New full feature presentation from CIT now realeased!

But sadly only on google video for now as stage6 divx hosting site announced today that they are closing down this week.


So while I look for a different site that hosts divx movies here is the google version:

The Pentagon Flyover - How They Pulled It Off

www.thepentacon.com...

Google Video Link

The official description:

In this presentation we reveal more independently obtained smoking gun evidence further exposing how the true flight path of the Pentagon attack jet is irreconcilable with all official reports and data. We demonstrate how the plane flew over Washington DC skies and came from the east side of the Potomac River. We explain how the C-130 and white E4B or "mystery plane" were used as cover for the decoy jet that was meant to fool people into believing it hit the building. We expose the methodology behind the operation and demonstrate how they were able to successfully pull off this military deception in broad daylight.

It's an hour and 40 minutes packed full of critical information and evidence so set aside some time when you can really give it some attention.

I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Peace,
CIT

It caught my interest.
I'll have to check it out when i'm fully here.
Thanks.

I have to remind Craig Ranke of his failure to interview the over the 1,000 people who saw and/or recovered the wreckage from the Pentagon.

This is a periodic reminder given to Ranke for several years now reminding him that they were witnesses and Ranke wasn't. It is inexplicable to rational people why Ranke has consistently refused to present the statements of those witnesses, those people who saw and /or handled the wreckage in the Pentagon.

What did those people say the wreckage was? Why won't you provide those statements, Craig Ranke?

Why have those people never contradicted the statements that it was AA77, a Boeing 757?

Craig Ranke knows but does not want to say. Why not, Craig Ranke?


[edit on 25-2-2008 by jthomas]

Just watched the video. Congratulations! It's great that you continue to make the case for an inside job on 9/11.

It will be interesting to see what happens after Bushelzebub leaves office. I'm hoping that more witnesses will feel safe enough to come forward and maybe some of the "colaboroborators" of the fake story will break down and tell the truth as well.

[edit on 25-2-2008 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by jthomas
It is inexplicable to rational people why Ranke has consistently refused to present the statements of those witnesses, those people who saw and /or handled the wreckage in the Pentagon.

That would be a process of sifting through large numbers of people, most of whom very likely saw nothing but blades of grass as they walked arm-in-arm across the Pentagon lawn. If he did that he might have found people who contradicted the official story but he never would have found the people in the surrounding neighborhood who could testify as to the flight path of the airplane.

Maybe you could answer a question for me "Why doesn't Bushelzebub's administration release the video footage of the impact at the Pentagon of what Ronald Dumsfeld refers to as a missile in one interview?" That would settle the whole issue. We could all go back to Cheetos and TV. "What does that carbuncle in the White House have to hide?"

P.S.: Congratulations again Mr. Ranke, on a job well done.

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by jthomas
It is inexplicable to rational people why Ranke has consistently refused to present the statements of those witnesses, those people who saw and /or handled the wreckage in the Pentagon.

That would be a process of sifting through large numbers of people, most of whom very likely saw nothing but blades of grass as they walked arm-in-arm across the Pentagon lawn. If he did that he might have found people who contradicted the official story but he never would have found the people in the surrounding neighborhood who could testify as to the flight path of the airplane.

You mean to tell us that Graig has never interviewed the 1,000 people who saw and recovered the wreckage from inside the Pentagon? He cannot tell us what that wreckage was?

Maybe you could answer a question for me "Why doesn't Bushelzebub's administration release the video footage of the impact at the Pentagon of what Ronald Dumsfeld refers to as a missile in one interview?" That would settle the whole issue. We could all go back to Cheetos and TV. "What does that carbuncle in the White House have to hide?"

Nothing. As we all know, one does not need any video or photos to know that AA 77 hit the Pentagon. Why you think we would is a measure of your ignorance.

Originally posted by jthomas:

You mean to tell us that Graig has never interviewed the 1,000 people who saw and recovered the wreckage from inside the Pentagon? He cannot tell us what that wreckage was?

Since Craig is such a lazy boy, have you or any of those felons at the White House ever considered doing that yourself?

As we all know, one does not need any video or photos to know that AA 77 hit the Pentagon. Why you think we would is a measure of your ignorance.

Your batteries must be running low.


[edit on 26-2-2008 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Originally posted by jthomas:

You mean to tell us that Graig has never interviewed the 1,000 people who saw and recovered the wreckage from inside the Pentagon? He cannot tell us what that wreckage was?

Since Craig is such a lazy boy, have you or any of those felons at the White House ever considered doing that yourself?

Graig is making the claim it's not a 757. Did you miss that part? I have no doubt whatsoever that it is AA7; he claims it's not. So guess whose responsibility it is to support Craig's claim? So, tell us why Craig and you have failed to present those statements from those who saw and/or recovered the wreckage. If the wreckage is not from a Boeing 757, as Craig Ranke claims, just what is the wreckage from?

Get it now?

As we all know, one does not need any video or photos to know that AA 77 hit the Pentagon. Why you think we would is a measure of your ignorance.

Your batteries must be running low.

My batteries are fully charged. You guys are the silly ones who think that the wreckage in the Pentagon doesn't count and that you need a "video" to determine if AA 77 hit the Pentagon or not.

Talk about bassackwards logic!

You guys are the silly ones . . .

No we're not! No we're not! Your the silly, silly. We're very earnest. We want to see George W. Bush fry for his murders.

77 hit the Pentagon, you have nothing again. Final heading is wrong on your story. Love the hearsay you slip in! Funny stuff and total fantasy conclusions. At least you present enough in your own video to debunk your conclusions. Once again the lines you drew as the flight path are impossible due to g force and bank required proving your witnesses false and your ideas are fabricated. Just the flight path requires 8 gs with a 80 degree bank in a split second.

The flight stop is not a point, it takes time to implement the order and the military was allowed to fly. I flew a military flight while all civilian flights were grounded! False idea to plant saying someone wanted the C-130 to see something; a non issue.

And of course your witnesses debunk your stuff too.

American Airlines Flight 77 from Washington-Dulles International Airport crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. William Lagasse, Chadwick Brooks, and Donald Brennan were Pentagon police officers on duty at the time of the attack. Lagasse was in the process of refueling his police car when the American Airliner flew past him so low that its wind blast knocked him into his vehicle. In an interview conducted in December 2001 , Lagasse described the secondary explosions and the search and recovery of injured Pentagon personnel. Brooks saw the hijacked plane clip lampposts and nosedive into the Pentagon and described the ensuing scenes of chaos in his interview, taped November 25, 2001.
Your witnesses prove your video wrong, and show you the false information in your video.

Brooks – said in the interview,

plane flying really low – nose going straight down - saw plane nose down into the pentagon - full throttle -- the plane clipped the lamp posts – the plane actually hit the building – knock a lamp pole like it was a toothpick --

How many of your decoy witnesses support your decoy story? I mean how many of your witnesses know you have made up a fly over and do not include flight 77 hitting the Pentagon in this fantasy video?

Brooks and Lagasse?

Why did you refuse to comment on any of the new information presented?

Steve Chaconas proves the official story false just as much as Brooks and Lagasse.

The fact that the plane came from east of the river is the new smoking gun proving a military deception and Steve Chaconas breaks the case wide open.

The fact that Brooks and Lagasse were interviewed in 2001 and DID NOT CONTRADICT THE NORTH SIDE CLAIM EVEN THEN has nothing to do with this presentation.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Brooks and Lagasse?

Why did you refuse to comment on any of the new information presented?

Why have you refused to present the statements of the the over the 1,000 people who saw and/or recovered the wreckage from the Pentagon, Craig Ranke? You have been asked this question since you started. Why are you afraid to answer a simple question, Craig Ranke?

It is inexplicable that Ranke has consistently refused to present the statements of those witnesses, those people who saw and /or handled the wreckage in the Pentagon.

What did those people say the wreckage was? Why won't you provide those statements, Craig Ranke? Why have those people never contradicted the statements that it was AA77, a Boeing 757?

Tell us, Craig Ranke, why you REFUSE to tell us what the recovered wreckage was.

You are off topic.

Stop badgering me or you will be reported.

All of these questions have been answered.

There was barely any debris and NONE of it has been positively identified and nobody who was at the scene after the fact could possibly know where it came from.

Now stick to the topic or start your own thread.

[edit on 26-2-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

The C-130 pilot took off north and turn west, your attempt to put him over the Mall is wrong. He had to fly south of the Mall to get a good view of it. Over 2 to 3 miles south of the Mall. It helps to be a pilot when listening to a pilot, not a thing he said is worth anything you try to make up points about. Please expand on why the pilot is wrong, or you are right to twist what he said and come up with your fantasy?

For your fantasy to work you need to prove the DNA is not from the 77 passengers. (one group of secret people who planted the DNA)
For your fantasy to work you need to prove the fire ball was not from 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (group 2 of secret people who made a weapon to fake the fuel explosion)
For your fantasy to work you need to prove the RADAR data was faked (group 3 of secret people who faked the RADAR data)
For your fantasy to work you need to prove the FDR was altered (group 4 of secret people who made up all 24 hours of FDR data that looks just like 77 for days before 9/11; all the flight are on the FDR for 24 hours! They match exactly what 77 did!)
For your fantasy to work you need to prove the FDR was planted in the Pentagon (group 5 of secret people who planted the FDR)
For your fantasy to work you need to prove the cab drivers car was planted (group 6 of secret people who planted telephone pole in cab, with cab driver on of the secret agents!)
For your fantasy to work you need to prove Flight 77 was diverted and all the people killed somewhere else and their DNA and body parts were planted in the Pentagon (group 7 of a bunch of people who killed 77 passengers, and planted their bodies/parts in the Pentagon)
For your fantasy to work you need to prove all the parts from Flight 77 were planted in the Pentagon to make it look like it crashed into the Pentagon at 600 mph. (group 8 of secret people who planted the parts to include those at the Pentagon who watched)
For your fantasy to work you need to prove some of your witnesses were lying during interviews for historical records where they could say anything they wanted.

You sure have a long video to make up the flyover.

[edit on 26-2-2008 by beachnut]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Brooks and Lagasse?

Why did you refuse to comment on any of the new information presented?

Steve Chaconas proves the official story false just as much as Brooks and Lagasse.

The fact that the plane came from east of the river is the new smoking gun proving a military deception and Steve Chaconas breaks the case wide open.

The fact that Brooks and Lagasse were interviewed in 2001 and DID NOT CONTRADICT THE NORTH SIDE CLAIM EVEN THEN has nothing to do with this presentation.

Yes the 2001 interviews make your story false.

Plus the FLIGHT TRACK you present is impossible to do. I told you. Everything you post the flight track it is impossible to do. Physics proves you wrong over and over again as you post a flight path impossible.

reply to post by beachnut

In the Brooks interview that you linked to, Brooks says, ". . . people were saying 'Where's the plane? There is no plane.' They thought a bomb or something had hit the building, but it just literally disintegrated, you know, the plane."

By saying that, Brooks in fact states the crux of the CIT group's ideas. To people who were distant from the building, as Brooks was, it looked like a plane had impacted the building. To people in the building, it appeared as if a bomb had gone off and that there was nothing to hand that told them a plane had impacted the building.



[edit on 26-2-2008 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by beachnut

Yes the 2001 interviews make your story false.

No they do not.

They NEVER contradict the north side claim in the least in fact Brooks further supports it when he claims the plane came on his "left" since we know that he would have backed into his parking space as cops always do.

Plus the FLIGHT TRACK you present is impossible to do. I told you. Everything you post the flight track it is impossible to do. Physics proves you wrong over and over again as you post a flight path impossible.

Wrong.

You have no idea of the speed OR the type of military modified plane this was.

There is nothing "impossible" about the flight path.

Now....care to comment on the new evidence?

What do you think of Steve Chaconas' testimony?

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by beachnut

 

In the Brooks interview that you linked to, Brooks says, ". . . people were saying 'Where's the plane? There is no plane.' They thought a bomb or something had hit the building, but it just literally disintegrated, you know, the plane."

By saying that, Brooks in fact states the crux of the CIT group's ideas. To people who were distant from the building, as Brooks was, it looked like a plane had impacted the building. To people in the building, it appeared as if a bomb had gone off and that there was nothing to hand that told them a plane had impacted the building.



[edit on 26-2-2008 by ipsedixit]

The impact energy of just the plane was equal to 2200 pounds of TNT. Impact energy. Brooks does no say it was a bomb, he said it was the plane which was destroyed by the KE of the impact. What happen to Flight 77 at impact is what you see, lots of parts, and lots of dead people. No body dropped a bomb, no body planted parts and dead bodies. It was real and the story made up by Craig is bad fiction.

If someone wants to show this fantasy false all they have to do is take the turn radius drawn so many times and see it is impossible to do. That takes flight physics to figure out, anyone can do it if they want and then see the problems Craig has drawn! Which line is the story now. He has tried to take out the impossible turn but as you fit real witnesses with RADAR and FDR data, you have a failure to connect the dots and pure fantasy.

To take similes and make up fantasies while ignoring evidence and implying other people killed the people at the Pentagon instead of the terrorist is not very nice.

Brooks saw a plane, no one saw the plane leave the Pentagon.

Originally posted by beachnut:

It helps to be a pilot when listening to a pilot, . . .

beachnut, if you are a pilot, you know that hundreds if not thousands of parts on your airplane have to function for that plane to fly. One malfunctioning part can crash that plane, if it is the right part.

The same thing can be said for the government's presentations. For the government's fantasy to be true, hundreds of parts of it have to jibe. If CIT can prove one or two key elements wrong, then that crashes the government's story. CIT doesn't have to make a long video to do that.

In my view the Pentacon has already done the job. CIT is beginning to put together a larger alternative scenario now, but they don't really have to when you take all the other oddities of 9/11 into consideration.

For clarity.

[edit on 26-2-2008 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You are off topic.

I am directly on the topic of your claim that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon.

All of these questions have been answered.

FALSE. You have REFUSED to answer the question. In order for you to demonstrate that no 757 hit the Pentagon, you are obligated to deal with all of the evidence surrounding the event.

There was barely any debris and NONE of it has been positively identified and nobody who was at the scene after the fact could possibly know where it came from.

You cannot make that claim without providing the evidence to back up the claim.

There was wreckage inside the Pentagon that was seen and/or recovered by over 1,000 people. In order for you to do ANY investigation, you must have interviewed the people responsible for removing the wreckage.

Now, once again, what wreckage did those over 1,000 people see and/or recover from inside the Pentagon, Craig Ranke? What are the statements from those people who you had to have interviewed in order to do an investigation?

Why will you not present that evidence to us, Craig Ranke?