The Pentagon on 911... a cruise missile struck the building!

[Laura]

On the CIT web site it is stated:

"The missile theory has remained popular and the divisiveness it has nurtured caused many to shy away from the hard evidence CIT presents proving a deception in a much different way."

This statement does not make sense. The missile theory has not nurtured divisiveness in a way that a theory that explosives were planted and a decoy plane flew over would not! I mean, seriously, you need to get off your high horse on this one and start understanding the reality of the forces that were involved in carrying out 9/11.

I agree that the "missile theory" is not promoting divisiveness. In fact, based on the evidence, it seems pretty clear that something penetrated the building in a "guided direction". There probably was an explosion as well - of some sort.

A theory that NOTHING penetrated the Pentagon, that it was JUST an internal explosion with a "flyover" to help fake some sort of object flying into the building, is not likely to receive wide acceptance even if it WAS true - which I doubt. You might even say that this is an extension of the "blue screen - no planes hit the WTC" theory.

We appreciate the work that Craig Ranke is doing and we have perused it carefully along with piles of other material. The problem is, even a "final theory" will never accommodate all the factors brought to light by different "citizen investigation teams" and that is by design.

I suggest you read L. Fletcher Prouty's book "JFK" and his other book "The Secret Team" to get an idea of how these organizations work, how much money they have to spend on creating cover stories and fake evidence, all the while carting away the real evidence, and how all of that is by design.

 

[Craig Ranke CIT]

I agree that the "missile theory" is not promoting divisiveness. In fact, based on the evidence, it seems pretty clear that something penetrated the building in a "guided direction". There probably was an explosion as well - of some sort.

Actually that's the point.

There is zero independent evidence for this.

The security video is not independent or valid evidence. It was controlled and provided for solely by the suspect -- the same entity who first interjected the notion of a missile at all -- as it was first uttered from Rumsfeld himself.

Yes it is clear that the staged damage was staged in a directional manner, but there is zero evidence that it was a from a flying object since we know that the single flying object seen by the witnesses was a large airliner that could not have hit the building.

Nobody saw a missile and the very small amount of people who described the plane as "small" have extremely dubious or unreliable accounts as outlined by Kesdjan.

A theory that NOTHING penetrated the Pentagon, that it was JUST an internal explosion with a "flyover" to help fake some sort of object flying into the building, is not likely to receive wide acceptance even if it WAS true - which I doubt. You might even say that this is an extension of the "blue screen - no planes hit the WTC" theory.

You might say that but it would be an entirely faulty analogy that likely plays right into the very purpose of the ridiculous NPT at the WTC in the first place.

The Pentagon attack was not broadcast world wide on live tv on 9/11.

Quite the contrary, all the surrounding video footage was quickly confiscated and only few dubious and ambiguous clips were released after they were under complete and sole control of the suspect.

No "blue screen" was required because there is no valid or independent footage.

We believe the NPT at the WTC theories were born from counter-intelligence to make no plane impact talk at the Pentagon and Shanksville seem just as ridiculous and you just played right into it.

We appreciate the work that Craig Ranke is doing and we have perused it carefully along with piles of other material. The problem is, even a "final theory" will never accommodate all the factors brought to light by different "citizen investigation teams" and that is by design.

We aren't asking you to accept a theory. We are asking you to hyper-focus on evidence while rejecting all theory.

We don't care about a pre-planted explosives hypothesis.

We do care about the conclusive hard evidence proving the plane flew on the north side and did not hit the light poles or the building.

Since there is zero independent verifiable evidence for a anything on the south side of the gas station the logical course of action is that we focus on the evidence that we DO have.

Making up theories for something on the south side when there is no evidence for it is not very logical.

If there were any other "citizen investigation teams" out there uncovering independent verifiable evidence we would embrace it wholeheartedly.

Unfortunately there are none.

I suggest you read L. Fletcher Prouty's book "JFK" and his other book "The Secret Team" to get an idea of how these organizations work, how much money they have to spend on creating cover stories and fake evidence, all the while carting away the real evidence, and how all of that is by design.

Precisely.

Which is exactly what they did with the missile.

They used Rumsfeld and the fraudulent security video to get everyone to keep focusing on a missile hitting the building.

But all the witnesses saw a large plane on the north side and some saw it flying away after the explosion. This was ignored because nobody bothered trying to talk to the witnesses.

Therefore the honest eyewitnesses who saw the plane all thought we were nuts for talking about missiles, and the official story supporters were able to trot out dozens of quotes from people who all saw this plane.
Some no doubt liars, but plenty honest ones as well.

This made the truth movement shy away from Pentagon research while focusing only on the WTC for years while many even participated in a very aggressive campaign to get people to ignore the Pentagon and label all people who question the official narrative there as "disinfo". THAT is the "divisiveness" we are talking about and it's undeniable. You guys should know this better than anyone.

Bottom line there is enough evidence now that some of the old theories most certainly CAN be ruled out.

Forget about a pre-planted explosive theory. We don't care about that.

But the massive amount of independent verifiable evidence uncovered in the past 3 years rules out the notion of a missile or small plane.

 

[Joe]

We believe the NPT at the WTC theories were born from counter-intelligence to make no plane impact talk at the Pentagon and Shanksville seem just as ridiculous and you just played right into it.

Once you attempt to get into this type of analysis of the single, double, reverse etc setups of intel agencies there is no way out. NPT at the WTC was for the purpose of running the truth movement off the rails, it's a bit of a stretch to say that it was done to pre-empt YOUR theory. There are two main theories about the Pentagon: that Flight 77 hit and that flight 77 could not possibly have hit. After that the details of what DID happen are hard to pin down. The MAJOR point that needs to be pressed about the pentagon is that Flight 77 could NOT have been involved. What you are doing is actually adding to the distraction by picking fights with those who AGREE that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon! What's up with that?!

I can't believe that you really think that the movement for the truth about what happened at the pentagon will rise or fall on whether or not people believe that a drone craft or a missile as opposed to preplanted explosives caused the damage. Kennedy not murdered by a "lone nut". We agree. Is the real story that it was two bullets or was it three bullets? Did they come from the south AND the west or the west alone? Do we want to argue among ourselves over those details, or focus on getting the message out that KENNEDY WAS NOT MURDERED BY A LONE NUT!

You are caught up in arguing the details and fighting with people who accept the broad truth that Flight 77 did not hit, in the belief that you are going to find a smoking gun that will close the case. In doing so you are missing the broader perspective.

Everyone with half a brain who looks at the basic evidence will come to the conclusion that Flight 77 did not impact the Pentagon. That we are very likely dealing with an insider conspiracy. THAT and the proof that backs it up, is enough to take to the people and the world and push for the US government to then explain what DID hit the Pentagon and who the conspirators were. Why? Because the conspirators very likely came from within the US government, and yet they still hold to the official story that says that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon while the evidence shows clearly that that is impossible.

The onus is on THEM to either provide proof of their assertion or to conduct an investigation that will show the real truth. It is NOT my responsiblity nor is it yours. Why? Because WE can't possibly hope to know ALL the details. But the US government sure as hell can and does.

 

[Kesdjan]

Once you attempt to get into this type of analysis of the single, double, reverse etc setups of intel agencies there is no way out. NPT at the WTC was for the purpose of running the truth movement off the rails, it's a bit of a stretch to say that it was done to pre-empt YOUR theory. There are two main theories about the Pentagon: that Flight 77 hit and that flight 77 could not possibly have hit. After that the details of what DID happen are hard to pin down. The MAJOR point that needs to be pressed about the pentagon is that Flight 77 could NOT have been involved. What you are doing is actually adding to the distraction by picking fights with those who AGREE that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon! What's up with that?!

I can't believe that you really think that the movement for the truth about what happened at the pentagon will rise or fall on whether or not people believe that a drone craft or a missile as opposed to preplanted explosives caused the damage. Kennedy not murdered by a "lone nut". We agree. Is the real story that it was two bullets or was it three bullets? Did they come from the south AND the west or the west alone? Do we want to argue among ourselves over those details, or focus on getting the message out that KENNEDY WAS NOT MURDERED BY A LONE NUT!

First of all, I agree with Craig that we should strictly deal with the evidence (not speculation) and I agree with Perceval that the main point is that flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.

However, this was not the only point stressed by Sott.net- they support the hypothesis that a global hawk fired a missile into the Pentagon.

There are some problems with this theory, such as the north of citgo flight path and the standing light poles that would have been downed had a global hawk fired missile at the angle required to damage to the building. In the absence of any kind of explanation for these details, the "global hawk-missile theory" is false.

Now, about your JFK analogy, imagine if the "three bullet hypothesis" was falsfied by the available evidence. People who are coming into JFK research would discover half of the people supporting a false theory, i.e. the three bullet hypothesis. Suppose that they tried to tell them that the theory was falsfied (gave them the available evidence, etc.) they were told "those are just the details- the key point is that it was not done by Oswald alone"! Certainly, many new researchers would give up if faced with such dogmatism.

Forget pre-planted explosives or global hawks. All I was asking for was to strictly deal with the evidence. Speculation causes devisivness, not evidence.

 

[Joe]

Now, about your JFK analogy, imagine if the "three bullet hypothesis" was falsfied by the available evidence. People who are coming into JFK research would discover half of the people supporting a false theory, i.e. the three bullet hypothesis.

I disagree. I would hope that any rational person would see both theories, realise that the whole truth must necessarily come from those who carried out the attack, and come away with a stronger belief that the official story was a bunch of crapola. What would be a turn off for such people would be to see individuals who were able to see the main facts for what they were but who nevertheless seemed intent on infighting over finite details which can never be conclusively proven

 

[Laura]

First of all, I agree with Craig that we should strictly deal with the evidence (not speculation) and I agree with Perceval that the main point is that flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.

However, this was not the only point stressed by Sott.net- they support the hypothesis that a global hawk fired a missile into the Pentagon.

There are some problems with this theory, such as the north of citgo flight path and the standing light poles that would have been downed had a global hawk fired missile at the angle required to damage to the building. In the absence of any kind of explanation for these details, the "global hawk-missile theory" is false.<snip>

Forget pre-planted explosives or global hawks. All I was asking for was to strictly deal with the evidence. Speculation causes devisivness, not evidence.

The problem is, as the JFK situation clearly shows, is the EVIDENCE CAN BE PLANTED.

For example: if a global hawk did the maneuver, what is the likelihood that it hit ANY light poles at all? What if the lightpole evidence was planted? What's more, what if the light pole evidence was designed to be deliberately confusing by not fitting ANY flight profile?

What if the idea of the "global hawk" is tossed in there for confusion and the real "carrying system" was something smaller, more compact?

What if the explosion evidence was also planted? And of course, the gas station camera evidence... planted?

As I've mentioned before, and this could also be planted evidence: we had some reliable information that satellites captured images of something being launched from a ship offshore. However, when you put that together with the fact that the initial scrambled jets were sent EAST, it makes you go "huh?!"

What if something much smaller was fired from a truck sitting on the side of the road? At the same time, something was fired from a ship offshore just to confuse those observing via satellite? And, at the same time, the lightpoles were rigged to create confusion?

All of the above are entirely in keeping with the extraordinary kinds of confusing things you will find in covert ops. Confusion is the cover.

As Joe said, all we have to agree on is that no 757 hit the Pentagon and acknowledge that covert ops do all kinds of things to confuse researchers and you really can believe no one, just gather the data and know that over half of it is planted.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

But what's interesting about planting confusing and contradictory "evidence" is that they simultaneously shoot themselves in the foot because whatever happened could not have caused all those contradictory things - that alone proves that someone powerful is trying to muddy the waters, which if nothing else, already proves it was not al qaeda doing this as we're being told! And it certainly wasn't al-qaeda that planted the fake passport in the rubble of the WTC! Who did and why? That's irrelevant to the point of who it was *not*. Same thing with the Pentagon - who blew it up and how and why? That is irrelevant to the point of who it was not and what did not cause the explosion. If we can just prove that alone - then we did by far the most important thing. Anyone with a few functioning brain cells that looks at all the "evidence" (both the fake and the real) will quickly see that the official story is false. All the details of exactly how it DID go down, after we already firmly established how it did NOT go down, is not our responsibility. As citizens who are not privy to all the details, it is not within our ability to establish these details, nor are they important anyway. What we do know is enough to prove who is not the murderer and not the real "enemy" - and who is. Isn't that the point?

Why can't this "movement" unify behind this single most important point and bring it to the attention of the mainstream Joe and Jane? It's really funny -- this non-existant "911 truth movement" fights over irrelevant things (which keeps it from unifying and going mainstream once united), and yet it does NOT fight and even integrates into itself all kinds of agents, pathologicals and psychos - the people that it SHOULD be fighting and keeping out. Kinda hard to tell the mainstream population who its enemies are when you're being run by (or influenced by) the same kinds of people you're supposedly trying to expose huh?

 

[Joe]

The point is that we have no problem with adding a reference to the CIT work on our already published articles or adding it to the next run of 9/11. The CIT work is pretty sound and seems well enough motivated. For your own sake though, try and lay off going around demanding that others immediately retract their theories and replace them with those of CIT. It makes CIT sound like it has a less than wholesome agenda.

So, lighten up!

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/187421

 

[Kesdjan]

Ok, I guess it is good to be open to more ambiguity when researching these complex topics.

Would SOTT mind publishing their latest video (National Security Alert)? It lays out all of the evidence contradicting the official story, including the physical evidence, in a calm and systematic manner. This info needs to get out to as many people as possilbe, imo.

National Security Alert- The Pentagon Attack

 

[Joe]

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/187480-National-Security-Alert-The-Pentagon-Attack-9-11

 

[Joe]

Just got a chance to watch the CIT latest and I have to commend you on a very informative and dedicated bit of research.

One thing that I'm still unsure about is Lloyd. Was he a part of the cover up or was his mind messed with in some way....

 

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Just got a chance to watch the CIT latest and I have to commend you on a very informative and dedicated bit of research.

One thing that I'm still unsure about is Lloyd. Was he a part of the cover up or was his mind messed with in some way....

Thanks and thanks again for publishing it on the site.

Two things we know for sure from the evidence......the plane did not hit the light poles and the light pole was never in the cab.

After interviewing him twice and spending several hours with him the second time during a road trip to go see the cab I am convinced that he his well aware of what he did on 9/11.

He has lived about 2 miles from the Pentagon while working as a DC cab driver for decades. He knows the area like the back of his hand and we have him on recording accidentally letting it slip that his neighbor took pictures of the cab and pole on the bridge.

Because of this slip only minutes before the camera was set up and the interview started, we have proof that he deliberately and very consciously switched his location on the highway to match with the witnesses when the camera started. That is not the sign of someone who has had is mind messed with.

I was driving the entire road trip and he navigated like a hawk. He was very present and sharp at all times except when the camera turned on.

All of this is evident in the video and you get the full scope of it in our full length presentation on Lloyde, "The Eye of the Storm":
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos-eyeofthestorm.html

Added together with his virtual confession and cryptic talk of conspiracy with an ear to ear grin on his face and the notion that he is unaware of what really happened or that he somehow fully believes his proven false story doesn't make very much sense.

 

[anart]

After interviewing him twice and spending several hours with him the second time during a road trip to go see the cab I am convinced that he his well aware of what he did on 9/11.
...
Because of this slip only minutes before the camera was set up and the interview started, we have proof that he deliberately and very consciously switched his location on the highway to match with the witnesses when the camera started. That is not the sign of someone who has had is mind messed with.
...
Added together with his virtual confession and cryptic talk of conspiracy with an ear to ear grin on his face and the notion that he is unaware of what really happened or that he somehow fully believes his proven false story doesn't make very much sense.

It seems the question at this point becomes what was Lloyde paid (be that monetarily or otherwise)? It's a rhetorical question, since I doubt anyone will be finding that out anytime soon.

Then again, we could get crazy and ask whether or not Lloyde is a 'robotoid' - basically not at all what he seems. DC is a town riddled with 'not what it seems'. I'd hazard to guess that your take on him, Craig, is likely correct since you spent so much time with him - and he certainly comes across as a man not telling the truth in any way shape or form. The question regarding Lloyde, which will likely never be answered to our satisfaction, is 'why' - or 'how much $ did it take' - I'd wager not much...

 

[Craig Ranke CIT]

The question regarding Lloyde, which will likely never be answered to our satisfaction, is 'why' - or 'how much $ did it take' - I'd wager not much...

I couldn't care less about the answer to that.

He needs to be brought in for serious interrogation and perhaps even offered immunity in exchange for direct connections.

 

[anart]

I couldn't care less about the answer to that.

Ok.

As I clearly stated, it was a rhetorical question.

He needs to be brought in for serious interrogation and perhaps even offered immunity in exchange for direct connections.

What country do you think you live in? What court would prosecute that isn't wholly - and I mean wholly - controlled? Have you read Political Ponerology yet? Have you read L. Fletcher Prouty's book "JFK" and his other book "The Secret Team", documenting the CIA's control over all covert action - how they work and why they are and remain untouchable? An international court is, realistically, the only hope and a concerted global effort has been in place for years to ensure that will never happen with convenient placement in positions of power of those who will never object.

You've done good work with the documentation of this one aspect, Craig - but it's time you got up to speed on the reality of what the US has become and what the chances of this ever being prosecuted are. Apologies - but - seriously - what court do you envision would prosecute this or bring in Lloyde for questioning?

Seems Lloyde was trying to basically tell you the truth in his off camera moments - this is much bigger than him and someone in his position has no clue who's behind it.