Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Two more speak out in support of CIT - Rusty Aimer and Stanley Beattie

Adding to the continuously growing list of experts, scholars, journalists, activists, researchers and concerned citizens who have formally offered their praise for our presentation National Security Alert we are honored to include pilot Rusty Aimer and engineer Stanley Beattie.

Mr. Beattie is a licensed Professional Engineer in his home state of Michigan. He also holds a B.S. in Physics. After graduation he spent several years in the U.S. Navy, where he served as Operations Officer on the U.S.S. Talbot County (LST-1153). He subsequently spent 33 years serving in various engineering and management positions for the ANR Pipeline Company before retiring in 1996.

Mr. Aimer is a retired professional pilot with 45 years airline experience. As a captain for United Airlines he flew the routes for both Flight 175 and Flight 93 many times. He is a core member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth , and was recently featured in an episode of Jesse Ventura's television show on TruTV about the Pentagon attack, where he demonstrated the implausibility of any pilot, let alone an amateur like Hani Hanjour, to accomplish what Hanjour is alleged to have accomplished.

Our sincere thanks go out to both of these gentlemen for their support.
"The video, NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT, presents stunningly clear evidence that the official story of the Pentagon attack is false and deceiving. All Americans should call for a competent investigation of that heinous crime."

Stanley A. Beattie, P.E.
Farmington Hills, Michigan

"You guys have done an excellent job of investigative reporting, and if somebody honestly wants some answers I think that [National Security Alert] is a good place to go."

Captain Ross "Rusty" Aimer
Pilot, United Airlines (Retired)
30,000 Hours Total Flight Time / 40+ years experience
Full video of conversation between Craig Ranke of CIT and Rusty Aimer:

original post

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Rock Creek Free Press publishes article examining censorship of CIT by 911blogger

The ongoing censorship and libel of Citizen Investigation Team by 911blogger has been closely examined by the staff of the "fiercely independent" newspaper The Rock Creek Free Press (RCFP) in a new article titled "Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working For The Other Side?". Although I have copied the text below the article starts on page one of their November edition, pdf version available here.

As attention to the information we have uncovered continues to grow, as expected, so do the attacks against us and attempts to marginalize our findings. Since the discussion at 911blogger has been relegated to a carefully controlled one-sided debate due to a mass purging this year of anyone who dares speak out in our favor, we are very thankful to the RCFP for shedding light on this unfortunate situation that is no doubt manipulating many unsuspecting 911blogger readers into thinking the dissent against us within the movement is widespread when this is far from reality. The reality is that we have received widespread praise and accolades from respected researchers, scholars, activists, etc while our presentation National Security Alert has quickly become the premier resource regarding the Pentagon attack.

Begin article:

Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working For The Other Side?

In the nine years since the attacks of September 11, 2010, 9/11 truth has become a significant social movement, with hundreds of millions of adherents worldwide. A Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll in 2006 found that 36% of Americans believe that the US government either promoted the attacks, or intentionally sat on its hands and let the attacks unfold.

Since 2005, the leading portal for news and discussion about 9/11 has been 911blogger.com. Of the many websites for researchers investigating the events of 9/11 (a Google search for “9/11truth” brings up over a half a million results), 911blogger is the most heavily trafficked. The content is user-generated; registered users post items of interest and other users post comments.

But over the past two years, many well respected 9/11 truth activists and scholars have been banned from 911 blogger without explanation or cause, while the moderators have become heavy-handed in squelching the views of one particular group. These actions have caused many of the banned activists to suspect that Blogger has been infiltrated by agents working for the other side, i.e., those tasked with keeping the truth about 9/11 from gaining widespread acceptance.

The mass bannings are not random, but directed at, among others, users who support the work of Citizen Investigation Team (CIT). (The RCFP ran front page articles about CIT in the April 2009 and July 2009 issues. All back issues are available as PDFs at rockcreekfreepress.com.)

The uninitiated are urged to read those 2009 articles to get the full picture, but a drastically reduced summary is: no plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11. CIT showed, through interviews of seventeen eyewitnesses, that the plane that was seen approaching the Pentagon flew over it and away, as explosives simultaneously detonated inside the building. This created an enormous fireball, filling the sky with dense, black smoke, which obscured the escaping plane. Observers who saw the plane head toward the Pentagon, and next saw the fireball, falsely but understandably concluded that the plane had hit the building. However, the airliner was seen after the fireball by several people, including a Pentagon police officer.

CIT has been endorsed by many of the leading figures of the 9/11 truth movement, including Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth, University of California at Berkeley professor and author Peter Dale Scott, author David Ray Griffin, and actor Ed Asner. In the 9/11 truth community, even among those who are not familiar with CIT, the general consensus is that no plane hit the Pentagon. For starters, plane crashes leave wreckage, and there was no wreckage at the Pentagon. No wings or tail, no fuselage, no luggage or bodies, no skid or burn marks on the pristine green Pentagon lawn.

Many 9/11 truth researchers had strongly suspected for years that no plane hit the Pentagon, then CIT came along and proved it: the plane flew away. And yet, the leading 9/11 truth site is actively suppressing CIT’s evidence and aggressively promoting the view that the plane hit. What is going on?

Before looking at the evidence that 911blogger is censoring the truth about the Pentagon and promoting disinformation, let’s look briefly at why this matters and what their motivations might be.

Although the entire 9/11 story is full of holes, the evidence proving that no plane hit the Pentagon stands in a class by itself, because a deception at the Pentagon is unspinnable. It may be possible to convince the American public that al Qaeda placed bombs in the World Trade Center towers, but the public will never believe, (nor should they) that al Qaeda planted bombs in the Pentagon. The military headquarters for the most powerful nation on earth is a very secure place, and evidence of an elaborate deception at the Pentagon is iron clad proof of complicity at the highest levels of government. Hence, for those trying to keep a lid on the truth, it is absolutely imperative that the facts about what happened at the Pentagon not get out.

Infiltration of the enemy is a common tool of warfare, and it would be surprising if the perpetrators of 9/11 had not attempted to infiltrate and subvert the 9/11 truth movement, to prevent it from doing them (the perps) any damage.

Why activists are so alarmed

Barrie Zwicker is an award-winning journalist, lecturer, author and documentary producer. He was astute enough to question the official 9/11 story from day one, as it was happening. He produced one of the first 9/11 Truth documentaries, “The Great Conspiracy”, in 2003. His most recent book, Towers of Deception, explores the media’s role in covering up the truth about 9/11. Based in Toronto, Canada, Zwicker is an expert on the subject of infiltration of social movements. When Zwicker peaks, people listen.

This summer, via YouTube, Zwicker created a ringing endorsement of CIT’s “National Security Alert” video. He not only enthusiastically applauded CIT’s work and their conclusion (that the plane seen at the Pentagon overflew the building as explosives were detonated), Zwicker delivered a stinging rebuke to CIT’s detractors:

“To me, two most important questions now, almost nine years after the events, urgently call out for investigation. First, who are those behind the vicious attempts to discredit the work of the Citizen Investigation Team? Second, what are the motives of the would-be discreditors and those behind them? And I say “attempts” because careful examination of the arguments of CIT’s tormentors show them to be tricky and unreliable, in fact as flimsy as the official story they try to defend.”

Zwicker submitted the video endorsement to 911Blogger on July 22, 2010.

Now, this is big news in the truth community. For someone of Zwicker’s stature to provide unambiguously enthusiastic support of citizen investigators, on an issue that has not (until now) had clear answers (namely, what happened at the Pentagon), is important to everyone in the truth community. But incredibly, Zwicker’s post to 911blogger was never published.

Zwicker, ever the gentleman, politely emailed the 911blogger moderators, asking why his entry wasn’t approved. He never received a reply from any of the four moderators.

However, just ten days later, 911blogger published a 3100 word article from an anonymous poster, titled “CIT is useless.” The amateurish writing and ad hominem attacks are evident from the very first paragraph:

“Some time ago I wrote an article about not wasting time on CIT. Most of their followers are impossible to convince and consequently the endless debates with them are entirely fruitless, resulting in nothing more than distraction. But that’s not to say we should ignore them completely. Just because we ignore them doesn’t mean they won’t be zipping around spouting their fl awed testimony, their aggressive behavior, anything that discredits those of us who are careful and have realistic standards of evidence.”

In part because of this decision by 911blogger, to reject Barrie Zwicker’s endorsement of CIT while publishing a childish hit piece from an anonymous source, Southern California 9/11 truth activist and We Are Change LA member Adam Ruff wrote:

“In my view it is now 100% confirmed that 911blogger is an enemy of the truth movement as a whole and is engaged in an open campaign of attack on good truthers.”

The RCFP interviewed Zwicker via email

RCFP: What do you find most compelling about CIT’s work?

Zwicker: A historically significant deception has been revealed by these eyewitnesses. The simplicity of CIT’s findings is also significant, as they don’t lend themselves to being undermined by obfuscations or convoluted scientific discussion. It comes down to this: South side of the gas station = official story, North side = inside job. Not even CIT’s detractors have found a way around this, try as they might. Any honest person who watches the interviews has to agree that the plane was on the north side proving inside job. It’s as good an example as any of critical truth, the primary goal of the 9/11 Truth movement.

RCFP: What do you make of those who say they appreciate CIT’s work but do not think they proved “flyover?”

Zwicker: Commercial airliners cannot make startling turns to left or right in such limited airspace, nor can they vanish into thin air. Flyover is the only rational explanation, not to mention that CIT provides a witness who saw the plane flying away. If this ever gets to a fair and uncorrupted court of law, I am as confident as I am of anything, that such a court will determine this plane overflew the Pentagon.

RCFP: Have you read the criticisms of CIT’s work from Arabesque, Jim Hoffman and Victoria Ashley, and do you think they have merit?

Zwicker: They lack merit because they do not provide counter-evidence. They have no firsthand eyewitness interviews from people who specifically place the plane to the south side of the gas station. Those I could weigh against the eyewitnesses interviewed by CIT. As far as I can see, Arabesque, whoever that is (I don’t care for anonymity), Hoffman and Ashley have provided none at all. They take snippets of third-hand printed media quotes, none of which are actually South of Citgo witnesses, just statements by people who said they saw the plane hit the building. Indeed, one particular detractor blog by “Caustic Logic” quotes a few people as “witnesses” who were not even in the area at the time of the attack! One was in North Carolina, arrived in DC the afternoon of 9/11, saw the downed light poles, and was thus presented as a “light pole witness.” This is in a blog entry titled “The South Path Impact: Documented.”

RCFP: What conclusions do you draw from 911blogger refusing to post your endorsement of CIT?

Zwicker: Actually, my endorsement was briefly posted for about 30 minutes, then withdrawn. It’s painful for me to learn that 911blogger, which I consider to be the premiere 9/11Truth site, is censoring CIT and those who support CIT. Even more distressing is that 911blogger has failed to censor some quite rude comments about CIT’s work and its team members. So it’s clearly one-sided. One conclusion that can be drawn is that there are players behind the scenes who have prevailed upon the moderators at 911blogger to stultify CIT and its findings. Since the censorship is so blatant and carries with it obvious penalties in the form of loss of credibility, those behind the censorship orders must really have their knickers in a knot about something. It’s a clear sign that those who control that website are trying to control thought when it comes to the Pentagon. Most people in the truth movement that I talk to in the real world are agreed that no plane hit the Pentagon. That the most visited 9/11 truth website would be so hostile towards evidence that supports this widely held belief within the ranks of Truthers is at the least disconcerting.

A little more than a month after Zwicker’s endorsement of CIT was rejected, the situation repeated itself, when retired NASA aeronautical engineer Dwain Deets recorded a video endorsement of CIT on August 30, 2010 and submitted it to 911blogger. Once again, 911blogger refused, without explanation, to post the endorsement of a highly qualified professional.

Prior to 911blogger rejecting these video endorsements from Zwicker and Deets, nearly all users at 911blogger who were vocal in their support of CIT had been banned. An informal poll easily came up with 25 former users of 911blogger who had been banned without explanation—about half of whom are CIT supporters.

Three of the most well-informed, articulate and prolific CIT supporters were banned simultaneously on May 24, 2010, while in the midst of a heated online debate with 911blogger moderator Erik Larson (aka Loose Nuke). Truth activist Stefan S. of London, England explains it:

“The exact moment that Adam Syed, Adam Ruff and I were banned, we were in mid-debate with Erik Larson. Nothing remotely offensive or rule breaking was being said by any one of us, let alone all three of us at the exact same time.

“What was happening was that Larson had been backed into a corner over a blog entry of his, which was a listing of what he claimed were witnesses to the plane flying south of the Citgo station prior to it striking the Pentagon.

“Not a single one of those witnesses even mentioned Citgo, it was just a collection of laughably tenuous arguments for why ambiguous witness statements must be supportive of the official story. The list was submitted to an intensive analysis and it was shown conclusively that none of the witnesses supported the official flight path, that the list included several witnesses who stated that the plane flew to the north of Citgo, and most strikingly, several who explicitly stated that they were not even in the vicinity at the time of the attack.

“The discussion was drifting into increasingly embarrassing territory for Larson when — presto — all three of us were banned and Larson, in a completely childish fashion, proceeded to have the “last word” in full knowledge that he had just stopped the people he was addressing from being able to respond.

“Larson’s articles are disinformation; the information he puts out there is deliberately false with a motive to undermine genuine research. 911blogger is no longer a 9/11 truth site, that much is clear.”

Response from 911blogger

Other than from moderator John Wright (aka LeftWright), who stressed that he was giving only his own personal views, not those of the website, there has been no response from 911blogger to questions emailed to them on September 15, 2010 about their treatment of Citizen Investigation Team. The email, which stated that the Rock Creek Free Press was working on an article about 911blogger and wanted to include their side of the story, was sent to the current email addresses for site owner Justin Keogh and moderators Erik Larson, Ted Tilton, Jr. and John Wright, as well as to the joint email address for the “blogger team.”

John Wright stated on September 16 that he was available for a phone interview, but, as of press time on October 23, has not replied to an email sent on October 5 to arrange that interview.

The lengthy emails from Wright explaining his view of why CIT has been treated so badly at 911blogger amount, in our view, to implausible excuses: he’s been busy; as a fulltime truth activist he has higher priorities; despite their best efforts, rules are not always enforced fairly; the site has been in a state of transition; and personality conflicts have gotten out of hand.

Most shockingly, Wright claims that Barrie Zwicker broke the site rules by stating in his endorsement that there is a “cadre of disinformation agents who are in the business of attempting to mislead and confuse honest authentic people everywhere about 9/11.” Is Wright really saying that the leading 9/11 truth site will not allow discussion of disinformation or even acknowledge that such a thing exists?

Truth activist and professional orchestral musician Adam Syed of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was banned during the debate with Larson in May, offered this comment on the censorship at 911blogger:

“Arguments in an online forum may at first glance seem to be of interest only to diehard keyboard warriors. But without the Internet, most of us would never have learned about 9/11—certainly the traditional media won’t go near it. 9/11 truth lives or dies on the Internet, and when the most heavily trafficked truth site decides to suppress certain evidence, it obviously makes it harder for people to learn the truth and figure out what happened. In the case of CIT, we are being told to disregard one of the most incriminating facts about 9/11: no plane hit the Pentagon. Now, why would any genuine truther ask us to turn our backs on such damning, unspinnable evidence?”

Answer: they wouldn’t.

Editor’s note: We welcome your comments on the situation at 911blogger; please send them to editor@rockcreekfreepress (dot) com.

Monday, August 30, 2010

Former NASA Flight Director Dwain Deets Endorses CIT & National Security Alert

Dwain Deets is an outspoken 9/11 truth advocate who is a core member of both Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth as well as Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

He has recently launched a very succinct website regarding the destruction of World Trade Center building 7 at: www.7problemswithbuilding7.info.

Dwain is currently retired after 37 years with NASA, where he worked as an aeronautical engineer and flight director for Aerospace Projects. In other words he is a literal rocket scientist.

We are honored to receive his endorsement for our work and conclusions.

Full text of endorsement here.

Video here:

Thanks Dwain!

Monday, August 2, 2010

Barrie Zwicker Endorses Citizen Investigation Team, Censored at 911blogger

Open Letter from:
Craig Ranke
Citizen Investigation Team
August 1, 2010

Re: Censorship of a major 9/11 Truth figure at 911blogger.com

To everyone concerned with the truth:

Renowned journalist, author, and media critic Barrie Zwicker has joined the growing list of intellectuals, experts, scholars, activists, journalists, pilots, and concerned citizens who have spoken out in favor of Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) and our presentation National Security Alert, some of whom are quoted here.

Barrie has also taken it upon himself to speak out very strongly against those attempting to cast doubt on us and/or our findings.

A video and accompanying text of his endorsement is available on this web page.

It now has been 10 days since Barrie's confirmed effort to submit this to 911blogger.com, and his post has not been approved for publication (more on this later). He has told us he still maintains hope that "this de facto censorship, at the premiere 9/11 Truth site, against support for a major team of 9/11 researchers and their original and highly-significant research will eventually be lifted, for the sake of those who visit the site in search of facts and opinions falling squarely within the mandate of 911blogger.com".

He added that if 911blogger does not revert to serving the cause of 9/11 Truth, which he believes it started out doing, it will have to join an all-too-long list of disinformation sources to be included in the book he is writing on false flag operators, false flag organizations and false flag operations. He said this troubles him deeply.

For those who aren't aware, CIT has been under assault from the owners of 911blogger for more than two years. For the record:

Continue reading: "Barrie Zwicker Endorses Citizen Investigation Team, Censored at 911blogger"

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Citizen Investigation Team European Tour - September 2010

We are happy to announce that CIT will be spending the 9th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks screening "National Security Alert" throughout France and other locations in Europe.

Official announcement:

Citizen Investigation Team European Tour - September 2010

This year for the 9th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Craig Ranke, co-founder of Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), will be screening their presentation National Security Alert throughout France and other locations in Europe.

The purpose of the tour is to raise awareness regarding the critical eyewitness evidence CIT has gathered and presented during the course of their on-going investigation into the Pentagon attack. As seen in National Security Alert, the plane has been conclusively shown via detailed video and audio-recorded interviews with eyewitnesses to the event to have been on a flight path that is irreconcilable with official reports, official data, and the physical damage, making it physically impossible for it to have struck the downed light poles or to have caused the anomalous directional damage to the building itself.

The main event on Saturday, September 11th will be held in downtown Paris, with screenings scheduled throughout the day. In the evening a "prime time" screening will take place, which will include an introduction by and question and answer session with Craig Ranke.

The following dates have been confirmed. Times, venues, and additional dates to be announced.

September 6th - Faläen, Belgium (National Security Alert screening)
September 7th - Paris, France (Interview on Radio Ici Maintenant)
September 9th - Grenoble, France (National Security Alert screening)
September 11th - Paris, France (all day event with multiple screenings of National Security Alert)
September 13th - Freiburg, Germany (National Security Alert Screening)
September 14th - Lausanne, Switzerland (National Security Alert screening)
September 17th - London, England (National Security Alert screening)

For more details and/or booking information contact:

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Steve Storti Caught Lying About His Dialog With CIT

Steve Storti is a previously published witness who was in Crystal City over 3/4 of a mile away from the alleged impact point of the Pentagon. You can see his location labeled in the bottom right corner of the below image.

(click to enlarge)

The yellow lines equal the true eyewitness flight path we have documented and the light blue line is the proven false official flight path.

Despite Steve Storti's relatively far location from either flight path, he describes the plane in detail and even claims that he saw people through the windows moving in the back of the plane. He also claims that he took a picture of the "fireball" within the first second or two after the explosion and that he has not shown this image to anyone.

We got a hold of Steven and interviewed him in Oct 2009. He said he would provide us with pictures to verify his point of view from his 4th floor balcony but failed to do so.

We made the decision to wait until we could get our own images from that balcony (Storti no longer lives there) before releasing his interview so we could be sure to validate that he could actually see what he was claiming he saw. A few months later he showed up at our forum (not knowing it was us) and provided his contact information in case we had questions for him.

I instantly called him and that phone call can be downloaded here:

23 minute discussion with Steven Storti - March 29th, 2010

In this call he praises our efforts, calls us "legit", rails against the 9/11 commission, and agrees to help us in our campaign for justice by making a strong effort to provide us with his alleged photographs of his POV and the "fireball" while agreeing to an on camera interview.

He failed to live up to any of these things and simply never replied again.

But he was contacted by Jeff Hill on June 19th, 2010. At this point he did a completely unjustified and unprovoked reversal and chose to maliciously attack us with blatant lies regarding our dialog. Jeff Hill recorded the conversation and published these lies.

Please listen to the above phone call from March 29 and then read the following open letter for full details about this very strange and contradictory interaction with an alleged witness who has been cited for years as someone who allegedly "saw the plane hit the Pentagon".

Open Letter to Steven Storti Re: 9/11 Pentagon Attack Witness Account From Craig Ranke of Citizen Investigation Team

Saturday, March 6, 2010

French bloggers Kropotkine & Ikky interview Craig Ranke

I participated in a comprehensive interview with French bloggers/911 Truth activists Kropotkine & Ikky of the "Enquêtes et Faits Divers" blog which means "Inquiries and News Items".

Read the full interview in English here.

These guys have done an amazing job bringing the evidence we have uncovered to the people of France by creating a version of National Security Alert with French subtitles that they uploaded to Dailymotion.com here. It has received over 35,000 views and over 500 comments.

French author Thierry Meyssan's book "L'Effroyable imposture" which means "The Horrifying Fraud" (its English edition is entitled 9/11: The Big Lie) was released in 2002 and as far as I know was the first publication released questioning the 9/11 event during all the initial hysteria when to do so was considered unthinkable for most.

There has been a rather lively debate on this topic in France ever since.

Meyssan's book received worldwide attention and he was the first known proponent of the missile theory at the Pentagon. Kropotkine & Ikky recently published an exclusive interview with Meyssan on their blog where they asked him about the research of CIT. The original interview in French is available on their blog here and Kropotkine has translated the outtakes where Meyssan discusses CIT and posted them on our forum in this post.

There has been a renewed interest in France regarding the Pentagon attack due to the efforts of Kropotkine & Ikky to make sure people there are aware of what we have accomplished. With so many people discussing our research Kropotkine had some very excellent questions to ask us that deserved extremely detailed and thorough answers.

The same questions are also brought up during debate in the U.S. so reading this entire interview is highly recommended.

The below link is to the English version. They will be releasing a French version as soon as they finish the translation.

Interview de Craig Ranke, réalisateur de National Security Alert et co-fondateur de la Citizen Investigation Team

Thanks Kropotkine & Ikky!

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Erik Larson's Methods vs Ed and Shinki Paik's Accounts - A Rebuttal by CIT

For an audio break-down of the general details in the following rebuttal please listen here:

(also covers witness Dawn Vignola. Skip to 21:17 for part about Paik brothers)

Direct Download .mp3 at 13.4 MB

Recently I posted a debate challenge (Craig Ranke challenges Erik Larson to debate ) to Erik Larson (aka loose nuke & Rancho Truth) because of his hit-piece against us regarding Dawn Vignola's account.

The very next day he released a new article regarding witness Edward Paik who is featured in The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version and National Security Alert.

ed paik, erik larson

Ed's account is absolutely critical because he saw the plane as it definitively diverged from the official flight path while it passed from the south to the north side of Columbia Pike as he illustrated here (he marked his location with a circle):

erik larson, ed paik, pentagon

The official story REQUIRES the plane to be on the south side of Columbia Pike at all times like this:

erik larson, dawn vignola, 911

Erik Larson actually provides a brand new video recorded interview with Ed and his brother Shinki Paik (Jan 2010) that really just confirms that we reported accurately and confirms that Edward saw the plane fly over Shinki's auto shop (A-One Auto) on the NORTH side of Columbia Pike.

But that didn't stop Larson from attacking us personally and accusing us of being deceptive anyway. A rebuttal to his hilarious "attack" piece that really only helps prove the plane did not hit the light poles or the Pentagon is available here:

Erik Larson confirms north side approach!! Ed Paik's path independently confirmed

Thanks Larson! We've always encouraged people who doubt us to interview the witnesses themselves and now you know why! Hopefully you'll go on to independently confirm the other north side approach witnesses as well!

Article also published here:
Erik Larson's Methods vs Ed and Shinki Paik's Accounts - A Rebuttal by CIT

Friday, January 29, 2010

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Release New Tech Paper Proving Transition From North To South Path Impossible

Most people who view our presentation National Security Alert find it easy to accept the corroborated witnesses who clearly state that the plane crossed from the south to the north side of Columbia Pike, flew directly over the Navy Annex, and/or banked right as it passed north of the former Citgo gas station. It's even easy to accept that this contradicts the official reports and data when shown. What's difficult for some to accept are the undeniable implications that this means the plane could not have caused the physical damage and therefore must have continued on without hitting the light poles, the generator trailer, or the building at all. Even though this is rather obvious when looking at the images, particularly when considering the light poles, cognitive dissonance tends to come into play causing some to simply refuse to believe that the plane had to have flown over the building proving a deception from within.

While we have outlined in detail why the north side approach proves a flyover in the #2 article on our FAQ list, we went to the experts at Pilots for 9/11 Truth to closely analyze this situation and provide a technical document explaining exactly why this is the case. They have now published this comprehensive report complete with calculations, animations, and simplified explanations so everyone can easily understand this. As it stands the document demonstrates how it has been 100% scientifically proven that it is physically impossible for any fixed-wing aircraft to transition from the north side approach as reported by the witnesses to the official south side approach to cause the physical damage to the building. In other words, if you believe the witnesses in National Security Alert, you absolutely have no choice but to believe that the plane did not hit the Pentagon and therefore continued on. A north side approach proves a flyover. There is no other logical explanation.

A web based version of the document with animations is available here:

A high quality printable pdf version(1 mb)is available here: