is incomplete and speculation is sometimes reported as fact. But now we have very complete information, and there are no conflicts in it.

> Also, the black box data presents data that conflicts with the official story...

No, all we have is Balsamo bullshit about what the black box data presents. After several years of analyzing and debating, Balsamo has come out empty handed: There are no "conflicts" that can't be explained.

> " and there are other physical anomalies with the impact site and a notable lack of major aircraft debris."

And each and every one of these "anomalies" is nothing more than a discrepancy between what is and what conspiracy crackpots claim "ought" to be.

[spooked911]

33. The physical evidence is ambivalent at best and there's still no tail.

The fact is that the govt could easily prove there was a plane if it was there, by showing pics of *all* the recovered debris-- which they really should have, if a 757 hit the bldg.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zappaman]

35. Spooked it correct

something just doesn't seem right...

[William Seger]

36. There is absolutely nothing "ambivalent" about any of it

A bunch of idiots look at a handful of photos on the web, can't figure out that most of the plane is inside the building, not out on the lawn, ignore all the photos that do show huge mounds of debris inside the building, including identifiable 757 parts and including identifiable DNA from all the known passengers, ignore the fact that not a single person who was involved in the cleanup has come forward to say they didn't find plane debris, ignore that there are far more witnesses than "CIT's" tiny handful who had very clear viewpoints and say unequivocally that the plane hit the building, ignore the fact that even "CIT's" witnesses believe the plane hit the building, ignore the impossibility of the plane just disappearing when it went into the fireball, ignore the absurd implausibility of anyone actually planning such an unnecessarily complicated and risky hoax. much less carrying it off without getting caught... and then go out on the web and say "the physical evidence is ambivalent at best." There's a simple reason that even most "truthers" think "no-planers" are nuts: They are.

[spooked911]

37. SO not true, for so many reasons.

Jesus. You seem too smart to be simply duped by this, but who knows.

[SDuderstadt]

38. Dude....

why is no one taking your side?

It's really comical to watch you question someone else's intelligence.

[spooked911]

40. I didn't question it

dude

[SDuderstadt]

41. "You seem too smart to be simply duped by this, but who knows"

Bullshit, dude

[Twist_U_Up]

12. Kick

[zappaman]

13. kick

for
:rofl:

[defendandprotect]

19. As all evidence has show from the first moments . . .

NORAD leadership knew it because a plane was sent to fly over the Pentagon immediately

to find out what had hit it -- info came back "no plane hit the Pentagon."

CNN reporter on the scene BEFORE the event -- "NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON."

Young military woman employed at Pentagon was injured - her desk was in the pathway of

where a plane would have travelled -- "no plane."

On and on the evidence goes -- "no plane."

[SDuderstadt]

23. I watched the entire video...

even after the first few minutes, in which the narrator (no kidding) compared an airliner deliberately ramming into the Pentagon at high speed to two other airliner crashes, in which we could assume the pilot did everything possible to avoid the crash then, failing that, attempted to minimize the damage when the jetliner hits soft earth. At that point, the narrator implores the viewer to ask why the Pentagon crash does not look like the other two. Are Marquis and Ranke fucking morons?

At this point, it's a toss-up who possesses weaker critical thinking skills, these two nitwits or people who are gullible enough to listen to these two clowns, let alone post their nonsense.

[spooked911]

31. this is a good, relatively recent interview, with responses to critics

http://www.agoravox.com/news/media/article/craig-ranke-co-founder-of-the-11334

[spooked911]

39. which seems to have been removed

but can get it by google
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VIAm0Gs8BiwJ:www.agoravox.com/news/media/article/craig-ranke-co-founder-of-the-11334+craig+ranke+bio&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a