Urgent Event Notice: 9/11 Eyewitnesses Reveal Pentagon False Flag Deception

[Segami]

:smoke: :smoke: :smoke:


" In Toronto, Canada, on the evening of the 10th anniversary of 9/11, next Sunday, there will be an historic public event featuring the best evidence available regarding what happened and what did not happen at the Pentagon on 9/11.


(See the news release at bottom for details.)

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:



Citizen Investigation Team
Date: 8/18/2011
Contact: Craig Ranke
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: cit (at) CitizenInvestigationTeam.com



Researchers To Present Exclusive, “Disturbing” Interviews With 9/11 Pentagon Witnesses in Toronto



On the tenth anniversary of 9/11 (September 11th, 2011) American researchers will appear live at The Royal cinema in Toronto to present exclusive interviews with eyewitnesses to the act of mass murder that took place at the Pentagon that day. Their documentary film, which has been translated into several languages and garnered more than 500,000 views online, makes the case that these detailed audio and video-recorded witness accounts prove “beyond a reasonable doubt that the violent event at the Pentagon was the result of a carefully planned and skillfully executed military deception,” not a surprise attack by kamikaze hijacker pilots as alleged. The film, National Security Alert, will be incorporated into a multimedia presentation along with other relevant evidence.



The event is being sponsored and hosted by Toronto-based author and TV producer Barrie Zwicker. Doors open at 7:30pm, and the event begins at 8:00. Will Call tickets can be purchased in advance for $10 at CitizenInvestigationTeam.com. At the door, tickets will be $15 (regular), $12 for students and seniors; or pay what you can.



One of the presenters, Craig Ranke, is a co-founder of Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), a Southern-California based research team that has spent the past five years conducting an independent investigation into the 9/11 Pentagon event. Over the years Mr. Ranke has repeatedly flown across the United States to the scene of the crime in Arlington, Virginia to conduct research and interviews. He has worked in tandem with several other researchers from around his country, most notably Aldo Marquis, with whom he founded CIT in 2006. He has personally interviewed dozens of witnesses to the 9/11 Pentagon event.



“Like many other people around the world, we were studying the photographs of the anomalous damage to the building, which seemed inconsistent with the impact of a 757 at ground level,” says Ranke, explaining the project's origin. “There were many other problems with the 'official story' as well. It eventually became clear to us that until someone actually went to Arlington and conducted a full-scale investigation, knocked on doors, and interviewed the people who were there, we were never going to have definitive answers for what really happened at the Pentagon and whether or not these concerns, pejoratively labeled 'conspiracy theories', had validity. So in 2006, that's what we began doing.”



In the course of doing so, the team soon uncovered startling information that disproves the official impact narrative and confirms the suspicions of those who were previously skeptical about it, says Ranke.



“Simply put, the plane did not fly where it absolutely had to be to match the government reports and cause the directional damage inside and outside of the building. The eyewitnesses' accounts prove that it could not have, and indeed did not, strike the Pentagon. It was seen flying away by multiple witnesses immediately after the explosion.”



“If you are skeptical of (or even incensed by) this statement we do not blame you,” explains a note on their website. “We are not asking you to take our word for it, nor do we want you to do that. We want you to view the evidence and see with your own eyes that this is the case. We want you to hear it directly from the eyewitnesses who were there, just as we did.”



Comments Ranke, “When people see these interviews for the first time, they are often struck by the lucidity of the witnesses, and disturbed by how clearly they destroy the official myth, and the frightening implications that come with that. We are certainly not happy about what this means for our country and the world. But the truth is the truth, and we have to be brave enough to deal with the disturbing yet overwhelming evidence now staring us in the face a decade later, revealing the hidden, dire reality of this world-changing event.”



The Royal cinema is a classic theatre in the art deco mode, opened in 1939. It has large comfortable seats, the most modern projection facilities, and is centrally located at 608 College Street at Clinton in the “Little Italy” district of Toronto.



http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/news/2011_08_18-toronto-9-11-2011-cit-event-pr.html




.

[William Seger]

1. Craig Ranke is mentally ill (n/t)

[OnTheOtherHand]

2. "Will Call tickets can be purchased in advance for $10"

Will Call tickets?! Is that a new one, or have I just not been paying close enough attention?

"When people see these interviews for the first time, they are often struck by the lucidity of the witnesses, and disturbed by how clearly they destroy the official myth, and the frightening implications that come with that...."

Charitably, this is a muddle. There is no reason to assume that "lucid" eyewitness accounts are accurate. That is all the more so when the accounts are presented by videographers and there is no opportunity to question the eyewitnesses. But that isn't the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is that people can misremember what we saw.

[BeFree]

4. Indeed

There are numerous conflicting eyewitness accounts. So trash them all and stick with the science, is what I do.

The science says that the OCT can't be believed. And bushco is a bunch of lying sacks of shit.

So, reasonable people simply have to say that they still do NOT know what happened.

Surely no one here is gonna come right out and claim they do know what happened. Right?

[OnTheOtherHand]

6. [citation needed]

The science says that no plane hit the Pentagon? Which science is that?

[BeFree]

7. Question is

What science says a plane did hit the pentagon leaving a bunker buster sized hole in the wall?

Do you have any science that says it was an airliner? I have yet to see any non-refutable.

[OnTheOtherHand]

9. wait, you mean, you can't find any science that supports your point?

Hey, if you actually want to make a point about science, by all means do.

[BeFree]

11. Right

That is why I honestly will not tell you that I know what happened. Duh!

ETA: Except for the science that tells me the OCT is a big fat fucking lie.
There is more than enough sound science that causes me to disbelieve the Official Conspiracy Theory.

And anyone who thoroughly examines the science will tell you the same thing.

[zappaman]

12. are you sure you know the meaning of "science"?

I think you might not...

[OnTheOtherHand]

13. please refer to post #6

Truly, this doesn't have to be as hard as you make it.

[BeFree]

16. Please. Read the OP

You can find some answers therein. Or would that be too hard for you?

[OnTheOtherHand]

19. I've read the OP; how is it material?

Honestly, this doesn't have to be as hard as you are making it.

[BeFree]

20. Read it again

There is established science in the OP that will provide the answers you are seeking.
It may be hard for some to read as it goes against the OCT religion, so my condolences to those that the science offends.

[OnTheOtherHand]

21. I guess we've worked up to post #12

I don't know if the problem is with the word "science," the word "established," or something far more fundamental.

Since you decline to support your claim, I guess we're done.

[BeFree]

22. You want I should copy and paste the OP for you?

I stand behind the OP, except for the eyewitness part, because that's not real science.
Sure, the eyewitnesses confirm the Truth but it isn't real science.
And it totally wipes out the OCTers' eyewitness claims, but so what?

But angle of approach, angle of descent, and damage done science does not prove that an airliner was involved. In fact the science in the op disproves the OCT. Read it. But it is liable to scare the piss out of you, eh?

[OnTheOtherHand]

24. [citation needed]

The word "angle" doesn't even appear in the OP. Wherever you think this science may be, it isn't there.

Pointing out the obvious may eventually annoy the moderators, so if this is the best you've got, I'll leave you to it.

[William Seger]

26. "...it totally wipes out the OCTers' eyewitness claims, but so what?"

You continue to demonstrate that you lack even the most basic skills for evaluating the quality and significance of information. Even Ranke's "north of the Citgo" witnesses say the plane hit the building, and that observation is more than amply proved by the physical evidence. In fact, we'd know AA77 hit the building even if there hadn't been any witnesses: The DNA of all the passengers and AA77's flight data recorder were found inside the building. Ranke turns logic upside down and inside out to claim that if a handful of people say they think they saw the plane flying north of the Citgo, then that "proves" the plane couldn't have hit the building, and that "proves" that hundreds of people all around the building must have completely missed seeing the plane flying over the building, and that "proves" the crash was a gigantic hoax -- an absurdly and unnecessarily complicated hoax because, for some strange reason, conspirators always prefer absurdly and unnecessarily complicated hoaxes when something far simpler and safer would do, apparently just to show off their awesome ability to do so and get away with it. This incredible series of implications are all "proved" by the assertion that it's impossible for his witnesses to be mistaken about the flight path.

In reality, Ranke cannot "prove" that any of those witnesses even saw the plane, much less "prove" that it was where they now say they remember seeing it. Evaluating eyewitness testimony, which often conflicts with the physical evidence and with other witnesses, is something that courts have been dealing with for a long time, and there's really no doubt that a court of law would be forced to conclude that the physical evidence proves that those "NOC" witnesses are simply mistaken. That's the only rational conclusion, but Ranke thinks he can wave away this obvious conclusion by simply claiming that, for some unexplained reason, it's impossible for his "NOC" witnesses to be mistaken about the flight path but the people who very clearly saw the plane hit the building must be mistaken, even though some of those witnesses are the same people.

Apparently, your preference for delusional conspiracy fantasies drives you to accept this kind of idiotic "logic" while offering absolutely nothing but your own personal incredulity as a "reason," and then you yammer about "science" as if everyone else is as clueless about what those words mean as you are.

[Ohio Joe]

15. You can't have it both ways

"That is why I honestly will not tell you that I know what happened. Duh!"

Then as far as you are concerned, it could have been the plane... Right?

"ETA: Except for the science that tells me the OCT is a big fat fucking lie.
There is more than enough sound science that causes me to disbelieve the Official Conspiracy Theory.

And anyone who thoroughly examines the science will tell you the same thing."

oh... wait... You have some science that does say it was not the plane. Please produce this science... oh wait... This is BeFree, he does not believe in producing evidence to back up his claims.

[William Seger]

10. Facts seem to play no part in your belief systems

[William Seger]

14. "I have yet to see any non-refutable."

Simply declaring all the evidence to be fake is not a refutation.

[hack89]

25. So there was a very small hole punched into the Pentagon wall?

looked a hell of a lot bigger than that to me.

Where are the eye witness that corroborate your CT? A whole bunch of people watched a plane hit the Pentagon.

[William Seger]

8. I know what happened at the Pentagon

AA77 crashed into it.

>So trash them all and stick with the science, is what I do.
:rofl:

[SidDithers]

27. You're wrong. It wasn't AA77...

Sid

[jberryhill]

28. You should put a disclaimer on that photograph

Or by next month, we'll have someone with "startling new evidence".

This happened with some pranksters and a fake Kenyan birth certificate a while back.

[SidDithers]

3. It's the return of the CIT!...

Remember "Pentaconned"? :rofl:

Sid

[terrafirma]

17. Interesting...

Is he recycling old, "Pentaconned" bullshit or charging folks to view all NEW bullshit?

'Cause it looks like we've seen this movie before.

[zappaman]

18. Everyone loves a sequel! n/t

[terrafirma]

23. I see Ranke's still parroting the "flyover" theory.

Can't for the life of me grasp how more people didn't see this plane screaming low over the DC metropolitan area. Especially given that, by that time, the better part of the world was aware of how planes were being used as missiles that day.

[jberryhill]

29. There's one born every minute

...and Ranke has a lot of catching up to do. Even Judy Wood, Ph.d. W.tf. has a book now!

[KDLarsen]

30. Hell, it worked for Loose Change.. n/t

[Ohio Joe]

5. Ranke: Cherry picker and liar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISwWfCGyjzQ

Just another scammer in it to make a buck.