Craig Ranke
Citizen Investigation Team
October 31, 2011
Last month, Pacifica Radio hosted a series of debates about 9/11, which were then broadcast nationwide on their radio network and affiliates as part of their 9/11 tenth anniversary special. In the debate about "the lingering questions surrounding the attack" at the Pentagon, I had a chance to go head to head with Anthony Summers, co-author of the book The Eleventh Day: The Full Story of 9/11 and Osama Bin Laden. He argued in favor of the official narrative, while I (of course) argued against it.
Besides touting it as "the first panoramic, authoritative account of 9/11", Summers' and his wife (co-author) claim in the sleeve of their book that they "thoroughly consider the contentions of the '9/11 truth' movement". On page 116, they say that they "have seen not jot of evidence that anything like a false flag scenario was used on 9/11." They go on to say that "after more than four years' research" they have not "encountered a shred of real information indicating that the Bush administration was complicit in 9/11."
In the debate, I demonstrate that Anthony Summers has either not "thoroughly considered" the evidence we (CIT) present, or is deliberately covering it up. I also get him to concede that he has not interviewed a single witness to the Pentagon plane for this allegedly "panoramic, authoritative" book.
We feel that this is a particularly important debate considering that Summers has been featured rather prominently by the corporate media this year as some sort of 9/11 expert and supposed debunker of "conspiracy theorists". This included an interview with Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member Charlie Rose of PBS in July, who introduced him as "an old friend". In that interview, Summers stated that: "What we did in the end was, I hope, successfully to dispatch, for sane Americans, most of the conspiracy theorists' ideas".
The debate was "moderated" by Pacifica's Terry Kester, although it was clear that he was not neutral on this subject, and he even jumped in several times to attempt to assist Summers.
(Also posted to the news section of the CIT site: 9/11 Pentagon Debate: Craig Ranke (CIT) vs Anthony Summers.)
Monday, October 31, 2011
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
The Toronto Invitations
As we discuss in detail here, an event commonly referred to as The Toronto Hearings will be taking place at Ryerson University in Toronto from Thursday September 8th through Sunday, September 11th, which will bring together some of the biggest names in the "9/11 truth movement".
Although the website for The Toronto Hearings claims that "the best available evidence into the case, discovered in the ten years since the 9/11 events occurred" will be presented, Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) has not been invited, and the widely-supported, conclusive evidence proving a north side approach and flyover at the Pentagon will not be presented in any meaningful way, and may not even receive a cursory mention. See here for more information.
On the evening of September 11, 2011 -- the tenth anniversary of 9/11 -- we will be presenting this evidence at The Royal cinema in Toronto, which is a quick and easy trip from Ryerson University.
This event is sponsored and hosted by Toronto-based author and TV producer Barrie Zwicker, who felt impelled to initiate it after he, also a member of the (window dressing) Advisory Committee to the Toronto Hearings, “realized there was no chance of CIT being invited to present its crucial 'weighty' evidence at the Hearings.”
We are taking this opportunity to invite all organizers, participants, and attendees of the Toronto Hearings to our event. Our event is scheduled to begin at 8pm that evening, after the Toronto Hearings have concluded, so there is no scheduling conflict.
Furthermore, as outlined below, a number of the organizers and participants of the Toronto Hearings have launched wanton attacks against Citizen Investigation Team. Some of them have composed and/or promoted dishonest propaganda which attempts to defend the official impact narrative and discredit the evidence we present proving that the plane did not strike the Pentagon as reported, thereby establishing that 9/11 was a false flag operation involving high-level insider complicity.
Although we will have a substantial Q&A session after our presentation, it will not be a suitable setting for extensive, thorough debate. We are, therefore, inviting any participant or organizer of the Toronto Hearings who has a problem with our "methods" and/or thinks they are able to refute the evidence we present to sit down with us for a civil, thorough on-camera debate/discussion while we are all in Toronto.
We will be arriving in the early evening on Thursday, September 8th, the first day of the Toronto Hearings. We will not be departing until the early morning on Tuesday, September 13th. There is no reason that the people who apparently have such strong concerns with our work and who have attempted to publicly paint us as dishonest shouldn't be able to set aside a couple hours to take us up on this offer, "expose" our supposed dishonesty, and refute the evidence we present proving the plane did not hit the light poles or Pentagon. We will work with them to find a mutually convenient day and time.
Although this is not meant to be an all inclusive list, we would specifically like to issue the following invitations to the following people.
Continue reading: "The Toronto Invitations"
See also: "Has Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) Been Invited To The Toronto Hearings?"
Although the website for The Toronto Hearings claims that "the best available evidence into the case, discovered in the ten years since the 9/11 events occurred" will be presented, Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) has not been invited, and the widely-supported, conclusive evidence proving a north side approach and flyover at the Pentagon will not be presented in any meaningful way, and may not even receive a cursory mention. See here for more information.
On the evening of September 11, 2011 -- the tenth anniversary of 9/11 -- we will be presenting this evidence at The Royal cinema in Toronto, which is a quick and easy trip from Ryerson University.
This event is sponsored and hosted by Toronto-based author and TV producer Barrie Zwicker, who felt impelled to initiate it after he, also a member of the (window dressing) Advisory Committee to the Toronto Hearings, “realized there was no chance of CIT being invited to present its crucial 'weighty' evidence at the Hearings.”
We are taking this opportunity to invite all organizers, participants, and attendees of the Toronto Hearings to our event. Our event is scheduled to begin at 8pm that evening, after the Toronto Hearings have concluded, so there is no scheduling conflict.
Furthermore, as outlined below, a number of the organizers and participants of the Toronto Hearings have launched wanton attacks against Citizen Investigation Team. Some of them have composed and/or promoted dishonest propaganda which attempts to defend the official impact narrative and discredit the evidence we present proving that the plane did not strike the Pentagon as reported, thereby establishing that 9/11 was a false flag operation involving high-level insider complicity.
Although we will have a substantial Q&A session after our presentation, it will not be a suitable setting for extensive, thorough debate. We are, therefore, inviting any participant or organizer of the Toronto Hearings who has a problem with our "methods" and/or thinks they are able to refute the evidence we present to sit down with us for a civil, thorough on-camera debate/discussion while we are all in Toronto.
We will be arriving in the early evening on Thursday, September 8th, the first day of the Toronto Hearings. We will not be departing until the early morning on Tuesday, September 13th. There is no reason that the people who apparently have such strong concerns with our work and who have attempted to publicly paint us as dishonest shouldn't be able to set aside a couple hours to take us up on this offer, "expose" our supposed dishonesty, and refute the evidence we present proving the plane did not hit the light poles or Pentagon. We will work with them to find a mutually convenient day and time.
Although this is not meant to be an all inclusive list, we would specifically like to issue the following invitations to the following people.
Continue reading: "The Toronto Invitations"
See also: "Has Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) Been Invited To The Toronto Hearings?"
Has Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) Been Invited To The Toronto Hearings?
As most readers will already know, “The International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001”, also known as “The Toronto Hearings”, will be taking place next week at Ryerson University. This will be a four day event, running from Thursday September 8, 2011 through Sunday, September 11. You can visit the official website here to read about The Toronto Hearings in the words of the organizers if you have not previously done so.
For weeks now, people have been asking us if we (Citizen Investigation Team) have been invited to make a presentation at the Toronto Hearings. It has become increasingly apparent that we ought to address this question publicly, especially in light of our recent announcement that we will be co-presenting at The Royal cinema in Toronto on the tenth anniversary of 9/11 -- Sunday, September 11, 2011.
The short answer is no, we have not been invited to the Toronto Hearings.
Before elaborating, we want to make a couple things very clear right from the start:
Continue reading: "Has Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) Been Invited To The Toronto Hearings?"
See also: The Toronto Invitations
For weeks now, people have been asking us if we (Citizen Investigation Team) have been invited to make a presentation at the Toronto Hearings. It has become increasingly apparent that we ought to address this question publicly, especially in light of our recent announcement that we will be co-presenting at The Royal cinema in Toronto on the tenth anniversary of 9/11 -- Sunday, September 11, 2011.
The short answer is no, we have not been invited to the Toronto Hearings.
Before elaborating, we want to make a couple things very clear right from the start:
Continue reading: "Has Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) Been Invited To The Toronto Hearings?"
See also: The Toronto Invitations
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Researchers To Present Exclusive, “Disturbing” Interviews With 9/11 Pentagon Witnesses in Toronto on Anniversary
On the tenth anniversary of 9/11, American researchers will appear live at The Royal cinema in Toronto to present exclusive interviews with eyewitnesses to the act of mass murder which 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.
Read the rest: "Researchers To Present Exclusive, “Disturbing” Interviews With 9/11 Pentagon Witnesses in Toronto on Anniversary" at CitizenInvestigationTeam.com
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.
Read the rest: "Researchers To Present Exclusive, “Disturbing” Interviews With 9/11 Pentagon Witnesses in Toronto on Anniversary" at CitizenInvestigationTeam.com
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Allan Weisbecker's essay "The Deep State, Self-Deception, 9/11, and the Legend of 'FBI Maverick' John O'Neill"
Allan Weisbecker is an accomplished writer who has, for the past five years or so, dedicated quite a bit of his energies to researching 9/11 and working on a filmed memoir, which will introduce people beyond "the choir" to the truth about 9/11 and other elements of the proverbial "Matrix". He was one of the founding writers on the popular television series "Miami Vice" in the '80's, and he subsequently authored three published books (an autobiographical novel and two memoirs). I recently read his latest book, "Can't You Get Along With Anyone?: A Writer's Memoir and a Tale of a Lost Surfer's Paradise", which I highly recommend.
Recently, Weisbecker authored a detailed essay in which he puts a significant amount of focus on explaining and dissecting the Orwelian "doublethink"/denial, as well as outright "cooption", that exists within the "9/11 truth movement". In the course of this wide-ranging study he lauds our work as "ground breaking", and notes that: "911blogger.com is, in my view, an archetype of this cooption. Hence its censorship of CIT’s work on the ‘PentaCon’ is significant: It means that CIT’s expose is very damaging to the deep state agenda."
However, this essay is far from an opinion piece regarding CIT. Allan produces ground breaking investigative research of his own, exposing the "John O'Neill Legend" as a significant fabrication utilized within the propaganda surrounding the 9/11 psychological operation. Weisbecker deconstructs the details of this story and unearths several undeniable reasons to reject the notion that O'Neill was/is a hero or martyr. He shows that the preponderance of evidence points instead to him having been an accomplice to the operation who may have even faked his own alleged death that day.
Weisbecker also demonstrates how specific individuals within the movement are unwilling or unable to look at this evidence objectively and have instead rather hypocritically resorted to outright censorship or denial. Perhaps not so coincidentally, most of the same individuals and entities who reacted this way to Weisbecker's findings about O'Neill have reacted similarly to the findings of CIT.
His report amounts to a heavily detailed and sourced dissertation wherein "self-reflection" is encouraged to overcome these types of demons (denial and ego in particular), and the plight of the "truth movement" to wake up the masses regarding 9/11 is paralleled to his own efforts to expose important information about 9/11 to people within "the movement".
Please set aside some time to read the entire essay as well as take the time to click on his numerous supplemental youtube links which usually consist of a minute or two of supporting audio and video that he has personally compiled. I'm confident that you'll find it as enlightening as I did.
The Deep State, Self-Deception, 9/11, and the Legend of "FBI Maverick" John O'Neill
Make sure not to skip the Foreword.
Allan Weisbecker:
Recently, Weisbecker authored a detailed essay in which he puts a significant amount of focus on explaining and dissecting the Orwelian "doublethink"/denial, as well as outright "cooption", that exists within the "9/11 truth movement". In the course of this wide-ranging study he lauds our work as "ground breaking", and notes that: "911blogger.com is, in my view, an archetype of this cooption. Hence its censorship of CIT’s work on the ‘PentaCon’ is significant: It means that CIT’s expose is very damaging to the deep state agenda."
However, this essay is far from an opinion piece regarding CIT. Allan produces ground breaking investigative research of his own, exposing the "John O'Neill Legend" as a significant fabrication utilized within the propaganda surrounding the 9/11 psychological operation. Weisbecker deconstructs the details of this story and unearths several undeniable reasons to reject the notion that O'Neill was/is a hero or martyr. He shows that the preponderance of evidence points instead to him having been an accomplice to the operation who may have even faked his own alleged death that day.
Weisbecker also demonstrates how specific individuals within the movement are unwilling or unable to look at this evidence objectively and have instead rather hypocritically resorted to outright censorship or denial. Perhaps not so coincidentally, most of the same individuals and entities who reacted this way to Weisbecker's findings about O'Neill have reacted similarly to the findings of CIT.
His report amounts to a heavily detailed and sourced dissertation wherein "self-reflection" is encouraged to overcome these types of demons (denial and ego in particular), and the plight of the "truth movement" to wake up the masses regarding 9/11 is paralleled to his own efforts to expose important information about 9/11 to people within "the movement".
Please set aside some time to read the entire essay as well as take the time to click on his numerous supplemental youtube links which usually consist of a minute or two of supporting audio and video that he has personally compiled. I'm confident that you'll find it as enlightening as I did.
The Deep State, Self-Deception, 9/11, and the Legend of "FBI Maverick" John O'Neill
Make sure not to skip the Foreword.
Allan Weisbecker:
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Richard Gage on the Pentagon & CIT: Our Reply
As long time readers of our blog and websites know, there has for years now been a concerted campaign by a relatively small clique of individuals who purport to be members of the "9/11 truth movement" to marginalize and vilify Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) and dismiss our findings.
It seems that the more evidence we obtain and publish proving that the official story is a farce and that the Pentagon attack was a black operation the more aggressive and brazen their campaign becomes.
These same individuals have also worked very hard to convince people who have offered formal praise for our work and our presentation National Security Alert to not only retract their statements of support and praise but to publicly denounce us. This targeted campaign has been largely unsuccessful until the other day.
Continue reading: "Richard Gage on the Pentagon & CIT: Our Reply"
It seems that the more evidence we obtain and publish proving that the official story is a farce and that the Pentagon attack was a black operation the more aggressive and brazen their campaign becomes.
These same individuals have also worked very hard to convince people who have offered formal praise for our work and our presentation National Security Alert to not only retract their statements of support and praise but to publicly denounce us. This targeted campaign has been largely unsuccessful until the other day.
Continue reading: "Richard Gage on the Pentagon & CIT: Our Reply"
Thursday, February 3, 2011
CIT publishes response to David Chandler & Jonathan Cole's Joint Statement about the 9/11 Pentagon Attack
We've been put in the difficult position of having to defend ourselves against people whose work regarding the destruction of the World Trade Center we respect and appreciate. Although we had never spoken to David Chandler or Jonathan Cole prior to the publication of their "joint statement" on the Pentagon attack, we had always considered them natural allies, had never badmouthed them or had any inclination to do so, and had even praised their work.
Unfortunately they did not have the courtesy or sense to get in touch with us to see if we had any responses to their apparent serious issues with our work before publicly denouncing it. The result, as we have now documented in great detail, was a simplistic, horribly sloppy, and defamatory essay which reveals that, at best, they had barely spent any time at all on our website, let alone bothered to view our extensive catalog of video presentations to familiarize themselves with the full scope -- or even many of the basics -- of the evidence we present, or us personally, before rushing to judgment and aggressively attacking us.
Due to the frequent and extreme falsity of their claims, a very lengthy response was necessitated. Sometimes a single sentence would have multiple false and/or misleading claims requiring several paragraphs to untangle. We'd have preferred a shorter rebuttal, but there was no other way to do it if we were to remain accurate and thorough, as we strive to do in everything we publish.
While it was frankly quite obnoxious to have to spend so much time refuting a such a simplistic and shoddy essay that these two men clearly did not put much time into at all, the silver lining is that it gave us an opportunity to address their essay in the context of the dishonest and dishonorable campaign being waged against CIT by a relatively small clique which has gained control over 911Blogger.com, where we are not only "censored", but more importantly, attacked on a virtually daily basis with misinformation and disinformation and denied a "right of reply". For some reason David Chandler apparently has no problem with this situation considering that he published the "joint statement" by him and Jonathan Cole there and then further badmouthed us and our work in the comments section.
Given these circumstances, and the wide-ranging nature of our response to David Chandler and Jonathan Cole, we ask you to please set aside AT LEAST an hour or two to read our response in full so that you can hear our perspective. Unlike Chandler and Cole's essay, our response is heavily sourced, so if you can set aside extra time to REALLY dig into its contents and follow the links and sources, even if you do so over the course of several days, this will give you a MUCH more detailed look at the intricacies of what is going on here, and we feel that the reality of the situation will become that much more clear to you. This is an especially important thing for you to do if you are a regular reader of 911Blogger, since this means that you have likely spent hours over the past months or even years reading the frequent bogus attacks against us which we are forbidden from responding to.
I'd like to thank our webmaster for his critical help with writing this response and putting it together. Please pass it along to anyone you can and encourage them to read it. Thank you for paying attention to both sides of this manufactured controversy by clicking the following link and reading our entire response:
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/reports/cit-response-to-david-chandler-and-jonathan-cole-pentagon-statement
Sincerely,
Craig Ranke
Citizen Investigation Team
Unfortunately they did not have the courtesy or sense to get in touch with us to see if we had any responses to their apparent serious issues with our work before publicly denouncing it. The result, as we have now documented in great detail, was a simplistic, horribly sloppy, and defamatory essay which reveals that, at best, they had barely spent any time at all on our website, let alone bothered to view our extensive catalog of video presentations to familiarize themselves with the full scope -- or even many of the basics -- of the evidence we present, or us personally, before rushing to judgment and aggressively attacking us.
Due to the frequent and extreme falsity of their claims, a very lengthy response was necessitated. Sometimes a single sentence would have multiple false and/or misleading claims requiring several paragraphs to untangle. We'd have preferred a shorter rebuttal, but there was no other way to do it if we were to remain accurate and thorough, as we strive to do in everything we publish.
While it was frankly quite obnoxious to have to spend so much time refuting a such a simplistic and shoddy essay that these two men clearly did not put much time into at all, the silver lining is that it gave us an opportunity to address their essay in the context of the dishonest and dishonorable campaign being waged against CIT by a relatively small clique which has gained control over 911Blogger.com, where we are not only "censored", but more importantly, attacked on a virtually daily basis with misinformation and disinformation and denied a "right of reply". For some reason David Chandler apparently has no problem with this situation considering that he published the "joint statement" by him and Jonathan Cole there and then further badmouthed us and our work in the comments section.
Given these circumstances, and the wide-ranging nature of our response to David Chandler and Jonathan Cole, we ask you to please set aside AT LEAST an hour or two to read our response in full so that you can hear our perspective. Unlike Chandler and Cole's essay, our response is heavily sourced, so if you can set aside extra time to REALLY dig into its contents and follow the links and sources, even if you do so over the course of several days, this will give you a MUCH more detailed look at the intricacies of what is going on here, and we feel that the reality of the situation will become that much more clear to you. This is an especially important thing for you to do if you are a regular reader of 911Blogger, since this means that you have likely spent hours over the past months or even years reading the frequent bogus attacks against us which we are forbidden from responding to.
I'd like to thank our webmaster for his critical help with writing this response and putting it together. Please pass it along to anyone you can and encourage them to read it. Thank you for paying attention to both sides of this manufactured controversy by clicking the following link and reading our entire response:
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/reports/cit-response-to-david-chandler-and-jonathan-cole-pentagon-statement
Sincerely,
Craig Ranke
Citizen Investigation Team
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
NEW ANALYSIS: The Required Low and Level Impact Versus Standing Poles and Obstacles on North Side Path
In the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section of the CIT website (CitizenInvestigationTeam.com), FAQ #2 is:
"Why does it matter which side of the gas station the plane flew on? Couldn’t the plane have flown on the north side of the gas station and still hit the light poles and building?"
The short answer to the second question is "no", and that FAQ page (viewable in full here) is an important resource explaining why that is the case.
A new section has now been added to this page. It is entitled:
THE REQUIRED LOW AND LEVEL IMPACT VERSUS STANDING POLES & OBSTACLES ON THE NORTH SIDE PATH
(Clicking the link above or the preview image below will take you to the new section)
Use the following URL when linking directly to that section (it should jump right to the proper spot on the page):
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-can_north_side_plane_hit.html#northsidepoles
As explained:
original source
"Why does it matter which side of the gas station the plane flew on? Couldn’t the plane have flown on the north side of the gas station and still hit the light poles and building?"
The short answer to the second question is "no", and that FAQ page (viewable in full here) is an important resource explaining why that is the case.
A new section has now been added to this page. It is entitled:
THE REQUIRED LOW AND LEVEL IMPACT VERSUS STANDING POLES & OBSTACLES ON THE NORTH SIDE PATH
(Clicking the link above or the preview image below will take you to the new section)
Use the following URL when linking directly to that section (it should jump right to the proper spot on the page):
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-can_north_side_plane_hit.html#northsidepoles
As explained:
The ground-level damage [to the building] combined with the lack of foundation damage means that the plane -- if it had struck -- would have had to have done so extremely low and virtually level with the ground (i.e. not in a descent). However, the photographic evidence shows all poles and obstacles on the north side path fully in tact. This means that a plane approaching from north of the Citgo station would not only have missed the downed light poles, but would also have flown OVER numerous other light poles and other obstacles an instant before reaching the building. This further underscores the fact that the plane did not hit the building, and could only have continued on over the building after clearing all of those obstacles on the north side flight path.This is a point which has been noted by Citizen Investigation Team and others for years, and it is now made more clear than ever.
original source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)