The PentaCon update

As most of you have seen, loved, hated, etc. "The PentaCon" that Craig (formerly known as Jack Tripper) and his CIT team has published, he has made some updates. I am just passing this along to those who have not yet been to his website after the first video was published.

The PentaCon "Smoking Gun version"

He has added Lloyd's account to his website as well, watched it for the first time today. Which is the following link

Lloyd the Cab Driver interviewed by CIT

He has updated his Info section for extended readings:

Info Section

The team will also be referrenced at the "Ready for Mainstream" in New York City on 9/8/07:

New York City 6th anniversary gathering

And more at his Home site:

The PentaCon

I, for one, wish them the best and hope we get some answers soon. We are still waiting for the Researchers Edition as far as I know.

What do you guys think, that havent seen this already?

Comments on your current thoughts up to date on the CIT?

*Note: I made this thread to give everyone an update on how things are going. Or to let people know that the site has been updated since the first video release.*

Be sure to visit his message board here at ATS as well:

The PentaCon forums

I heard a rumor that CIT was getting sued for the term "pentacon"... not sure if this is fact of just blog B.S.

Either way...his video was a joke and so was his pathetic theory.

"We are CIT's so pity us...the kids are brats the food is hideous.......'

Okay, okay..its not the 80s movie trivia thread, but I couldnt resist......

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Either way...his video was a joke and so was his pathetic theory.

Oh how you love to try to discredit people. What a piece of work you must be.

Yeah you're here to learn the truth...

What qualifies you to claim his video was a joke and his story pathetic?

Lets see your research. All I've seen so far is second hand information, heresy and opinion passed off as facts. The worst kind of troll...

Have a nice day...

reply to post by ANOK



Anok ~

So, this guy goes out and finds 4 people to say what side of the Citgo station the plane flew over. Woo Hooo... yet there are hundreds that refute those 4. If you watched the 911 CT show on the History Channel, they were interviewing an eyewitness that SAW THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON.

Even two of his witnesses SAW the plane HIT the pentagon. You can't pick and choose what you want to believe from a witness.... "Well he saw the plane come over this side....but he was mistaken when he saw it hit the Pentagon"

CAll me a troll... Shill...whatever..your name calling does nothing.

Craig and Aldo, just to let you know we haven't forget you guys, and your breathtaking interviews :

www.patriotsquestion911.com...


And again another important scientist coming out of the woodwork about all the evasions of important events by the infamous NIST reports :

Page 1
Page 2
Page 3

At last a NIST insider for 19 years, who followed the whole investigation by NIST, and visited all their meetings, declaring it a half baked investigation, which got severely hampered by politically oriented lawyers working for the same government which lied to us, and which tried to avoid any serious investigation of the events of 11 September 2001.

I hope you guys come out soon with the Researchers Edition, so I can put my teeth in it and help to unearth the truth of the Pentagon attack.

[edit on 22/8/07 by LaBTop]

I just can't wait for the Researcher's Edition so I can see the extra people involved around the Pentagon on 9/11/01. I'm glad to see the website has so much information since it first started! Keep up the good work guys!

Hey thanks a lot for the awesome thread BM!

We've completely shifted our approach with the Researcher's Edition and have decided to continue some important angles we have in our investigation before completing it so I still can't say exactly how long it will take.

Plus we decided to make sure that the production is MUCH better this time around so it will appeal to more people.

So our plan is not to put out a 4 hour long convoluted boring piece of work just for info sake.

We will have a nice tightly produced presentation that will be a comprehensive study on the Pentagon attack and will be compelling for everyone.

That's kind of why we released the Lloyd interview first because his account is just as critical as the citgo witnesses and it needed special focus and attention as well.

reply to post by CaptainObvious

Even two of his witnesses SAW the plane HIT the pentagon. You can't pick and choose what you want to believe from a witness.... "Well he saw the plane come over this side....but he was mistaken when he saw it hit the Pentagon"

I agree. Its because of this glaring hole in the "CIT" theory that I hardly even bothered posting in their forum. From what I have read they have never responded to that particular criticism. Here's hoping they will now.

CT

reply to post by Conspiracy Theorist


Of course we have responded to it.

Here is what we say on the front page of our website:

*Special note: Many detractors to the information we present suggest we are wrong because the witnesses at the CITGO station believe the plane hit the building. This is what true critical thinkers call circular logic. We claim the fact that the witnesses place the plane on the north side of the station proves it was used as an instrument of deception during a perfectly timed military sleight of hand illusion because it is impossible for a plane in that location to have created the physical damage. In other words; the intended goal was to fool witnesses into believing the plane hit the building. The fact that the witnesses were successfully deceived exactly as the perpetrators intended does not prove that they are incorrect in their placement of the plane. Quite the opposite is true. Their placement of the plane proves that they were deceived in regards to the impact.

And then we go on to demonstrate the 7 basic principles of sleight of hand and describe how it applies to the 9/11 operation.

Go to our website and check it out.

Bottom line everyone MUST choose which claim to believe.....

The north side or the impact.

They can not be simultaneously true.

Since all of the witnesses we present had a MUCH better vantage point of the plane as it passed by the station it makes infinitely more sense to suggest they were correct about the north side.

9/11 was an operation of deception.

Just because people were deceived into believing the impact just as the perpetrators intended does not prove they were incorrect about their corroborated placement of the plane.

This is why the witnesses weren't afraid to talk to us in the first place!

They were deceived and they thought they were supporting the official story.

An appropriate analogy would be that just because people were deceived into believing the WTC fell solely because of the planes and fire does not disprove controlled demolition.





[edit on 26-8-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
You can't pick and choose what you want to believe from a witness.... "

Well I could say the same when you dismiss witnesses who heard explosives in the towers. Or the numorous witness reports that contradict each other. Let alone the fact that the NIST report contradicts itself.

Yeah you don't pick and choose...

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

We claim the fact that the witnesses place the plane on the north side of the station proves it was used as an instrument of deception during a perfectly timed military sleight of hand illusion because it is impossible for a plane in that location to have created the physical damage

No offense intended. But to me this seems like bending reality to fit your theory. Two of your witnesses say they saw the plane fly north of the citgo and hit the pentagon. By using your logic, I could say that the appearance of a plane on the north side of the citgo was a perfectly timed military sleight of hand illusion and that your witnesses, didnt really see anything.

Just because people were deceived into believing the impact just as the perpetrators intended does not prove they were incorrect about their corroborated placement of the plane.

The placement of the plane and subsequently your theory(IMHO) is not really corroborated when you have 2 witnesses, not saying it hit the pentagon, but that they saw it hit the pentagon.

No matter how you spin it, to me it appears that you are indeed picking and choosing what to believe from your own witnesses.

CT

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist

No matter how you spin it, to me it appears that you are indeed picking and choosing what to believe from your own witnesses.

CT

Absolutely.

Everyone HAS to pick and choose because both claims can not possibly be simultaneously true.

Investigators, police officers, and citizen juries are required to "pick and choose" what parts of eyewitness testimony they believe to be accurate every day.

There are quite a few reasons why it is more logical to pick the north side claim over their belief in an impact.

The most obvious of which is the fact that the witnesses were all physically closer to the plane as it passed by the station as opposed to when it reached the Pentagon.

For this reason alone it is clearly more likely this claim would be the accurate one.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist

No offense intended. But to me this seems like bending reality to fit your theory. Two of your witnesses say they saw the plane fly north of the citgo and hit the pentagon. By using your logic, I could say that the appearance of a plane on the north side of the citgo was a perfectly timed military sleight of hand illusion and that your witnesses, didnt really see anything.

I'm not following your logic here.

Originally posted by ANOK


Well I could say the same when you dismiss witnesses who heard explosives in the towers. Or the numorous witness reports that contradict each other. Let alone the fact that the NIST report contradicts itself.

Yeah you don't pick and choose...

If you are talking about Willie Rodriquez, yes he is full of bull and I have proven that over and over. As far as "hearing explosives?" How can one hear explosives? You can hear an EXPLOSION and many were heard. If explosives you mean a bomb...that would be inaccurate since there is no evidence of this.

reply to post by CaptainObvious

Hey cap I want an answer to this.
What did you ever find out?

reply to post by 11Bravo



A post I made back in June? Damn..i don't even remember that... have you been waiting that long ?

Let me se if I can find some time to read the entire thread..then I will get back to you.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
....that would be inaccurate since there is no evidence of this.

No, actually I was talking about the fire fighters who saw and heard explosives.
Don't play ignorant and pretend you've not heard them before.

I see you don't disagree that the NIST report contradicts itself.

I never said there was evidence of bombs (even though there was) I don't have to. There is enough evidence, and precedence, that proves the towers could not have collapsed from the planes impacts or the fires. That really only leaves one other explanation, explosives of some kind. Or Allah really was with the 'terrorists' that day...

Until someone can prove that fires could cause the global collapse of a steel framed building then I'll stick with logic, thanx...

BTW could you actually for once make a post that isn't an attack on someones character? How has Rodriguez been de-bunked exactly?

Originally posted by ANOK


No, actually I was talking about the fire fighters who saw and heard explosives.
Don't play ignorant and pretend you've not heard them before.

Please provide me with a source where firemen claimed to have "SEEN" explosives. There were claims of secondary devices...none that were witnessed.

I see you don't disagree that the NIST report contradicts itself.

Contradicts? i would be more inclined to say that there were a couple claims that could be incorrect. That does not however dismiss the entire report.

BTW could you actually for once make a post that isn't an attack on someones character? How has Rodriguez been de-bunked exactly?

If I can prove someone is lying to support their theory, you bet your butt that I will attack their character. As far as Willie goes... where would you like me to start?? The guy is a CHRONIC liar and refuses to debate facts with skeptics. The man travels the world, converted to Islam, and bad mouths the United States Government saying that they framed the Muslims. His stories have changed over and over and until he comes clean and stop his tour of lies, I will continue to attack his character.

Look at Craig in here... he claims this cab driver was a government plant. Isn't that charachter attacking? All he has to back that up with is claiming the lightpole damage is not consistant with that which was found on his cab.

If I see someone posting some 1/2 truths or lies, I will call them on it. As I would appreciate it if I were called on the same way.

reply to post by CaptainObvious



Still waiting.