Richard Gage joins perplexing gang-up on Citizen Investigation Team

By Craig McKee

Mr. Gage, you’ve lost me.
In the past week, highly respected 9/11 researcher Richard Gage – founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, released a statement ( withdrawing his support for Citizen Investigation Team, which champions the idea that an airliner flew over, not into, the Pentagon on 9/11.
Gage doesn’t like the investigative methods of CIT’s Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis. He says that even though he initially supported CIT’s film National Security Alert, he has come to rethink its approach and its conclusions. Now, he seems to prefer the Bush administration version of the Pentagon story – that is to say the official story.
Unfortunately, Gage has jumped in with a group of people who frequently post at the now very exclusive, a site that has little tolerance for people who actually think the Pentagon event might have involved some kind of deception. They’ll agree the planes should have been intercepted before reaching the Pentagon. But that’s about it.
This crowd loves to call CIT divisive liars and many other worse names. Anyone who agrees with CIT is called a dupe, a disinfo agent, or worse. The Blogger people use every vicious personal attack in the book, but CIT gets the label as being intentional disruptors. Gage, fortunately, has been above the kind of mean-spirited and condescending attacks we get from forum contributors like Snowcrash, Chris Sarns (aka BS Buster), kdub, and others.
This group seems to feel that if you say you don’t believe the official story about Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, you’re helping to discredit the 9/11 Truth movement. I have no idea what these people are talking about.
Of course, Gage is entitled to support whomever he chooses, but his decision to jump on the bandwagon (and to piggyback on the recent anti-CIT statement from David Chandler and Jonathan Cole on 911Blogger) is a bit perplexing – especially the timing.
Gage brings up the witnesses who support the plane hitting the building. This is certainly a central problem to be resolved. But some of these witnesses also support the north of Citgo flight path, which is inconsistent with the light poles being knocked over. Are they just confused about what they saw?
It is important to remember that CIT contends (and I agree) that the Pentagon event on 9/11 was designed to fool onlookers and the world. Isn’t that the whole point? Simply pointing to eyewitness accounts as being enough to shoot CIT down doesn’t make logical sense. It’s relevant to examine these accounts, and they are obviously very important, but we can’t forget that 9/11 WAS MEANT TO BE AN ILLUSION. It was supposed to look like the U.S. government was taken by surprise by a group of Muslim fundamentalists. And the destruction of the World Trade Center wasn’t supposed to look like a controlled demolition. So eyewitness accounts of the plane hitting the Pentagon have to be considered in this light. Not discounted, just factored in with other evidence.
This idea that if we can’t prove a 757 didn’t hit the Pentagon then we should default to the official story is absurd. Why does the OS get a pass, just because it can’t be proven wrong? Why doesn’t it have to be proven right? Aren’t there enough questions about the Pentagon – involving proof or not – to support a new investigation? Isn’t that the goal?
At the bottom of his statement, Gage refers readers to several articles that he says will help them understand why he has soured on CIT. One of them is called “Debating What Hit the Pentagon: Exaggeration, Name-calling, and Threats” by Gregg Roberts. This article, which appeared on 911Blogger, is a response to an article in the Rock Creek Free Press accusing 911Blogger of working against 9/11 Truth.
In his piece, Roberts suggests that “the complainers,” as he calls the authors of the article, were told how to behave, failed to listen, and then were told why they were banned. I don’t know if this is a fair account, but I know that I was banned after just two weeks as a member of the site, and I called no one names. I was also never given a reason for the banning – not even a response to my query on the subject. I doubt that I’m alone.
By jumping in bed with 911Blogger, Gage seriously damages his credibility on this issue. This site regularly bashes CIT while not allowing CIT to respond because they’ve been banned.
Gage admits he is not as knowledgeable about the Pentagon as he is about the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. His statement, and the articles he refers people to, confirm his lack of knowledge of the subject.
Another article is the condescending piece by Victoria Ashley called To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘magic’ show. Ashley mocks the idea that much of the Pentagon evidence may have been faked. Light poles faked, wreckage faked, witnesses who were plants or confused? Frankly this doesn’t seem the least far-fetched. Why would the perpetrators of this event not fake things to help sell the lie?
She also says that if not for the “CIT/no plane hit the Pentagon” theory, then all kinds of constructive discussion could have taken place about the real issues like why the planes weren’t intercepted. But whose fault is that? If you think CIT is off on a tangent, why have YOU devoted so much time and effort to attacking them? YOU are the people bringing attention to the disagreement. And it is the fight itself that is hurting the movement.  There is room for more than one belief about how we were hoodwinked that day.
And one more point about science. As I wrote in my last post, 9/11 is not just a scientific story, it is also a highly political story. The idea that only science can be applied to what we know is much too narrow. We want a real investigation of 9/11, do we not? Do we have to prove inside job beyond a shadow of a doubt before we can demand more inquiry? People get sent to the electric chair with a less strict burden of proof than that.
I agree with one point Gage made in his statement. Everyone should do their own research and draw their own conclusions. By attacking CIT so relentlessly, the advocates of the “big plane, small hole, folding wings” theory give people no credit for being able to think for themselves. I can figure out which questions I want answers to and which parts of the Pentagon story are suspicious and call out for more investigation. I don’t need any “parental” truth filterers to do it for me.


    1. Thanks for adding those links. I was planning to write about Gage and Chandler/Cole in the same post but it was getting too long, so I’ll follow up on Chandler/Cole next time. And thanks for the support.

  1. Good article and nice look to your wordpress blog. I too am creating a wordpress based site called Hopefully it can be an antidote to the ills that have taken over blogger like a cancer.

    1. Thanks, Adam. I look forward to seeing that. And I look forward to some constructive discussion on your site that isn’t based on the personal attacks favored by Blogger and even 911oz (which hasn’t banned me yet).

  2. For the record….
    Richard Gage is DIRECTLY under the 911blogger influence because the owner of 911blogger Justin Keogh is on the board of directors for AE911truth. His level of influence on the group is rather curious considering the fact that he is not an architect or an engineer.
    This dialog he had with CIT in 2009 is very revealing:

    1. Interesting. Thanks for that. The Keogh/Ranke exchange doesn’t surprise me at all. It is clear the banning is arbitrary and not based on violations of a rule here or there. As for Gage, he has done more damage to the cause with his bumbling about face on CIT.

  3. Have a look, guys:
    If you have ANY doubt about what happened at the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11/01, there are loads of people who were actually there, and their contact info is in those 2 links.
    Richard Gage has his own problems with reality, but if he’s rejecting the “CIT,” it’s a step in the right direction.

      1. You implied in one of those links that Mark Roberts (“Gravy”) is soliciting donations, mrboz. His very informative and well-researched web site is still accessible, although he’s given up on trying to talk sense into people who “already know” and won’t listen to facts and evidence, so would you please direct me to the place where he’s soliciting donations, as numerous “researchers” in your 9/11 “truth movement” do? Here’s the link to it:
        Thanks in advance.

      2. Nope “Albury bot”- I NEVER “implied” nor intended to “imply” that “Gravy” was seeking donations- YOU must have read that quite WRONGLY. I KNOW what MY intent was- I WROTE IT in the first place!
        I’m sure this is why you could NOT QUOTE ME as doing so. Keep reading my comments though, maybe take some notes and/or even draw yourself a diagram or two on some scratch paper. I have faith that eventually you will be capable of understanding what I wrote/write IF you expend enough effort. Good luck, “Albury-bot.”
        Why is it that the pseudoskeptic ‘debunkerists’ so often seem to use “implications,” insinuations, and ‘straw men’ as their ‘currency in trade?”

      3. More helpful hints for “Albury-bot’-dude:
        mrboz: “I have heard rumors that ONE OF this GROUP’s ‘High Priests’ operates under a codename having something to do with a common condiment for potatoes and stuffing, or something similar.”
        Contrast this:
        “group- (noun) An assemblage of persons or objects gathered or located together; an aggregation:”
        against this:
        “one (adjective)- Being a single entity, unit, object, or living being.”
        whilst keeping the ‘nuances’ of this/these in mind:
        Preposition and postposition
        mrboz: “Apparently, there is a ‘financial’ branch OF this GROUP that is actively seeking funds from their members (somewhat like a tithing of sorts):”
        If “Albury-bot”-dude is still having difficulty with these concepts, I suppose I could draw a basic diagram and link it here- let me know if necessary.
        Also, I can’t help but wonder if “Albury-bot” might actually be doing this here on Mr. McKee’s blog based upon my observations of his links and sources:
        mrboz: “…proselytiz[ing] the dogma of their ‘High Priests’ of ‘debunking’ far and wide (but apparently only on the internet).”
        In the [almost] words of the 80’s band Def Leppard:
        “Pour some [Gravy] on me ooh, in the name of love
        Pour some [Gravy] on me, c’mon fire me up
        Pour your [Gravy] on me, I can’t get enough
        I’m hot, sticky sweet from my head to my feet, yeah”
        “Albury-bot” certainly appears to love his “Gravy” if his multiple postings here are any indicator… 🙂

    1. I did not see any “contact info” listed there, “Albury bot-” were those Instant Message, ICQ, email, telephone, or “snail mail” “contact info” that “Gravy” published on his Googlesite?
      Also, how many of “Gravy’s” accounts were ever verified by anyone firsthand with the people who allegedly made those statements? If you somehow cannot provide a specific number, a percentage would even be helpful here.

      1. Your “multiple postings here” amount to 4 at this point, mrboz, compared to my 2 (not including this one), so what does that “certainly appear” to indicate about you, if anything? The content of yours certainly appears to indicate that you’d rather obfuscate with irrelevant and unnecessary definitions than address anything substantive. Since most of your misguided invective was aimed at Mark Roberts prior to your “‘financial’ branch” comment, who pray tell is in this “branch,” and what is their function? Unlike Gage, Avery, Bermas, Rodriguez, “Jihad” Barrett, Chandler, Fetzer, Alex Jones, Griffin, and other “researchers,” organizations, and luminaries of your 9/11 “truth movement,” Roberts doesn’t have his hand out for donations, and has no other profit motive, so are they your “‘financial’ branch”?
        Roberts didn’t look up and post the web sites of all of the civilian first responder and other groups of people who witnessed the wreckage of AA 77 at the Pentagon, but considering your keen interest in 9/11 truth, I don’t think it’s too much to expect you to do it. I have, and almost every one listed at the first link above has a web site with contact information.
        You clearly weren’t there, so please feel free to contact some of the people who actually were before claiming to know more about what they saw around and inside the Pentagon than they do.
        note: Here are 4 of them for you, randomly selected by me:
        Gee, it just wasn’t all that difficult. (American Airlines is listed there if you’d like to tell them what “really” happened to their plane, passengers, and crew.)

    2. Hi Albury Smith…what a SURPRISE finding you on a 9/11 forum…again, and again, and well.
      Just about anyone interested in 9/11 Truth runs into Albury under one of his monikers or another eventually.
      Because this is a full time job for you isn’t it Albury?
      Are you still working with Sustine for Cognitive Dissonance? Do you have a couple of other shills here to argue tiny meaningless points with you for pages at a time?
      You need to be outted for what you are, a full time shill.
      We’ve crossed swords before–but not this time, I’m burying my point in your mid section and walking away while you bleed mud like the Golem you are.
      ~Willy Whitten

  4. Craig, your position is premised on a false dichotomy–that there is the 9/11 Truth story, and there is the official story and that there is no overlap between them. In reality there are 9/11 conspiracy theories, there is the truth, and there is the official story. There is overlap between any two of these elements, and there is even in places overlap between all three.
    The belief that CIT discredits the truth movement is very easy to understand. 1) From a scientific standpoint their work sucks because they cherry-pick their data points and unjustifiably ignore their own witnesses’ statements that the plane hit the building. They also refuse to test their hypothesis by actually going out and looking for flyover witnesses. 2) From the standpoint of legal evidence their work sucks. In a court of law their own witnesses would destroy their flyover case under cross examination.
    3) Their work fails to meet journalistic standards of evidence because they have no witnesses to support their flyover theory. 4) They employ faulty logic in supposing that a northern flight path proves flyover.
    There is also the issue of their disgraceful behavior in making movies in which they accuse cooperating witnesses of being government agents.
    You poo-poo science, you poo-poo proof. If your basis for demanding a new investigation is the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was an inside job, you’d better have proof. Political bodies and journalists are not going to go on a witch hunt. If you can’t provide proof, you’d better tone done your claims and demand a new investigation on the basis that the official reports are corrupt and have not proven their case.

    1. You give me so much to work with, I’m not sure where to start.
      First, you do NOT have to have proof to push for an investigation of something. Do the police wait till they have eyewitness testimony before starting a murder investigation? Of course not. If there are enough unanswered questions that go to the heart of the government’s case, then they should be investigated. And please don’t refer me to the 9/11 Commission. No one familiar with the case can take that whitewash seriously.
      Second, I do not poo-poo science! Did you read what I wrote? I will pull the pertinent quote for you:
      “And one more point about science. As I wrote in my last post, 9/11 is not just a scientific story, it is also a highly political story. The idea that only science can be applied to what we know is much too narrow. We want a real investigation of 9/11, do we not? Do we have to prove inside job beyond a shadow of a doubt before we can demand more inquiry? People get sent to the electric chair with a less strict burden of proof than that.”
      Clearer now? I state science is important. I state elsewhere the eyewitness accounts are important. But they are not all that is important.
      Third, the “disgraceful” films. You people are like a broken record on this. Lloyde England’s account is not credible. I don’t accuse him of anything other than not offering a remotely plausible story about what he saw. Again, in a real investigation he would be questioned and the truth might be ascertained. You would have us ignore his absurd story to avoid hurting his feelings? If he feels slandered, he is free to sue. But he won’t because everything that’s been said is fair comment.
      Fourth, you list your reasons why CIT is attacked so repeatedly and viciously. You may not like their thoroughness, you may think they ignore evidence not supportive of what they believe. And this makes them different from all other human beings how? If you think they are deliberately trying to split the movement, bring forth your proof of that now…. I assume you have lots since you’re so big on proof.
      And fifth: the legal evidence angle. Another broken record. This isn’t a trial, it’s a call for a real investigation. They don’t need to meet a legal standard. The very idea is absurd.
      And finally, journalistic standards are something I know a bit about. And you don’t need an eyewitness or scientific proof of something to bring it to people’s attention. If that was the standard then we’d have a lot of empty pages in newspapers. You must be responsible and report the truth as you see it. The readers can then decide for themselves whether there is something to what’s being written. You need to have facts, but you don’t need ALL the facts before you start. Imagine an editor telling Woodward and Bernstein that they had to have proof that Nixon had ordered the Watergate cover-up before they began covering the story.

  5. It is interesting that everyone who attacks CIT (the fiercely illogical Brian Good included) focusses firmly on the flyover as if that is the only thing that matters. They frame possible courts cases on “did the plane fly over or did it not”. This is deliberately done because of course it sets out the dilemma of some witnesses who witnessed the northside path also witnessing the plane hitting the building.
    The theory is that the plane flew the northside path which means that the plane could not have hit the lightpoles – and thus that this lightpole scene was faked. The witness evidence for this overwhelming, not only in the number of witnesses who observed the northside path but also the complete lack of witnesses who observed a path necessary for the lightpole damage.
    A conclusion of the northside path is that the plane flew over the building as there is no evidence that the plane struck the building from the northside path. However the flyover is not the critical element. If the plane flew over, the witnesses must have also been fooled into thinking the plane hit the building and when there is a large explosion and fireball, it is understandable if some witnesses were fooled. You cannot disprove the theory that the witnesses were fooled by pointing out how many people thought the plane hit the building, as that is obviously ludicrous – in the same way you cannot prove the lady was sawn in half by pointing out all the audience who witnessed her in 2 pieces.
    It is also true that this eyewitness evidence exists independent of CIT and independent of any so called 9/11 Truth Movement that people like Brian Good work relentlessly to defend. For a good proportion of people, this evidence blows 9/11 wide open and hence the desire to spread it as widely as possible. It is easy to understand, you need no science background and you also don’t need to take anyone’s word for anything.
    Anyone who attacks this witness evidence must have good reason for it not to become widespread and in this case, I question the motives of the attackers.

    1. I do too.
      Would you believe I used the woman being sawed in half analogy just yesterday? I guess great minds think alike, eh? But it really says it beautifully. The event was intended to deceive so that has to be considered along with the eyewitness accounts.
      And you’re right that it’s the north side path that is really the key point. Bringing up the impact is disingenuous, I think, because it purposely ignores the light pole contradiction. And the reason CIT makes the point that the north side path means the plane didn’t hit the building is because it would have hit other light poles instead. Why don’t we examine this point?
      Anyway, your comment is right on the money as far as I’m concerned.

  6. Craig, I wouldn’t take FalseFlagBurner’s version of the Ranke/Keogh email exchange very seriously. When Ranke asked permission to publish my email list debate with him, I refused, saying I didn’t have time to verify that he published it honestly and completely. Sure enough, when he published it anyway, he “forgot” to include the end of the debate–the part where I asked him questions he couldn’t answer, and he fled, claiming debunkers had already raised those points (but not answering them).
    I said you poo-pooed science because you suggested that we needed to go beyond science in seeking a new investigation, but you didn’t even bother to specify what we needed to go beyond to.
    Why would you expect Lloyde England’s account to be credible? If your car was speared by a lightpole while you were driving it, would you be able to relate a coherent account of events? It’s not about how you feel about him. It’s about CIT’s disgraceful behavior in demonizing him and, after he invited them into his home, making movies accusing him of being a 9/11 perp.
    I don’t know if CIT is deliberately trying to split the movement. I know that their behavior and their irrationality and their lies make us look bad, and their continuing refusal to clean up their act shows that making us look good is not their first priority.
    Most of your responses are simply straw man arguments.
    KP, the reason we focus on CIT’s flyover theory is because that’s what they focus on and that’s what Jesse Ventura focused on and that’s what the public is going to focus on–and it makes us look like kooks. CIT’s irrational insistence that they’ve proved flyover destroys their credibility.
    Rather than questioning the motives of those who reject a clearly implausible theory (as you seem to admit) you might do better to question the motives of those who seem to be trying to discredit the important flightpath witnesses and distract from the incompatibility of their testimony with the broken light poles–those who insist on marrying those important issues to the ludicrous flyover fantasy.

    1. Brian,
      You say I didn’t say what beyond science is important in investigating 9/11. From this you concluded that I was poo-pooing science. I’m sure if you think about this you’ll realize how illogical it is. If you want to challenge me on why I think science is not everything that needs to be considered, then fine. But to use a disingenuous argument that I’m putting down science when I’m clearly not, does nothing to advance your point.
      My point is that there is a great deal of evidence to be considered. Sometimes we don’t end up with proof of something but rather just a strong suspicion. There is nothing wrong with using an anomaly or a suspicion as a starting point for investigation. Can I prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Hani Hanjour didn’t fly Flight 77 into the Pentagon after executing a near impossible 330-degree spiral? No. Are there enough reasons to doubt that this happened? Absolutely.
      As for Lloyde England, you’re really hanging by your fingernails on this one, aren’t you. I’ll give you credit for tenacity, at least. You asked why I would expect Lloyde’s account to be credible. Well, because he says it happened, that’s why. Are you suggesting he’s still traumatized and flustered nine years later?
      And frankly, I think you’re doing what all the CIT (Citizen Investigation Team) opponents do. That is you’re ignoring the points they raise by attacking them and their methods. I don’t really care who invited who into whose home. I care about whether Mr. England is telling us a fictional story. You continue to be inconsistent on this. You aren’t the least bit concerned that no one backs up his claim about the pole in his windshield. No one.
      You state that most of my responses were straw man arguments. I challenge you to show that with specifics. It sounds great to say, but it’s meaningless. Please show this or retract. I’m holding you to this.
      A last word on CIT: you say they’re destroying their own credibility. If they’re doing this, let them. Why are you guys so preoccupied with this? This is why people like me wonder about hidden agendas.

  7. Craig said: “And the reason CIT makes the point that the north side path means the plane didn’t hit the building is because it would have hit other light poles instead. Why don’t we examine this point?”
    Yes great point. CIT recently examined this and documented all of the north side light poles/obstacles in extreme detail with photographic evidence in a new section of their FAQ#2 article here:

  8. Craig, to say that science is not enough when you wouldn’t say what more was needed is poo-pooing science. If you said of your girlfriend “Julie’s a nice girl, but she’s not enough and I want to be open to new possibilities” and you don’t even have any new possibilities, that’s poo-pooing Julie.
    Science doesn’t operate by proof but by disproof, so you’re creating a false dichotomy by associating science merely with the proven and claiming that evidence-based speculation and inquiry is inherently unscientific. Questing into the unknown is the heart of the scientific method. The scientific approach to CIT’s flyover speculations is two-fold: to test their hypothesis by seeking flyover witnesses east of the Pentagon, and to provide a reasonable explanation for how the light poles were taken down. CIT’s hand-waving claim that they were planted in the dark the night before is so ludicrous as to be a lie.
    Sorry, flight 77’s spiral was not impossible–especially if it was executed through use of the autopilot.
    Your expectation that LLoyde’s recollection of a traumatic happening would be any better after he calmed down than it was in the moment strikes me as peculiar. Do you have a psychiatric authority to support the belief that he should? CIT’s tactic of seizing on LLoyde for a proxy to the light pole witnesses is not logical, though it is an effective bit of sophistry. Until CIT can provide a plausible explanation of how the light poles can be planted in the cloverleaf, there’s no reason to decide whether LLoyde’s story is true or not.
    Yes, I’m attacking CIT’s shameful methods: demonizing witnesses, surreptitious taping, and use of surreptitious footage taken of a cooperating witness who’d invited them into his home is unethical. Condoning such tactics makes the movement look sneaky and repels potential whistleblowers–and CIT should be universally condemned on that basis alone.
    CIT is not just destroying their credibility. They are hurting the credibility of the movement, and they’ve greatly hurt that of movement leaders like Aidan Monaghan, Dr. Griffin, Richard Gage, and Dr. Scott. They also hurt the credibility of Jesse Ventura, though he went the carny route long ago so he’s thankfully not a movement leader.

    1. Brian, I said it very clearly. Science is important. It’s great when we have science to confirm something. How clear do I have to be? I’m trying to add to that that using things like common sense and political analysis can also be valuable. We know, for example, that the alleged hijackers were not devout Muslims because they visited prostitutes, drank and gambled. This doesn’t prove they didn’t carry out the attacks, but it’s still valuable information. No poo-pooing involved.
      You’re telling me that the autopilot could be responsible for the manoeuvre and hitting the first floor of the building? If the autopilot was that sophisticated we wouldn’t need pilots at all. I’m not a pilot, and I have not researched this, but I highly doubt what you say.
      On CIT’s claim that the poles could have been laid down in advance, I see no reason this isn’t possible. It makes the most sense to me given the north of Citgo flight path witnesses. Again, were they all mistaken or lying?
      On England: You’re getting ridiculous – and I suspect intentionally so – when you ask me for psychiatric authority about England’s mental state. He made claims that were very clear. They were unbelievable, but they were clear.
      On your statement, “Until CIT can provide a plausible explanation of how the light poles can be planted in the cloverleaf, there’s no reason to decide whether Lloyde’s story is true or not.” This is one of the most absurd things you’ve said. It’s the planted poles thing that’s on trial? England’s story gets a free pass because you don’t like Ranke’s and Marquis’s explanation.
      It’s not CIT that’s damaging the movement, it’s people like you. Your relentless attention to and attacks on their views exaggerates the image that the movement is constantly bickering internally. You say shooting England when he wasn’t looking is unethical? I’m a journalist, and I can assure you that hospitality has no effect on how you can approach an interview subject. If England had been filmed talking about something off the record, that would be wrong. He wasn’t. He volunteered information freely. Even without a camera they still could have reported what he said. And he was aware of this.
      If you people don’t get off CIT and get to the real issues, you’ll continue to confirm that you’re not really looking for the truth. You’re just trying to stir up shit. Show everyone you’re sincere; rise above it.

  9. Hi Craig, no I’m not saying the autopilot could fly the plane into the building, though I suspect that with a radio beacon installed in the building it might have. I was merely responding to your claim that the 330 degree spiral was impossible. Dr. Legge has written pretty convincingly that the autopilot could perform the turn.
    If the poles were laid down in advance, they would have been very conspicuous lying in the short grass in the cloverleaf during the morning rush hour. It’s an insane plan. Would anybody actually leave evidence out there for dozens of people to see and then say to themselves “Wait a minute! I saw those broken light poles at 8:45 but the plane didn’t fly in until 9:37!” This is one of the major problems with CIT. They think they’re the smartest people on the planet and the perps and the witnesses are all stupid.
    I wasn’t asking for psychiatric authority on Lloyde’s mental state. I was asking for psychiatric authority on your belief that a victim of traumatic stress ought to recover valid memories of the stress event years after the fact.
    Yes, the planted poles thing is definitely on trial. Unless CIT’s theory can explain what happened to the light poles, it’s no good. Planted in the dark is not plausible.
    England was filmed when he didn’t know he was being filmed. That’s off the record. As I said, Ranke published our email exchange over my objections, and when he did he truncated it so he didn’t show the part where he melted down and fled the debate.
    He has no ethical sense.
    The real issue is that CIT’s irrationality, belligerence, lousy ethics, cowardice, and lazy refusal to track down witnesses inside the Pentagon and witnesses east of the Pentagon make the truth movement look very bad.

    1. No, no, no. Filming someone without their knowledge is NOT off the record. When you’re talking to a journalist or filmmaker, it is ON the record unless the subject says he wants to go off the record. If he doesn’t, he’s on. They could have simply reported what he said and the same truth would have come out. The only difference is that you guys would have accused CIT of making it up. England was ON the record. He wasn’t manipulated into saying anything he didn’t want to say.
      Planted poles are totally plausible. Who would find a pole lying on the grass to be so unusual that they’d commit that to memory? The key pole is the one alleged to have hit the cab, and that one is completely unbelievable.

  10. And no, I’m not trying to stir shit up. I’m trying to flush it. I know these guys very well. I have put dozens of hours, possibly even 200, into research and debate with CIT since June of 2009 when I first saw the NSA video. I know my stuff. I know they’re full of it. I know they refuse to answer questions, they lie, and spin, and duck and weave and change the subject. And when all is said and done they run away screaming insults. Ranke has fled from debate with me five times. I’m trying to save you and your readers and the American people from wasting your time on them.

    1. I’ve seen no evidence that Ranke runs from debate. I have seen, however, how far Snowcrash went to avoid debating Ranke. If you’re going to make this accusation, you should provide examples. Since you’ve made a very specific charge – that Ranke has fled from debating you five times – I’d like to see some documentation of this.
      As to saving all of our time, I’d prefer to make my own choices there. I’m sure some people don’t think I should spend time debating with you, but I’m doing it anyway. I want to hear what CIT has to say, just as I’m willing to listen to those who oppose them. But I’m getting very close to establishing some rules on this site about unsubstantiated attacks. Calling people liars and cowards without specific examples doesn’t fly. Show me documentation of everything you’ve asserted in your email and I’ll listen.

  11. You certainly have seen evidence that they run from debate–you’ve seen my statement that they run from debate.
    Ranke fled from debate the first time I engaged him on an email list early in the summer of 2009. He fled from debate in August at OpEd news after I challenged him there. He fled from debate at 911Oz in the winter of 2009/2010. He fled from debate at a French blog. And he fled from debate at the artists’s zetaboard, shutting down the discussion and rescinding his invitation to a formal three-day structured debate. That’s five times “Nike” Ranke has fled from me like a rabbit.

    1. You’re quite funny. I have evidence that Ranke fled from debate because you say so? Very conclusive indeed.
      I don’t have first-hand knowledge of these alleged incidents, so I can’t address them. But really I don’t care. I think you’re preoccupation with Citizen Investigation Team is way out of proportion with any alleged harm they could cause to the movement. Every time one of your guys takes another shot at CIT, I become even more convinced that the criticism is not completely sincere. In fact, I become even more convinced that your aim is to foment dissension.
      I would very much like to know where you stand on the whole 9/11 issue. What elements of the official story to you oppose and which do you agree with. Get back to me on that.

  12. Craig, you stated flat out “there is no evidence”. When I pointed out that my statement was evidence you moved the goalposts to conclusive evidence.
    Ranke has fled from debate with me five times.
    First in July 2009 (I haven’t verified that his version of the emails he published over my objections are correct–since he “forgot” to include the denoument where he ran away hurling insults, his honesty is much in question).
    Later that summer at OpEd News:
    The following winter at 911Oz (various threads. This one will get you started)
    The French blog:
    He fled from this one too (terminated the discussion and rescinded his offer to debate in a three-day highly structured forum)
    Five times.
    It’s amusing that you accuse me of being preoccupied with CIT, when you have completely turned your blog over to that subject to the exclusion of all others in the last three weeks.
    I have spent dozens and maybe even hundreds of hours researching their claims, analyzing their arguments, and asking them questions that they refuse to answer.
    Pentagon flyover is about the kookiest theory this side of holographic plane pods. There is much evidence against it, there is no evidence of a flyaway plane (though there should have been dozens of witnesses) and there is no reason the perps would plan to fly the plane away. What purpose is served by flyover, except giving tennis-shoe investigators the chance to expose inside job?
    If you can’t see that evidence-free kookery is harmful to the movement, maybe you should write a manifesto claiming that it is and invite some general discussion of the issue instead of limiting it to the CIT issue. We’ve been having this debate for years. Big Tenters think any sort of lie and kookery is good as long as it gets the rubes into the carnival. Others feel that we need to preserve our credibility so we can cultivate academics, journalists, legislators, and experts.
    On 9/11 I’m with Dr. Robert Bowman, USAF Lt. Col. (ret.), who says “The truth about 9/11 is that we don’t know the truth about 9/11–and we should.”
    The official investigations have been shoddy, dishonest, incomplete, and they’re unbelievable. We need new investigations with subpoena power. The widows need their 273 questions answered. The 115 omissions and distortions identified in the 9/11 Commission Report by Dr. Griffin need to be addressed.

    1. I think your logic is delightfully comedic; I just hope it’s on purpose. I didn’t move the goalposts, I’d just like some indication beyond your word that they run from debates. Actually, to be really honest, I don’t care that much about this question. You and Craig Ranke have tangled on line and argued about debates; I’ll let the record speak to the question. I’m more interested in the substance.
      Saying that I’m preoccupied with CIT over the past three weeks is silly. I’ve been writing about how CIT has been the unfair subject of attack, and specifically how I feel about the Richard Gage statement and the Chandler/Cole statement. You’re the one who’s spent “hundreds” of hours studying their claims. You must have thought there was some substance there.
      The end of your comment is where we agree. A new investigation is needed. Our efforts should go in this direction. I’d like to see you spending your time pushing for this and not against CIT. If you don’t agree with CIT, fine. Their arguments will stand or fall on their own merits. Continually bashing them makes the whole movement look divided. Put your money where your mouth is.

      1. I see more unilateral misrepresentations and ‘Troll Talk’ repetition from “truebeleaguer” Good above.
        Brian Good fails to accept CIT debate challenge, but vows to continue attacks
        Original discussion w/alleged truther Brian Good, via email in June 2009
        Now that the reader can see both sides of the story (in addition to Good’s obsessive behavior so far right here on Mr. McKee’s blog), let’s all let the reader make up his/her own mind, shall we?

  13. Craig, if I have made errors in logic, please specify them. You DID move the goalposts. You said there was no evidence, and when I provided evidence you rejected it as inconclusive. Now you’re still claiming there’s “no indication beyond your word” (no evidence) even though I have provided links to five instances in which Nike Ranke fled from debate with me. And then you plead a lack of interest. You are sticking your neck out for these people–why then would you be uninterested in evidence that they flee from debates and refuse to answer questions and are thus unworthy of your support?
    I approached CIT with an open mind. I’d always been a Pentagon agnostic myself, never having examined the evidence very carefully, though I had observed that the ASCE BPAT report noted that the facade damage was too narrow to reflect the projected width of a 757’s wingspan. (It does, however, pretty well match the wingspan from a north-path impact.)
    For about ten minutes after I watched CIT’s NSA video I considered their material quite possibly substantive. Then I watched the video again and their argument fell apart. I saw how they engaged in hypnotic and tedious repetition of their north path, north path meme; then jumped to demonizing Lloyde England to “disprove” the official south path; and then jumped to Roosevelt Roberts’s completely nonsensical statements as if they supported the flyover–when they don’t. I saw that their claim that the north path witnesses proved flyover was a complete nonsequitur–as if I claimed that since I went to the bank, I must have paid my library fines.
    It’s not a question of merely disagreeing, and “dividing the movement”, Craig. CIT is still calling for aggressive action (Operation Accountability) which has the potential to alienate potential allies and to bring the truth movement an ugly image. CIT has never apologized for its egregious ethical violations. Honest researchers answer questions and respond to rational and civil criticism. In the professional world, “live and let live” is destructive to the profession. Tolerance for con artists and incompetents hurts the profession. The movement should be divided: Liars like CIT and bigots and liars like Barrett should be isolated and repudiated.

    1. Your unsourced, unsupported “liars and bigots and liars” is an ad hominem LOGICAL FALLACY, Brian.
      “Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent’s personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent’s arguments or assertions.”
      Unless you can conclusively PROVE or DEMONSTRATE that another subject of your unhealthy (IMHO) obsessions, Kevin Barrett, is actually a member of Citizen Investigation Team, then you are making a ‘broad brush’ guilt by association (GBA) LOGICAL FALLACY, Brian.
      “An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.”
      There’s 2 errors in Brian “truebeleaguer’s” ‘logic’ without me looking or thinking very hard- frankly that’s like ‘shooting fish in a barrel’ and is too tedious for me to spend much more of my time on much more of his ‘TrollTalk,’ but BG DID ask specifically “…if I have made errors in logic, please specify them.”
      So there you go, “Good.” I think it will SOON be time for ‘good’ little trolls to crawl back under the bridge where they belong…

  14. I see that mrboz has nothing to say either in support of CIT’s points or in defense of their discrediting work. Instead he wants to talk about Brian Good. He acts exactly like a Bushbot trying to cover up the crimes of GW Bush. Hey mrboz, the OP is about Gage and CIT. Not about me.
    If you truly believe I have misrepresented anything, then kindly identify the issue. Nike Ranke has fled from debate with me five times–six, if you count the time he rescinded the offer for the formal three-day debate.

    1. This comment is way off base. You are open to criticism just like anyone else. And since you’re willing to engage in personal attacks against others, so you should be willing to take it as well.

      1. Craig, I am not going around selling a DVD full of nonsense and asking people to go and try to intimidate public officials and journalists into promoting it. I do not lie. I do not not make movies accusing people who have invited me into their homes of being government agents. I do not make movies starring myself. I have not sought attention. I am not trying to get on TV or to become a truth movement spokesman. I am not worth criticising. The nature of the ad hominem attack is to change the subject from something that is worth dicussing (like the crimes of GW Bush) to something that is not worth discussing (invented sins of Brian Good).

        1. I can assure you that an interviewee does NOT get better treatment because they “invite you into their home.” They should be treated fairly regardless of where the interview takes place. The film never accused Lloyde England of being government agent. National Security Alert (and the more in-depth look at England, Eye of the Storm) does an excellent job of pulling England’s totally incredible story apart. This is what they should have done. I don’t know whether Mr. England is a government agent or not. I do very strongly believe, however, that he has not been truthful about what he saw and did. I don’t care if he’s a nice man; I don’t care if he is hospitable; I don’t care if he is a senior citizen. I care about understanding what happened at the Pentagon. England’s story is not believable, and NSA shows that.

      2. BG-bot asks us SPECIFICALLY to ‘point out his errors in logic’ and when I do so, he pisses and moans that I am making “ad hominem personal attacks” against him when I point out the FLAWS in HIS ‘LOGIC’ just as I WAS CHALLENGED BY HIM to do.
        Just like his ‘injection’ here of the chronically-inept and corrupt ex-President George W. Bush (#43?) into this discussion (yet a 3rd flavor of LOGICAL FALLACY from the “Good”-bot):
        “Red herring is an idiomatic expression referring to the rhetorical or literary tactic of diverting attention away from an item of significance.[1] For example, in mystery fiction, where the identity of a criminal is being sought, an innocent party may be purposefully cast in a guilty light by the author through the employment of false emphasis, deceptive clues, ‘loaded’ words or other descriptive tricks of the trade. The reader’s suspicions are thus misdirected, allowing the true culprit to go (temporarily at least) undetected. A false protagonist is another example of a red herring.
        In a literal sense, there is no such fish species as a “red herring”; rather it refers to a particularly strong kipper, meaning a fish—typically a herring but not always—that has been strongly cured in brine and/or heavily smoked. This process makes the fish particularly pungent smelling and, with a strong enough brine, turns its flesh reddish.”
        I DO NOT give a RAT’s ASS about someone who ceased to be President 2+ years ago, as it has NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER to Richard Gage nor the 2 guys who make up Citizen Investigation Team or their research.
        Yet again though, enjoy ‘TrollTalk’ with your ‘special’ guest, Brian “truebeleaguer” Good… :rolleyes:

  15. mrboz, you clearly don’t know what an ad hominem attack is. An ad hominem is when you (that’s YOU, mrboz) changes the subject to an attack on the messenger. When I say “CIT’s flyover theory is irrational and has no evidence to support it” and your response is “Brian Good is a doo doo head” that is an ad hominem attack.
    When Craig McKee says “CIT’s work does not discredit the movement” and I respond with “CIT is irrational, unethical, belligerent, they lie, they won’t answer questions, and they’re cowards who flee from debate” that is not an ad hominem. That addresses the issue under discussion and does not change the subject. If I were to attack McKee’s character, that would be an ad hominem. I hope that clears the matter up for you.
    I never said Kevin Barrett was a member of CIT, and I notice that CIT has not included his endorsement on their list of famous endorsers. The matter under discussion was “dividing the movement” and I referenced Barrett as another element that should be ejected. CIT, Barrett, the pod-planers, no-planers, video-fakers, and Jews-did-it nuts should be repudiated. The movement should be divided.
    Now that we’ve cleared that up, mrboz, would you care to provide an example of an actual logical fallacy on my part?

    1. Saying you want to divide the movement does you no credit. I can make my own judgment about video fakery and other controversial elements. And the mainstream media isn’t looking at the evidence being offered by the movement anyway, so the chances that less known beliefs will bring the movement down are just not credible.
      And calling people liars and cowards is hardly constructive or respectful.

  16. Craig, clearly for you the movement is all in your head. It’s all about what you think, your evaluations of what’s credible and not credible, and your freedom to make up your own mind. That’s fine.
    In the real world, in public and in the media, perception is all. And the news media, when they bother to cover us at all, tend to seize on to the kookiest statements they can find from the kookiest truthers they can find. That’s why they feature liars like Barrett, fantasists like Fetzer, no-planers like Reynolds–because the kook story is entertaining. The only way we can change our image in the media so that people perceive us as credible is to present ourselves as thoughtful, mature, well-reasoned, idealistically-motivated individuals–and to reject, disavow, and repudiate the kooks.
    When the truth movement marches in the peace march we don’t let some guy join us with a sign that says “The JooS Did It!” Have you seen those charming swastika S’s?
    Would you let that guy in your parade? The only way to fight back against people who are deliberately trying to make us look bad is to demand that people who make us look bad stop it. And when over a period of months and years they refuse to stop making us look bad, we have to divide the movement and make clear that they are not with us.
    Calling people liars when they persistently repeatedly lie is constructive. It puts forth the expectation that they will improve their behavior. Calling people cowards is not unconstructive when they repeatedly refuse to answer questions, instead responding with well practiced obfuscatory trechniques like 1) the ad hominem, 2) the “already answered that” ploy, 3) the answer is in this Big Fat Book and I’m not going to tell you where 4) changing the subject 5) running away 6 ) lying.
    Calling them cowards when they refuse to represent the 9/11 Truth movement in a responsible, reasonable, rational, accountable, responsive way puts forth the expectation that they will change their behavior.

    1. Imagine, using one’s brain to assess evidence. I will not dignify your suggestion that I only rely on my thoughts and not on evidence to arrive at a belief. I bring something to the debate that you seem to lack: an open mind and a willingness to explore different kinds of ideas. I have serious questions about the video evidence. Does that make me a kook? Why? Because tampering with video would be hard to do? You reject it based on what proof exactly?
      And I’m sorry, but the 9/11 Truth movement is not a parade. It is private citizens trying to advance the understanding of a subject in a way that official agencies can’t or won’t. To expect unanimity is unrealistic and undesirable.
      You point to “kooky” theories like pods on planes. You don’t find that credible so you reject it. I’m inclined to reject it too. You don’t have proof, but you think the evidence points elsewhere. Fine. But there is evidence that undermines England’s account. The witnesses interviewed in National Security Alert were all sure of the north flight path. That path is inconsistent with the poles being knocked down. No witness saw the pole penetrate the windshield of the cab. No one saw the silent mystery man in the white van who stopped to help pull the huge pole out of the car without any damage being done to the hood. Where is the proof that his story is true?
      There is nothing mature or thoughtful about calling Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis names. You make the movement look ridiculous. If you’re sincere, stop doing this! Stick to the facts and leave the attacks aside. I challenge you to do this. If you don’t, I will use my mind to figure out that you don’t want the truth.

      1. Craig, you misunderstand. I did not suggest that you do not rely on evidence. I was saying you seem primarily interested in developing your own opinion, and show little interest in the public perception of the movement.
        I have an open mind. I remained agnostic about the flyover theory for years until in 2009 I investigated it and found it to be full of holes, and found that when I asked CIT questions they ran away instead of answering. Honest researchers answer questions. CIT behave more like scamming driveway sealers.
        You have questions about the video evidence of what? The towers? Is there any reason to doubt that two 767s hit them? Is there any profit in promoting the idea to the public even if there were?
        There is no proof that Lloyde’s story is true and, as I said, it’s very possible that he simply broke his own windshield to make a story to try to get on TV. On the other hand, the damage to the interior of the car seems to me to be entirely consistent with penetration by a 200-pound light pole. There is no proof that Lloyde’s story is not true. As I pointed out, by the magic trick of distraction, making LLoyde’s story the proxy for the cloverleaf flight path, CIT is able to make you forget entirely the FACT of the impossibility of planting poles 3, 4, and 5 without detection.
        I’m not calling Ranke and Aldo names. A liar is someone who lies. Ranke lies. Repeatedly, blatantly. That’s not name-calling, that’s a simple technical observation. I stick to the facts. Ranke is a liar.

        1. My blog is indeed my own opinion. I treat it like an op-ed column: personal analysis and conclusions. You’re mistaken that I’m not interested in the public perception of the movement; I just don’t agree with you about what harms it. And I suspect that this panic about the movement being ridiculed in the media is contrived. Jesse Ventura mentioned flyover in his Pentagon Conspiracy Theory program, and the sky didn’t fall. In fact, a newcomer to the subject would likely have been encouraged by the show to learn more.
          Planting the poles wouldn’t have been impossible; I don’t even think it would have been hard. Who’s going to notice this with planes and explosions all over the place. Forget the plane, look at that pole on the grass!
          On my comment about video evidence: I will write more about this in the future so I’ll refrain from going into it further now. I don’t want to bring the whole Truth movement crashing down by saying the wrong thing.
          And finally, if you want to call anyone a liar, then you have to back it up succinctly. I will soon begin editing things out of comments if they’re just attacks with no supporting information. You’re the big “proof” guy, after all.

  17. Craig, your argument that Ventura is good because he piques curiosity is a staple of the “Big Tent” group. Kevin Barrett is a practitioner of this tactic. He will say provocative things that are not true (such as telling Russia Today that 36% of the American people believe 9/11 was an inside job and that Larry Silverstein got $20 billion in profits from the destruction of the WTC) and justify it by claiming it gets people’s attention.
    The problem with this tactic is that when the curious then go to their friends saying Larry Silverstein got $20 billion, their friends tell them “You’re nuts! How did he do that when the insurance payout was $6 billion?” Our curious people then conclude that the truth movement is a bunch of liars, and go around telling people “I used to be a truther, but I quit because they’re FOS.” Does that help us?
    You obviously have not thought the light pole thing through–and the reason you haven’t is because Ranke and Marquis have distracted you with Lloyde’s story. They want you to conclude: “Lloyde’s story is impossible and therefore the light poles were planted”. That is classic sleight-of-hand. Are you claiming that 1) while all the fireworks were going on at the Pentagon, the existing poles were removed and the broken ones placed or 2) claiming, as CIT does, that this op was done before dawn? Have you missed the fact that during op 1 a highway full of drivers was looking across the cloverleaf to the Pentagon, and that op 2 leaves the broken poles lying in the short grass in the cloverleaf through the 8:00 and 9:00 rush hours?
    Ranke lies. He lied at OpEd News when he claimed in comments that 757s use DCA runway 15 24/7. (8/29 post at 2:22 AM “Yes 757 and 737’s are regularly landing or departing from runway 15 every day of the year 24 hours a day.”)
    He lied there when he claimed that the northside witnesses have no motive to lie. Sgt Lagasse expressed irritation with the truth movement in an email in 2003: “I swear to god you people piss me off to no end.”
    Ranke lied at abovetopsecret when he claimed that Terry Morin is a northside witness.
    If you look at an aerial photo you see that Morin’s line of sight is entirely south of the Citgo. He’s a southside witness.
    Ranke lied when he published our initial email exchange (over my objections) without the ending, where I’d asked him questions he couldn’t answer and he ran away.
    (And note I have not checked his versions of the emails, so I don’t know if they might have been altered.)
    Ranke’s responses to points 2 and 3 in my “10 Holes in CIT’s Story” article at 911Oz contained 9 lies in 12 sentences! I’ll provide details on that some other time.

  18. Craig,
    I enjoyed your article and I agree with your assessment of Richard Gage’s retraction of support. This is particularly unpleasant for me because I am friends with Richard and have met him personally and interviewed him. interestingly Brian Good was present the day I interviewed Richard although he and I did not talk much at the time. Since I have become a CIT supporter however Brian has argued against me and them relentlessly. I have found his argument against me which I addressed and debunked quite a while ago to be the same ones he is again using with you. Namely the claim that Craig Ranke has run away from debates with him. This is a false claim and the very fact that Brian keeps repeating the same false claim over and over that has been addressed multiple times makes me, like you, VERY suspicious of his true motives. I know that when I am proven wrong about something I stop making that argument. Trolls and COINTELPRO however do not change their behavior once proven wrong because their motive is not to find truth but rather to disrupt the truth movement. In fact I will state it plainly for the record that I believe a genuine COINTELPRO operation is active in the bay area of California and Brian Good may be part of it. Consider the anti CIT players who all live in the bay area: Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley, Cosmos, Chris Sarns, Brian Good, and who knows how many more? I do not have proof any of these people are COINTELPRO however the cabal of attackers do seem to be based in the bay area and all seem to exibit the same behavior patterns of genuine operatives. You know what else is based in the bay area? A very large fusion center, a psyops military unit, and just about every intel agency we have. The bay area is ripe for this type of thing and unfortunately Richard Gage because of his stellar work on the WTC demolitions is a prime target for COINTELPRO. In fact he would be THE prime target initially but now shares that “honor” with CIT in my opinion.
    FTR: Here is my argument with Brian Good (punxitawneybarney) where I post as (centrino105).
    Brian showed up on my video interview with Craig Ranke and as you can see by reviewing his statement there he is repeating those same statements and tactics here on your forum.

    1. Thanks, Adam. I look forward to watching that. I wasn’t aware of the Bay area connection between these CIT-obsessed people. Very interesting. I am also convinced that the motives of these people are questionable because the attacks are out of proportion with any objections that a reasonable person might have to CIT’s conclusions. I would respect honest disagreement with these conclusions, but I think we’re dealing with something else here.
      I can imagine your disappointment with Richard Gage’s statement. I believe he’s wrong, but I’m also inclined to think that he has been misled and is not trying to cause problems in the movement the way others seem to be.

    2. Adam, Nike Ranke has fled from debate with me five times, as I showed in my 2/27 2:43 above. Your spook-baiting is not appropriate, nor intelligent. Whenever Ranke wants to address the issues in the “10 Holes in CIT’s Story” thread from last winter (particularly the light poles issues, #2 and #3, about which his response lied 9 times in 12 sentences) I will be interested to hear what he has to say.

      1. Brian,
        Craig Ranke has addressed all of your questions many times over and so have I. To put it as plainly as possible Brian I don’t think you are debating in good faith (no pun intended). Like I said when a reasonable person is shown to be wrong they do not continue to promote the bogus information, you do. My argument with you is finished, I did it once on my video linked above. To argue the same points again is a waste of my time which I am suspicious is your real motive for what you are doing. Finally Brian I will repost a comment I made at the pilots forum which illustrates my position on CIT and why yours has no merit whatsoever.
        “A NOC approach disallows impact with the pentagon because in order to clear the obstacles along that approach path the plane MUST either:
        1. Come in at a high angle in a steep dive and execute a very high G nearly instantaneous pull up prior to the facade and avoid damaging the foundation, which is totally inconsistent with eye witness reports and also aerodynamically impossible, in my opinion, even at lowest possible speeds. I will defer to the Pilots here if they think that I am wrong on that point. In my opinion there simply is not enough room or time to pull up no matter how you slice it in this scenario. This scenario has the added problem of totally contradicting the NOC witnesses who did NOT report the plane to be that high up or in a steep dive or to have pulled up violently just prior to impact. This scenario can therefore be ruled out.
        2. Come in at a shallow downward angle consistent with eye witness reports, execute a violent and nearly instantaneous decent and high G pull up (in less then 1 second) just after clearing the obstacles and strike low and level without damaging the pentagon foundation. This scenario is totally impossible aerodynamically, in my opinion, however it does conflict less then scenario #1 does with the eye witness accounts of the planes behavior prior to reaching the obstacles. The fact that this scenario is aerodynamically impossible rules it out as viable.
        Very simply put CIT is correct when they say that NOC proves the plane did not strike the pentagon. Flyover is the only remaining logical conclusion. Game, set, match, the argument is over regardless of how many people realize it or not.
        On a personal note I can tell you that LaBtop’s scenario of a possible NOC impact much like Chris Sarns NOC impact scenario is NOT in fact “possible” at all and can be logically ruled out. Unless LaBtop or Sarns can prove that either scenario #1 or #2 described above are physically possible, their NOC impact theories must be rejected as both aerodynamically impossible and as totally inconsistent with the eye witness reports. In my view they MUST show that this logic and conclusion is incorrect before any of us entertain any further discussion of their NOC impact theories. Their scenarios have been debunked and therefore the burden of proof now falls on them to counter those arguments. We do not need to counter theirs any further unless and until they can show our arguments to be in error.”

  19. Adam 3/2 5:14,
    Ranke may have “addressed” my points and have “responded to” my points but he has not refuted them or answered them. He responds with evasions, lies, distractions, and obfuscations. In addressing points 2 and 3 of the “10 Holes in CIT’s Story” he lied 9 times in 12 sentences!
    I don’t understand why you think it is necessary for the plane to pull up as it hits the building. Didn’t the fuselage hit at the second floor level? Wouldn’t it then expend energy in breaking through the floor? I give you points for at least trying to address the NoC impact theory, which neither Balsamo nor Ranke has ever done, to my knowledge.
    Where do you get the idea that a NoC impact is aerodynamically impossible? Is this all based on your belief that a pullup is necessary? Just suppose there was a NoC impact and the engines scarred the floor slabs. Don’t you think those incriminating scars would have been given a quick cosmetic repair? When was the picture taken of the floor slabs? After the cleanup, right? With all the faked evidence you claim, what’s a bit of floor slab cleanup?
    There is not one witness to a Pentagon flyaway, the CIT’s refusal to go out and look for any is damning. They don’t want the truth. They got what they wanted and they’re done looking.

    1. Brian,
      Please link me directly to the evidence that Craig Ranke lies 9 times in 12 sentences and explain how and why they are each lies because to be blunt I do not believe a single claim you make about Craig Ranke. I think you are either:
      1. Lying about Craig because of a personal agenda to discredit him.
      2. Radically distorting what he actually said because of a severe personal bias.
      3. You totally misunderstand what he is saying because of your lack of familiarity with the evidence he is talking about.
      4. You are correct and he did actually lie 9 times in 12 sentences.
      In order to go with option 4 I need evidence shown to me. Not your opinion Brian but real evidence of provable lies comming out of his mouth. Fail to provide the evidence to back up your claim and I go with option 1 that you are a troll or a paid operative.
      You ask:
      Q. “Where do you get the idea that a NoC impact is aerodynamically impossible?”
      A. From studying the topography and obsticles along the NOC path and applying simple deductive reasoning.
      Conclusion #1: Since no NOC obsticles were knocked down the plane did not hit any obsticles and therefore must have flown over them.
      Conclusion #2: The distance between the NOC obsticles and the pentagon facade is less then 300 ft which is far too short a distance for the plane to maneuver as necessary to strike the 1st floor unless it was in a very steep dive which directly conflicts with the eye witness accounts of the plane comming in low just over the tree tops.
      Conclusion #3: The lack of foundation damage is illustrated in photographs which unless you can show are faked proves the plane did not strike the foundation meaning it had to pull up prior to impact.
      Q. Brian do you have any proof whatsoever the photographs of the foundation are faked? If so produce it or stop making the unsupported claim.
      Conclusion #4: In the limited space and very short span of time the plane would have had from the last NOC obsticle to the facade it is aerodynamically impossible for the plane to have dropped to the first floor level and pulled up to avoid smashing the foundation to bits.
      Conclusion #5: A NOC impact scenario is not physically possible. Like I said.
      Finally Brian the total lack of identifiable aircraft parts that can be traced directly to flight 77 is a MASSIVE RED FLAG indication that flight 77 did not strike the pentagon. That point cannot be overstated. Plane wrecks leave wreckage WITH SERIAL NUMBERS Brian.
      Bottom line: you have no physical evidence whatsoever that flight 77 hit the pentagon. All you have is a few photographs of small pieces of debris (small enough to be planted by a single person BTW) purported to be from flight 77. No serial numbers, NO ENGINES, no nothing! MY God man if that doesn’t raise your BS alarm then there is something seriously wrong.

  20. Adam, I am too busy right now to detail the 9 lies in 12 sentences. I have done it elsewhere on the net.
    In the meantime, here are some other of Ranke’s lies you can chew on:
    Ranke lied at OpEd News when he claimed in comments that 757s use DCA runway 15 24/7. (8/29 post at 2:22 AM “Yes 757 and 737′s are regularly landing or departing from runway 15 every day of the year 24 hours a day.”)
    He lied there when he claimed that the northside witnesses have no motive to lie. Sgt Lagasse expressed irritation with the truth movement in an email in 2003: “I swear to god you people piss me off to no end.”
    Ranke lied at abovetopsecret when he claimed that Terry Morin is a northside witness.
    If you look at an aerial photo you see that Morin’s line of sight is entirely south of the Citgo. He’s a southside witness.
    Ranke lied when he published our initial email exchange (over my objections) without the ending, where I’d asked him questions he couldn’t answer and he ran away. (And note I have not checked his versions of the emails, so I don’t know if they might have been altered.)
    I know more about CIT’s evidence than most CIT supporters do. I have invested dozens, and probably hundreds of hours in researching and discussing CIT’s claims. After I provided Rob Balsamo with a list of two dozen questions at 911Oz, he bragged as if putting me on ignore was something to be proud of. He ran away and never answered the questions.
    I have no need to lie about Ranke to discredit him. His lies, his irrationality, his belligerence, and his despicable ethics discredit him.
    Ranke’s lies are on the internet, not from his mouth.
    So let’s see, the plane flies over a 30 foot light pole and in 300 feet strikes a wall at the second story level (not first) maybe 20 feet above the ground. So it drops 25 feet in 300 feet. According to you that’s a “steep dive”? And it’s aerodynamically impossible how?
    You didn’t answer my question about why the pullup is necessary.
    And you seem to be exercising a double standard here. You claim the light poles were faked, the generator damage was faked, the hole in the wall was faked, the plane wreckage was faked, the damage inside the building was faked–and you provide not a shred of proof.
    But the very practical possibility that gouges in the slab were repaired unthinkable unless I provide proof?
    Your apparent belief that because serial numbers have not been provided therefore they can not be provided is not logical. As Cole and Chandler pointed out, the Pentagon is reserving their privacy rights.
    Your claim that there’s “no physical evidence whatsoever that flight 77 hit the pentagon” shows that you’ve been hanging out with lunatics too long. There’s a hole in the wall. There’s damage. People are dead. There’s plane wreckage all over the place. There’s Sgt. Mark Williams who says he saw passenger bodies strapped in seats. Yes, the evidence could have been faked. But fake evidence is not no evidence. Until you prove it’s fake, the best you can claim is that it’s controversial evidence. Get real. If CIT was serious about their investigation, they would interview the workers who cleaned up the Pentagon. They would interview the ones who picked up the burnt bodies. They would call Sgt. Williams a liar to his face.
    There is an engine rotor, everybody knows. My BS alarm is definitely raised by your claims of no wreckage.
    Take your schtick out on the street on a table. Sell the DVD. See what people say. They’re gonna call you a lunatic.
    My work in exposing Ranke’s nonsense is because this flyover fantasy makes the truth movement look kooky. Imagine if I claimed the 767s flew past the WTC, not in, and that proves inside job. Loony, right? What purpose would a fly-by serve?
    What possible purpose was served by flying the plane over the Pentagon?

    1. “What possible purpose was served by flying the plane over the Pentagon?”~Brian Good
      What possible purpose would any type of faint be in any action?
      This has got to be one of the most idiotic question/statements I have yet seen in these types of debates.
      The OBVIOUS purpose was to make it seem it was what hit the Pentagon ala “offical story”…you know, “19 Arabs with boxcutters, yada yada yada…”
      Guys like you and Albury Smith fill up forums like this with countless recitals of rectal matter just to muddy the waters.
      To say you are shills is redundant…it is right in your face obvious once your MO is discovered.

  21. Come to think of it, if they didn’t care about risking hitting the light poles, the plane could have come in over the poles at 35 feet. So since when is dropping 15 feet in 300 feet a “steep dive”?

  22. Brian I am not going to play your damn games. You made the claim that Craig Ranke lied 9 times in 12 sentences. So prove it. I am thinking option 1 above is the case with you Brian. When pressed to back up your accusations you make excuses and then try to change the subject. I am not going to jump through ANY of your hoops Brian. You made the accusation and now refuse to back it up with evidence. Until I see that evidence I am sticking with option 1 that you are a troll or paid operative and I am going to treat you as such.
    As to your pathetic attempt to suggest a plane could still drop down and strike from a NOC approach try again buddy there are several logical errors in your fantasy scenario right off the bat. First: The bottom of the aircrafy has to clear the top of the obsticle so after clearing it has to drop a lot further then your 15 ft figure you pulled out of your rear end. Secondly the entire plane from nose to tail has to clear the obsticles which means that the nose of the plane is less then 200 ft from the facade by the time the rear end clears. Really Brian your grasping at straws and it really is pathetic that you are so obsessed with trying to ram flight 77 into that puny hole at any cost and no matter how obviously impossible it is. I can’t believe you are a truther at all Brian in fact I don’t think you give a crap about what the truth is.
    Anyway until you back up your accusations I am not even going to speak to you again. I really don’t like you and the other CIT attackers at all, especially Chris Sarns and Cosmos, I really think you are dispicable people for slinging all this garbage at people any real truther would be thanking and supporting.

    1. Brian,
      Perhaps you have not seen my comment attached to my current post. I’ll repeat it here:
      “I’m becoming increasingly tired of reading about Craig Ranke and others “lying” about everything under the sun. I’m not big on censorship, but I will start refusing to publish things that I believe are just attacks and not intended to be constructive.
      If any person commenting feels someone has said something that is false, I invite them to point out how. But the word liar should be reserved for someone who is intentionally telling falsehoods. The key word there is intentionally. If you can’t demonstrate that it’s intentional, then use a different word. Thank you.”
      I stand by this. You say Ranke is lying because he says the Pentagon would have total control of the scene. Why can’t you just disagree with him? Why is it a lie? If you can’t back up such a claim – or if you’re too busy – then don’t make the claim. I’m letting it go this last time, but no more. And Bush was scheduled to arrive at the Pentagon that day, so the security measures being taken for him could easily have hidden the fact that the poles had been placed.
      Actually, the link you provide to Ranke’s response to you makes him sound quite reasonable. I didn’t do you any good, I assure you.

  23. Adam, since I am several months behind in my 9/11 work, I’m not “making excuses” or “playing games”. One must prioritize. How about you try to refute what I already showed about Ranke’s other lies–Runway 15, northside witnesses’ motives to lie, Terry Morin, and misrepresenting our email exchange? Ranke is a liar.
    I didn’t ask you to jump through any hoops. Yes, the bottoms of the wings have to clear the light poles–by 3 inches. Since the wings have dihedral and the engines can be ignored this puts the nose of the plane at the same level as the light poles, the bottom of the fuselage about five feet below that, and the bottom of the engines three feet below that. The plane can clear 30′ light poles with a ground clearance of 22 feet.
    You said the plane had to make a “very steep dive”. That’s not true. It can clear the light poles with a nose altitude of 30 feet, then hit the Pentagon witb a nose altitude of 20 feet. A ten foot drop on 300 feet is not a “very steep dive”.
    Here is Ranke’s reply to Hole #2 and Hole #3 that I pointed out in CIT’s story:
    #2. “They can’t explain why such a risky operation as stealing light poles and planting broken ones would be undertaken”
    Ranke: How could planting a few light poles in the suspect’s own backyard where they literally have complete control of the scene be considered “risky” within an operation that involves the covert controlled demolition of 3 massive high rises in downtown Manhattan on live TV?
    The fact is it is not our responsibility to explain this either way since it has no bearing on the evidence proving the plane was on the north side of the gas station and therefore did not cause the physical damage. To suggest otherwise is a logical fallacy. Faulty logic does not refute evidence.
    #3. “They can’t explain how the lightpole 3, 4, and 5 were stolen and planted without detection”
    We never claimed they were “stolen and planted without detection” nor do they need to have been. It would not matter if someone saw a light pole on the side of the road before the attack. They most likely would never remember it and put it together with the attack since the light poles were virtually ignored that day during all the chaos, and in all subsequent reports. But even if someone did see a pole on the ground before the attack, and later associate it with a false flag black op, and then called the authorities to report this it would not matter. Our full hypothesis for how the light poles could have been planted is on our FAQ page here:
    But once again, it is not our responsibility to explain this anyway since it has no bearing on the evidence proving the plane was on the north side of the gas station and therefore did not cause the physical damage. To suggest otherwise is a logical fallacy. Faulty logic does not refute evidence.
    Ranke’s first sentence contains the lie that “they literally have complete control of the scene”. The cloverleaf was a public highway accessible to anyone. The Pentagon did not have complete control. By responding to the charge that planting the light pole was risky with the rhetorical question “How could planting a few light poles … be considered ‘risky'” they are denying that it was risky. That too is a lie. The risk of detection was impossibly high.
    If the light poles were planted in the dark at night as CIT suggests, then six piece of broken light pole would be sitting there in the short grass through the 8:00 rush hour and the 9:00 rush hour visible to three traffic streams: people exiting highway 27, people entering highway 27 from the Pentagon, and people driving west toward Columbia Pike. You might as well blow up the WTC at 5:30 in the morning and wait for the plane to strike at 8:46!
    That’s two lies in the first sentence. You think I can’t show 7 more in 11 sentences?

    1. Brian,
      Perhaps you have not seen my comment attached to my current post. I’ll repeat it here:
      “I’m becoming increasingly tired of reading about Craig Ranke and others “lying” about everything under the sun. I’m not big on censorship, but I will start refusing to publish things that I believe are just attacks and not intended to be constructive.
      If any person commenting feels someone has said something that is false, I invite them to point out how. But the word liar should be reserved for someone who is intentionally telling falsehoods. The key word there is intentionally. If you can’t demonstrate that it’s intentional, then use a different word. Thank you.”
      I stand by this. You say Ranke is lying because he says the Pentagon would have total control of the scene. Why can’t you just disagree with him? Why is it a lie? If you can’t back up such a claim – or if you’re too busy – then don’t make the claim. I’m letting it go this last time, but no more. And Bush was scheduled to arrive at the Pentagon that day, so the security measures being taken for him could easily have hidden the fact that the poles had been placed.
      Actually, the link you provide to Ranke’s response to you makes him sound quite reasonable. I didn’t do you any good, I assure you.

  24. Craig, that CIT continues to assert untruths after they’ve been shown to be wrong demonstrates that they intentionally assert untruths.
    They seek to create a shadow world where there are no facts, only opinions, and one opinion is equal to another. That’s a world of sloppy logic.
    Ranke’s claim that “they literally have complete control of the scene” is not a viable opinion when the scene was a public cloverleaf during rush hour.
    Ranke appearing reasonable is not the issue. It’s a 9/11 Truth movement, not a “9/11 Wacky Ideas Which, Even if Untrue, Can Not be Shown to Be Intentionally Untrue Movement”.

    1. I’m sorry but you are not correct about everything you don’t agree with being a lie. People can debate facts without one of them being a liar. I’m really tired of hearing that word. I’ve been called a liar numerous times by anti-CIT thugs on I’m convinced that they have no interest in a real debate, they want to attack anyone relentlessly who doesn’t agree with them. They only make themselves look like fools. Unfortunately, though, they don’t care because they’re trying to screw up the movement.
      It is very arrogant of anyone to believe that can read other people’s minds. It’s very hard to read the hate on that forum and then listen to attacks on CIT for being divisive liars. Read the hate from SnowCrash on 911oz and then come back and tell me that it’s Craig Ranke or Aldo Marquis who is divisive. I assume that in all good conscience you won’t be able to.
      And of all the unbelievable things that are supposed to have happened on 9/11, the placing of a few poles on the grass doesn’t even make the top 100. I think it could easily have been done.

  25. Brian Good is on dangerous ground when he accuses anybody of lying – he accuses Craig Ranke of running from debate with him when Craig offered him an audio debate which Brian himself ran from. Thus Brian is “lying”. You would think that if Brian really wanted to pin Craig down, he would have accepted a real debate rather than clog up blogs all over the internet with his ranting. Or maybe Brian realised that away from text debate, he would be exposed for the illogical, “believe anything is possible” idiot that he actually is.

  26. Craig, I never said everything I don’t agree with is a lie. And nobody is claiming that planting a few poles in the grass is impossible.
    What’s impossible is to plant to poles in the dark, and leave six pieces of broken light pole there in the short grass in the cloverleaf through two rush hours where they would be visible to traffic leaving 27, entering 27, and driving west on Columbia Pike, and having nobody notice.

    1. I think the point is that no one would think anything about a couple of poles on the grass, particularly if they’re focused on a huge explosion (or explosions) in the Pentagon. Sometimes the best place to hide things is in plain sight. To think that this couldn’t be arranged because the U.S. government doesn’t have control of the area doesn’t seem believable to me.
      And who would be listened to if they later said, “I’m sure I saw one of those poles already on the grass.” If firefighters hearing massive explosions in the WTC basements doesn’t make the mainstream media, then how would this?

  27. KP 3/6 9:09 I don’t accuse people of lying unless I can prove it. Ranke ran from debate with me five times, as the record clearly shows. I did not run from an audio debate. I refused to engage in it, because audio debates give the advantage to fast-talking bullshitters. I really wanted to pin Ranke down, which is why I wanted time to promote the formal text debate beforehand. Ranke seemed to want to conduct this thing furtively, without time for promotion. He withdrew the challenge.
    Craig 3/6, 11:35. It’s not “a couple of pieces”, it’s three broken light poles–90 feet of aluminum pole in six pieces. You think nobody would notice? I would notice! I’d say “What’s with all these light poles?” CIT thinks all the witnesses are stupid, and all the perps are stupid, and only those in the CIT cult have any smarts at all.
    Who would have listened? CIT would have listened. Pentagon researchers would have listened. But why do you present it as a hypothetical? If the light poles were planted before dawn, then people surely noticed them. How come nobody comes forward?

    1. Okay, you’ve made your point about the debates. Craig Ranke clearly denies your claim. It’s time to leave this point aside. Frankly, I don’t care that much about this. And when it involves people being accused of being liars, I have little patience. It links you with people like SnowCrash and jim3100 whether you are connected or not. It sounds like you guys have a co-ordinated campaign to discredit through this accusation. If not, then please stop claiming that others are lying.

  28. “KP 3/6 9:09 I don’t accuse people of lying unless I can prove it. Ranke ran from debate with me five times, as the record clearly shows. I did not run from an audio debate. I refused to engage in it, because audio debates give the advantage to fast-talking bullshitters. I really wanted to pin Ranke down, which is why I wanted time to promote the formal text debate beforehand. Ranke seemed to want to conduct this thing furtively, without time for promotion. He withdrew the challenge. ”
    Brian, you are confusing your opinion with facts as you always do. You have admitted you ran from an audio debate – let’s leave it at that shall we as your opinions don’t matter.
    You also ran from a text debate and I can prove that as you well know. A real text debate, moderated. You cannot surely believe that a text debate requires promotion? It will be there forever, you could have promoted it all you wanted afterwards.
    Now I have stated these simple facts to show who was the runner in the Good/Ranke saga I will go back to ignoring you Brian as everyone does eventually.

    1. Don’t forget this part KP- Good’s BIZARRE ‘pre-debate’ list of demands from back on Mar 15 2010 (AS IF Craig Ranke and Paul T. were somehow ‘obligated’ to ‘atone’ for BRIAN’S OWN OBSESSIVE, ASININE BEHAVIOR getting him banned at all those places and to pander for Brian’s ‘narcissistic supply’ and ‘attention whoring’):
      Paul: “Craig and Mr. Good, thank you both very much for your strong efforts here. I’m not able to go much further with this. As I stated at the beginning of this effort
      it’s beyond my capacity to moderate a conversation like this here due to time constraints. To me, the challenge was accepted here with this statement:
      We should have started organizing it then. Mr. Good, what you are asking for here:
      [BG:] “I want this debate promoted at 911blogger, truthaction, truthmove,, 911oz, the sf911truth googlegroup, the democraticunderground 911 forum, the LooseChange forum, and the ScrewLooseChange forum before we have it. I also want my status at 911oz to be upgraded so I am no longer consigned to the “fighting pit” and I want to be unbanned at 911blogger and the sf911truth googlegroup.”
      [Paul again] is far beyond my capacity to organize. It’s possible that I may be able to promote the fight a bit, but I can’t promise that.
      I’ll give you both an opportunity tonight to either finally agree to a match and we can start setting it up, or to finish up your business on this thread.”
      Of course, we have all seen Brian’s bizarre, obsessive behavior documented both on Mr. McKee’s blog and elsewhere MANY TIMES before…
      Feb 11, 2011
      Feb 18, 2011
      Mar 7, 2011
      and on and on and…

  29. Adam I didn’t run from anything. I declined to participate in an audio debate because audio gives the advantage to bullshitters for several reasons. They can make all kinds of wild claims and that you don’t have time to research, so you can’t properly refute them. Also, few people are actually going to listen to a one hour (or two hour) debate, so it gives an opportunity for dishonest supporters of the other guy to make all kinds of untrue claims about what was in the debate. A text debate can represent a valuable resource for the movement because it is searchable and it can wind up as part of the google record. Real time media are a waste of time, as Dr. Kevin Barrett demonstrates three times a week.
    I did not run from a text debate. Ranke did–five times. Six times if you count the fact that he rescinded the challenge to the formal debate. Yes, a text debate requires promotion if people are going to pay attention to it. We’d already had five debates, in every one I’d asked Ranke questions he refused to answer, he’d fled every one, and despite that fact and the fact that the debate at the artist’s site got almost 3500 reads and the “10 Holes in CIT’s Story” thread got 20,000 reads people like David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage and Barrie Zwicker and Aidan Monaghan and Dwain Deets still seemed to think that CIT was respectable and their ideas were viable. That’s why we needed to promote the debate and get 50,000 reads. Besides, I’d kicked CIT’s butt so many times my foot was getting sore. I wanted it over and done so I could move on to something else.
    And no, I couldn’t promote it after the fact because my ability to post had been restricted at many of the most popular blogs.
    Yes, I admit I was next to last in the CIT/Brian Good saga, and Ranke through his great rhetorical skill managed to come in next to first. Five times he refused to answer questions and ran away, as the record cleary shows:
    He ended our initial email exchange by claiming that my points had been raised before, by refusing to address them, and running away:
    He ran away at OpEd News:
    The following winter at 911Oz (various threads. This one will get you started)
    The French blog:
    He fled from this one too (terminated the discussion and rescinded his offer to debate in a three-day highly structured forum)

    1. So were ANY of Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, Rob Balsamo, Paul (of the Artists’ forum), mrbo(z), or Craig McKee responsible for “…my[Good’s] ability to post had been restricted at many of the most popular blogs…” then?
      If not- then why didn’t BRIAN GOOD/”truebeleaguer”/”petgoat”/”Watson”/”punxsatawney barney” ‘man up’ and take responsibility for his OWN ASININE, OBSESSIVE behavior that CAUSED him TO BE BANNED from ALL of those places and POSSIBLY LEARN from HIS OWN mistakes in the past instead of REPEATING them oven and over and over… AD INFINITUM as Good already admitted that he seems to love (or is otherwise compelled) to do?!
      JEEBUZ H in a sidecar- find a NEW hobby already- like knitting or golf or something and GET the F*@K ON with YOUR OWN life already! Or is it perhaps that were you assigned or paid [likely per trollish-post] to generally ‘beleaguer’/harass/inhibit/impede Pentagon research and discussion on the Internet by some shadowy digital entity like “Arabesque” somewhere near the San Francisco, CA area?
      Instead Good takes his excuse-making, RIDICULOUS demand-issuing ‘cop out’ way and REDUNDANTLY SPAMs his IMAGINED ‘version’ of LONG PAST events everywhere he possibly can on the Internet (like very recently here on Mr. McKee’s ‘Truth and Shadows’ blog for example). Apparently the obsessive Good is always lurking nearly EVERYWHERE the Pentagon and/or CIT is discussed- obsessing about those ‘tallies’ too: X views at 911oz, Y views at Paul’s forum, etc.
      What a SAD, sad ‘existence’ that must be…

  30. So what crystal ball gives mrboz the knowledge of why I was banned from various sites? Usually my banishment is preceded by posted demands for it from people who can not answer my questions.
    And how is it “obsessive” of me to ask questions of people who are promoting irrational theories, but it’s not obsessive of you to go around promoting them? Why don’t YOU take up knitting? You seem to have little to offer in this forum of any substance about the issues at all–almost every word you write is an ad hominem attack on me.
    The fact that it was 18 months “long past” that Ranke first fled from debate with me because he could not answer my questions does not reduce the importance of this pattern of Ranke’s behavior one bit. The flyover fantasy was thoroughly debunked in 2003, and it has not improved one bit since then.

  31. You know what gets me Brian? It is that Craig has actually got off his behind and done some real work to find out what really happened at the Pentagon and was prepared to waste his time debating you – and it would be a waste of time given your capacity for illogical thought and the mythical world of your own invention that you inhabit. You refused to start the debate once it was set up, wasting more of his time and yet you still whine continuously about how he ran away. That is truly and utterly pathetic and if you had any sense of shame, you would be deeply embarrassed. I am embarrassed for you, if it helps. As Mr Boz says, get a new hobby and start rebuilding your self respect.

    1. Just to clarify, the Craig you’re talking about is Craig Ranke of Citizen Investigation Team and not me. Brian Good has been going on and on lately about how Ranke has run away from debates with him, a claim denied vehemently by Ranke himself. I continue to be suspicious of the over-the-top attacks on CIT, and I agree with you, KP, that CIT has done a tremendous amount of work to find the truth about the Pentagon. And it seems that all they get back is character assassination. some of CIT’s detractors might be sincere in thinking the north flight path and flyover positions are wrong, but there are some who are clearly trying to splinter the movement by fueling this fight. Anyone who says that questioning of the official story about the Pentagon is the same as lying raises alarm bells for me.

  32. KP, I spent dozens and perhaps hundreds of hours doing real work to find out what went on at the Pentagon. Within thirty hours I had provided Ranke in our initial email exchange with a list of major flaws in CIT’s work. A couple of months later in the discussions at OpEd News I forced CIT and Balsamo to abandon their idea that the flyover plane landed on DCA runway 15. That was real work I did to find out what happened at the Pentagon. That put poor Dwayne Deets in an awkward position on Ventura’s TV show when he was asked “Where did the plane go?” and had to answer “It went … somewhere.”
    Ranke rescinded the invitation to the formal text debate, not me. Ranke fled the debates five times. His denial of this is contrary to the facts, as anyone who looks can see.
    Craig, pointing out errors in CIT’s claims and discrediting actions on their part is hardly an over-the-top attack. Nobody is assassinating their CIT’s character except themselves. They are the ones who refuse to admit when they’re wrong, who continue to indulge in faulty logic when it’s shown to be wrong, who demonize cooperating witnesses, who use unethical techniques such as surreptitious recording, and who seem to be afraid to pursue certain obvious avenues of productive inquiry such as looking for east-of-Pentagon flyaway witnesses and interviewing the people who cleaned up the Pentagon bodies.
    CIT supporters such as KP and mrboz want to talk a lot about me, steering the subject of conversation away from the blatant shortcomings in CIT’s work. The employment of the ad hominem is one indication among many of CIT’s inability to defend its work.

    1. Once again, it is NOT unethical to surreptitiously record someone. It’s called investigative journalism. England was sitting in a car with Mr. Ranke and Mr. Marquis. He knew he was being interviewed. Having this on camera changes nothing ethically. If what he was saying was the truth, what’s the problem? As I believe I told you before, you are only off the record when you ask to be off the record. Otherwise, anything you say can be used. Honestly, I’m getting tired of hearing about how Lloyde England is a victim. No one forced him to say or do anything. He has told a story that is important in reinforcing the official story. It should bloody well be scrutinized.
      As for CIT: if a tenth of the energy that goes into attacking CIT went into positive action, then we’d be much further ahead than we are now. You think CIT is wrong; I get it. You think they use underhanded tactics; I get it. You think they have to be smashed into little bits, figuratively speaking; I don’t get it. If you and all the other CIT haters think their research has no value, then ignore it. Every time I read them being attacked, I become more suspicious of the motives of the attacker. And if you’re seriously concerned about ad hominem attacks, I would refer you to 911Blogger and where you can see vicious attacks spewing out against anyone who says anything supportive of CIT. Why don’t you criticize SnowCrash and jim3100 for calling people liars, idiots, weasels, and stupid no-planers? Denounce them and you’ll have more credibility.

  33. You see Craig (sorry 2 Craigs here, I am now referring to the blog owner here), even now Brian refuses to admit that he killed the Artists debate with his ridiculous and pathetic demands. Even though the moderator of the debate told him so. If you would admit that you killed that debate Brian, you might be able to salvage a modicum of respect here. The fact that people can read it all for themselves just makes you look even more pathetic. It was rather sad that right at the point that the debate was about to start (a debate I might remind you that you had been chasing for months), you made your excuses and killed it. Hence why I call you a coward, a coward who just likes to take cheap shots all over the internet.
    Brian lives with a level of denial so deep, it is pointless to engage him as he will just keep on going. I spent many hours on 911Oz debating him and I will not do so any more. He makes things up as he goes along and the issues he has with CIT are his issues alone, many people have tried to explain this to him. Brian believes that he can endlessly repeat his gibberish even when it is fully and totally addressed and when the other party finally gives up, he goes on about how the other party ran away because “I kicked his ass”.
    OK really going to leave this thread now.

  34. Craig, if it’s not unethical to tape someone without their knowledge, then why is it illegal in 12 states and prohibited by the NYT? NYT ethics policy: “Except in limited circumstances, we do not use hidden cameras; any exceptions should first be discussed with the top newsroom manager and the legal department.”
    Attacking CIT is a positive action because they make the truth movement look bad and their activities are harmful. Their disgraceful treatment of cooperating witnesses has the effect of making the truth movement look sneaky and underhanded, and tends to repel potential whistleblowers. Their calls for aggressive promoition of their materials in Operation Accountability provide an opportunity for agents provocateur to create ugly
    If a tenth of the energy that goes into promoting CIT went instead into credible issues, the truth movement would be much further along.
    SnowCrash’s recent behavior at 911Oz seems unnecessarily rude, and I’m quite disappointed by it. Scott, oneslice, and Aldo can be , and the other impervious to reason, though, and it does get exasperating. You don’t understand that these conflicts have been going on for years.
    KP, I wanted to take the time to properly promote the structured debate with Ranke so it could be properly witnessed. I feared that a thinly-witnessed debate would be misrepresented by Ranke, and that few would take the time to read the whole thing, and that Ranke’s access to the truth movement media would give him an unfair advantage. I wanted movement-wide promotion so we could have it out once and for all. After all, I was very confident. I had caused Ranke to flee five times.
    I note again that you have failed to provide any substantive information in defense of the about the flyover fantasy–instead all of your remarks are directed at me personally.

    1. You’re mixing apples and oranges here. And your reference to the policy at the New York Times muddies the waters. I haven’t read their policy, but since they’re a newspaper and not a documentary film company, I would imagine they’re talking about recording conversations where the person also isn’t aware they’re talking to a reporter. If some stranger on the street says, “What do you think about Barack Obama?” you don’t expect your answer to show up in the newspaper the next day. That would be unethical. But that’s not the case here. Mr. England was being interviewed by journalists (or if you prefer, documentary filmmakers). He knew they were putting him in their film. Everything he said was subject to being included in the film UNLESS HE SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO GO OFF THE RECORD. Would you have been happier if they had simply quoted him as saying what he said? That would have fine been by anyone’s standards. You don’t like the fact that the camera was running without his knowledge. But this is done in investigative journalism all the time. And in this case, Mr. Ranke and Mr. Marquis were not under cover. England knew that what he said could end up in the film. And it did.
      I do understand that these conflicts have been going on for a long time. But I don’t cut anyone any slack for that. Those who sincerely want to get to the truth have to remember that others will look at how we behave. They will be turned off the cause if they see such bitter infighting.
      The thing that strikes me as disingenuous about the attacks on CIT is that they are done under the guise of keeping the movement from looking bad. But the fighting does just that. If you genuinely think poorly of CIT and their methods, your best bet would be to pretend they don’t exist. The fact that you don’t – and the Blogger crowd doesn’t – concerns me. In the case of some CIT critics I question their true agenda. I don’t accuse you of dishonesty, but I’d think about whether I want to be part of the SnowCrash-led mob. Why don’t you show your critics that you can rise above this?

  35. I’m just glad I’m not part of the truth movement and don’t have to agonise about whether I think Richard Gages half-baked theories about controlled demolition or CIT’s patently absurd proven fact that a plane flew over the Pentagon are more believable. It just demonstrates how any picture of the past can be made to seem plausible to people by lowering the plausibility bar until everything seems plausible.

  36. A. Wright, speaking of the plausibility bar, would you care to explain how 19 small men with boxcutters managed to overwhelm the defenses of the greatest military power the world has ever seen? A power that had known about al Qaeda’s plan to fly hijacked airliners into landmark buildings since 1995?
    Would you care to explain how the failure of one column at the NE corner of a 47 story building can bring the entire building down symmetrically into a tidy pile? Can you explain why the wreckage was cleaned up in extreme haste and nobody bothered to take pictures of the massive transfer trusses at the bottom to see if something had happened to them or not?
    Would you care to explain how asymmetrical damage from airplane impacts and
    asymmetric weakening from fires could cause the totally symmetrical collapse of a building that had been designed to resist airliner impacts?
    Would you care to explain why the US military allowed Osama to walk to safety in Pakistan with 1600 al Qaeda, and why they allowed 4000 al Qaeda and Taliban fighters to fly into Pakistan?

    1. The 19 small men bought boxcutters and knives. They bought tickets on four commercial planes taking off at around the same time on the same morning. When the planes got to altitude they barged their way into the cockpits and murdered the pilots. I don’t see where the military defenses of the greatest military power the world has ever seen come into that. Having taken control of the planes they turned them around and on a clear sunny day they crashed them into the two biggest targets on the skyline of New York. There are no circumstances in which flight 11 could or should have been prevented from crashing into the WTC. Given the short time available there are no plausible circumstances that the crash of flight 175 could have been prevented. Once those planes were taken over the attack was a success because there was nothing that could have been done to prevent them crashing those planes, no matter how expensive your military defenses were. The only thing that could have stopped them were the people on those planes and they tried on flight 93 and they failed. If Norad failed to intercept those planes then it was a failure but in the end it would have made a difference only in the case of flight 77 but if it had been shot down it might have crashed in some built-up area and killed a different group of people. Norad was not there to shoot down commercial planes. Saying they ‘knew about Al Qaeda’s plan to fly hijacked planes into landmark buildings’ is surely saying first of all that there were terrorists plotting to carry that kind of attack. There were all kinds of threats, possibilities and actual attacks – the US military know about IEDs and suicide attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan but they still happen- banks know about bank robberies but they happen too. They exploited flaws in security that were concentrating on bombs and guns and not considering other possibilites. Just like in aircraft accidents it is when something happens that people see the flaws in safety and security systems. The US were complacent , not just the government but the people themselves. Even now ,you are talking about ‘small men with knives’ hijacking a plane as if it couldn’t happen – if you were on a flight tomorrow and a group of men got up out of their seats , took out knives and boxcutters and walking towards the front of the plane would you say ‘It’s ok everyone , there’s nothing to worry about – people with boxcutters taking over a plane and crashing into a building , we all know that’s nonsense , ..Now, what movies are they showing..” I’m being facetious but when I hear people accusing the government of ignoring warnings of terrorist attacks pre 911, then saying there weren’t any terrorist attacks, weren’t even any terrorists and ignoring the threat of terrorist attacks themselves- 9 years later, it’s a bit much.

      1. Sorry, A. Wright, but my experience is that people who don’t know how to use paragraphs in their writing don’t know how to think either. I’m not going to read your blather.

      2. I don’t want to sound condescending, but you just don’t know what you’re talking about. It’s fine to talk about what you find implausible, but you really need to consider facts as well. Your assumptions about what happen don’t hold up to scrutiny. You state things as if they’re indisputable, but they’re not. I would suggest you check out some of the terrific research done by David Ray Griffin and others about the alleged hijackings.
        You ignore the fact that no pilots ever signalled the 7500 hijack code letting the ground know there was a problem. You ignore the problem of getting knives and boxcutters on to the plane without being detected. You ignore the fact that planes are intercepted routinely if they go off course or if they lose contact. But not this day.
        You say, “There are no circumstances in which flight 11 could or should have been prevented from crashing into the WTC.” This is a totally unfounded statement. You say the hijackers barged their way into the cockpits and murdered the pilots. Again you have no basis for saying this.
        I’m sorry you’re so gullible, but you need to do some reading before making claims as if they are already proven, because they aren’t.

  37. Nothing is indisputable. If something happens in the past that I was not there to witness , how can I say what happened? I can’t, and neither can you. All I can do is try to piece it together from the evidence I have. You say I don’t know what I’m talking about as if you have some indisputible evidence that I am wrong.
    Brian Good asked me to explained how 19 hijackers with boxcutters could do what they did and I explained how they could do it. It’s not rocket science. (the fact that he didn’t bother to read it – but still declared it nonsense- is telling). There is evidence that that is what happened. It is the only evidence we have – what other evidence is there? Do you have any knowledge or evidence about what happened on those planes? Does David Ray-Griffin have any evidence ? -if he does I would be interested to hear it.
    The idea that evidence can be bundled up together and labelled the ‘official story’ and therefore ignored and declared false is an abdication of the responsibilty to look at the evidence. Justifying this on the grounds of ,to say the very least, questionable assertions that ‘you can’t make a phone call from a plane’ , ‘there were no airphones on flight 77’ and the old reliable ‘people are lying’ is shoddy investigative work. That last one can be used to eliminate any evidence that doesn’t suit the conclusions he wants to reach.
    If pilots didn’t put in the hijack code that could be because they were preoccupied with trying to defend themselves against hijackers intent on killing them. One of them keyed the mike to let ATC hear what was going on and it didn’t sound pleasant.
    The things you say I am ignoring -planes were not routinely intercepted pre 911 , they were intercepted when ATC requested it, that is the protocol, the FAA are the people in charge and they make the request. ATC did make that request for the first plane and the military responded but they were too late to do anything. This was a plane that was strongly suspected of being hijacked, ATC had no confirmation or contact from the pilots and no hijack code to confirm it for them. If a military plane had located it , it would have just followed it discreetly from a distance and kept ATC informed. Are you saying they would or should have shot it down? Even if it was a definite confirmed hijack therwe is no way anyone would have given an order or been asked to give one to shot the plane down. Read the protocol for hijacking , do you think they shoot down planes just to be on the safe side?
    If a plane was following it , at what stage would the military pilot realise it was lining up on the WTC towers ? maybe at a mile distance. He now has a few seconds to report this , get approval to take action, up the chain of command..too late.
    With no clear indication or knowledge about what had happened to that plane – American Airlines couldn’t even confirm that it had hit the WTC for half an hour and they were people who owned the plane – there was almost no chance the second plane could be stopped in the time available. And was it ‘the second plane’? How would you know it wasn’t a plane that had some emergency that had no connection with the plane that hit the WTC? Hindsight ,with timelines and documentation and recordings to pore over at leisure for years , is not the reality of the day.
    The problem of getting knives onto a plane- if someone intent on hijacking a plane would let that stop him he would be in the wrong business. I used to carry a Swiss army knife when I flew. A month ago I was allowed on a plane with a small scissors , as sharp as any knife, in my bag, and this is after all the heightened security.
    I could also point out that it’s a bit much you saying I’m ignoring the difficulty of getting knives onto a plane when I’m supposed to find plausible the idea of getting tons of explosives into the WTC towers, cutting through steel columns and wiring the explosives up for a sequenced clandestine controlled demolition, for weeks and weeks ,in an occupied busy office building.

    1. No, Mr. Wright, you’re the one who talks like everything you say is beyond questioning. You wrote: “The 19 small men bought boxcutters and knives. They bought tickets on four commercial planes taking off at around the same time on the same morning. When the planes got to altitude they barged their way into the cockpits and murdered the pilots.”
      You weren’t there, but you have no problem making definitive statements about what the facts are. You make many more about how obvious it is that the whole thing could have been done in accordance with the official story. I’ve written many posts on this blog about why it couldn’t have been done, so I’m not going to go into exhaustive detail again here. David Ray Griffin has tons of evidence, which he has published in several books. Why don’t you pick one up before suggesting he doesn’t have evidence?
      I said nothing about shooting the plane down. But they couldn’t get fighters even within intercept range even though supposedly hijacked planes were flying around the northeast U.S. for more than 90 minutes. You blame the FAA? They were the scapegoats. I’ll be writing about this very soon. You have no knowledge of intercept procedures, but you write like it’s all so elementary.
      And your last comment is a total red herring. Whether getting boxcutters onto planes is possible or not has nothing to do with the World Trade Center demolition. I’m happy to address either subject, but they’re not the same thing. You’re using misdirection to avoid a question.

      1. As I said in my previous post and I’ll repeat it here , nothing is indisputable. The only way I can assess an event that happened in the past , where I have no personal knowledge of it and wasn’t there, is by looking at the evidence and then trying to do an intelligent assessment of it. At the end of that I still won’t know whether I’m correct or not. Juries leave courtrooms every day having convicted people of crimes and they don’t ‘know’ whether the person is guilty or not. All they have done is listened to evidence and assessed it and come to some conclusion about it and they deliver a verdict. I have no problem delivering my verdict on what happened on those planes because I have looked at and listened to the evidence and made an assessment of it.
        Telling me that things I say coincide with the dreaded ‘official story’ is doing exactly what I said previously, disregarding evidence – this is evidence that came from families who got phone calls from people on the plane from AT&T workers and airline staff, not from George Bush sitting down with Dick Cheney and saying ‘Ok Dick lets make up a story’. I have also looked at and listened to the evidence of Dr.Griffin and others who are asking me to believe something else and any doubts they raise in my mind are unreasonable ones. Someone who comes out with statements like ‘Barbara Olsens calls were important because they were the only calls to mention boxcutters , and as we all know the hijackers had boxcutters’ and they were important in ‘getting the war on terror started because these evil muslim terrorists had killed sweet Barbara Olsen’ – don’t impress me with the keeness of their intellect. I’ve listened to Barrie Zwicker also , telling me that top Hollywood scriptwriters were involved in 911 and it just illustrates to me what happens when people spend years accepting more and more implausible scenarios, until nothing seems implausible.
        I don’t blame the FAA or NORAD .They could have done nothing to stop the planes hitting the twin towers for one thing. The idea that someone was deliberately trying to stop the military preventing something they couldn’t have prevented is not very convincing. I lived through the 60s,70s and 80s when there were a lot of hijackings happening and never once ,in all those years ,did I ever hear anyone, on any occasion, mentioning military aircraft or interception etc. as having any relevance or role in the event. The only time I ever heard it mentioned was a hijacking in 2000 and that was just incidental. After 911 though everyone is talking about interception, how long it takes etc. Wisdom after the event is a cheap kind of wisdom.
        I addressed the point about getting knives onto a plane, it would have been relatively easy to do and that is not just my opinion or experience. Presenting it as any kind of serious argument against the idea of the planes being hijacked I don’t think is very convincing.

      2. Mr. A. Wright wrote:

        … this is evidence that came from families who got phone calls from people on the plane from AT&T workers and airline staff …
        I addressed the point about getting knives onto a plane, it would have been relatively easy to do and that is not just my opinion or experience.

        Someone who comes out with statements like ‘Barbara Olsens calls were important because they were the only calls to mention boxcutters , and as we all know the hijackers had boxcutters’ and they were important in ‘getting the war on terror started because these evil muslim terrorists had killed sweet Barbara Olsen’ – don’t impress me with the keeness of their intellect.

        Your keenness of intellect doesn’t impress me either.
        Here is a fact brought up in so-and-so’s trial (sorry I don’t recall the name) regarding Barbara Olsen’s calls that dovetails with DRG’s work. The calls were proven by the telecomm records themselves to have lasted 0 seconds. In other words, they were never connected.
        The significance of this is that if Barbara Olsen’s calls never went through, then (a) her husband — a Bush govt official — was knowingly lying, (b) the existence of box cutters as a weapon to take over planes is a hoax that sent the world through unnecessary knee-jerk paranoid extra onerous security precautions at airports to shock-and-awe scare us.
        The evidence of other families receiving telephone calls must be weighed in the light of the potential (a) for the calls to have been made from locations other than in the air where cellphones didn’t work and airphones were inoperationable in the stated aircraft, thereby hinting the flights with passengers weren’t as we were told, and (b) for other technology [computer voice morphing] to have been deployed to fake one or more of them.
        The range of speculation about the “victims” of the planes goes from them never entering an aircraft, that aircraft never leaving the ground, that aircraft being flown elsewhere & swapped, etc. Moreover, when they are truly studied, many of the “victims” on the planes verge on being “SimVictims” while others are candidates for “new identities” for entirely different reasons. I am not an expert and this isn’t the place for me to go into details on this, but it is a fruitful area of 9/11 research covered by September Clues and Let’s Roll Forum.
        No one on Mr. McKee’s blog will be able to definitely speculate what happened to them. The point is that when the govt’s story is proven wrong or a lie in many other aspects, it thereby allows us to speculate on other outcomes different from “commercial aircraft with passengers (that could have been you) slamming into buildings” … some of the other scenarios (including “SimVictims”) were even proposed in Operation Norwood from the 1960’s.
        Mr. A. Wright wrote:

        I lived through the 60s,70s and 80s when there were a lot of hijackings happening and never once ,in all those years ,did I ever hear anyone, on any occasion, mentioning military aircraft or interception etc. as having any relevance or role in the event. The only time I ever heard it mentioned was a hijacking in 2000 and that was just incidental. After 911 though everyone is talking about interception, how long it takes etc.

        I lived through those hijackings, too. Another marked difference is that those hijackings were about achieving a stated goal: flight from x to y for freedom, release of certain captives, etc. 9/11 lacked those political motivations except for what the govt speculated, fed us, and applied.
        There is a difference between flight interception and flight termination. Interceptions happened routinely (on the order of 97 in the year prior to 2001 alone). That 9/11 could flumux four of them one after the other on the same day (while exercises of the very same nature were being practiced) is beyond coincidence into being planned. Couldn’t have military planes discovering the hijacked planes weren’t the stated commercial planes before their damage was inflicted.
        The old saying goes that the best way to rob a bank is to own it.
        You seem to decry “Barrie Zwicker telling me that top Hollywood scriptwriters were involved in 911.” Why is this so hard to believe?
        Come on. Many operational aspects of the 9/11 event would have been easier to fake than to rely on real world actions to carry out as planned and be useful to bang the drums for war-without-end (or “The War on Terror”).
        Evidently you missed how 9/11 was milked and is continued to be milked for political ends. Due to corporate media’s efforts to reduce our attention span, to fill our heads with dribble, and to distract us from weighty matters, 9/11 would have been just another unfortunate event to be forgotten in a few short years like another hurricane, earthquake, or tsunami, were it not for the the planned and executed usage of 9/11 as continued propaganda. Study all of the “acceptable” usages of 9/11 that make it into corporate media (as well as all of the “unacceptable” usages that get little air time and lots of “crazy & kooky” labels). Such media ad campaigns are not hatched over night.

    2. Mr. A. Wright wrote on March 27, 2011 at 12:26 pm:

      … I’m supposed to find plausible the idea of getting tons of explosives into the WTC towers, cutting through steel columns and wiring the explosives up for a sequenced clandestine controlled demolition, for weeks and weeks ,in an occupied busy office building.

      You make lots of assumptions in this truncated sentence, like that “traditional” or “conventional” explosives were deployed to destroy the towers. They were not. Aside from your legitimate points about wiring and amounts of conventional explosives to achieve the observed pulverization, we could also use Dr. Sunder’s work with NIST regarding decibel levels being too low (not loud enough) for conventional explosives.
      Alas the observed pulverization and very fast collapse times could not be achieved by gravity acting on the towers alone, assuming of course all of the yada-yada about airplane impacts, jet fuel, and office fires weakening steel and initiating the collapse. These are huge energy sinks. (Non-conventional and non-traditional Nano-thermite neither explain it nor the duration of under-rubble fires.) Where did the energy come from to achieve such a thorough demolition? And why?
      Rather than rehashing what I wrote, it would be better to link you to my March 4, 2011 at 5:34 pm response to Mr. Albury regarding an alternative theory: milli-nukes.
      Speaking of “Albury,” Mr. McKee and I hope that this isn’t what the “A” in “A. Wright” stands for. Not sockpuppeting are we, as Albury was accused on doing on two other 9/11 forums? Assuming it isn’t, Mr. Albury, Prof. Dutch, Mr. Rational, and you certainly have many common beliefs. It could be a great thing if the three or four of you would hook up.

      1. Senior, I have to agree with you once again. Its not “tons of TNT” we’re talking about, but small charges of thermite or thermate, built into a device that anyone could hand carry.
        There is a great video clip made by a professional engineer, on youtube. He is a PT and also a talented welder. He built, at home, with home made thermite, devices small enough to be carried in by hand, and dropped into the columns. And he shows in these videos that its easy, even for a rank amateur, to build small, portable devices that can easily burn the heads off bolts, and cut through steel beams.
        Its all very, very ugly to think about all of this. But we must press on and get answers to these questions. The more “debunking” arguments one picks through, the more evidence piles up against the official stories.
        “Well, then, how did they get it in there” isn’t an argument. Its only another question.

      2. Dear Mr. Pukmel,
        I’m not saying that “small charges of thermite or thermate” weren’t deployed, possibly as a redundancy factor or possibly to get things rolling.
        But I do believe that “small charges of thermite or thermate” have some of the same and different problems as conventional explosives that would make them unlikely to be responsible for most of the observed destruction. One of the same problems is trying to get these small charges synchronized so that their destruction can be coordinated in a useful fashion and effect the near gravitational acceleration to the ground. One of the different problems is that these cut steel, which is a burning process and takes time. Okay to get things rolling, but not okay to precisely time taking out underlying support at certain levels to keep the collapse wave going.
        Another issue with thermite/thermate is maintaining the duration of its fire. Obviously, long burning fires wouldn’t have been one of the destruction goals, but it was one of the destruction outcomes. As the primary or sole mechanism, thermite/thermate comes up short.
        A more important issue is the pulverization of content. Like I said, thermite/thermate tends to cut. If used to blast things and pulverize things as observed, I think there’d be more tell-tale exploding sounds. Worse, the quantities of this material and packaging would be massive. Pulverization isn’t its bailiwick.
        This is why I am in the milli-nuke camp. 3 to 6 milli-nukes per tower. Maybe fusion triggered fission devices to explain both the measured tritium levels as well as the fizzling unspent nuclear material burning in the debris. Such devices would be easy to plant and would account for the energy requirements of the pulverization.
        I’m stuck in the middle of Dr. Judy Wood’s excellent textbook, so she hasn’t convinced me of DEW yet (as the sole or primary mechanism). I’m less a fan of (space-based) DEW, because the destruction did start within the structures at about the crash levels. Still, she brings up a great point about WHY pulverization of content might have been a design goal. Namely, pulverized and spreading dust, as opposed to massive chunks of structure, falling from great distances would help preserve the bathtub and subway and save many other prime NYC buildings from being flooded.
        Dr. Steven Jones has steered the truth movement to thermite/thermate and allowed the minions to extract some of its effects into areas it cannot truly explain (on purpose). I ran across another area of truth movement consensus thinking (that I forget at the moment) that Dr. Jones was instrumental in, but something I found dubious. However, I do know that nuclear physicist Dr. Jones, more so than any OGCT and debunker of 9/11 truth, has steered us away from milli-nukes… based on govt reports regarding radiation levels, govt reports that in other areas he laments are incomplete, lacking, or wrong. Thermite/thermate is lacking.
        I want to be convinced that milli-nukes didn’t do the job (on the towers at least), but evidence doesn’t support it and others arguments regarding other things are lacking.

  38. What is most bizarre to me is the argument “that many people were there and saw the whole thing…”. OK, lets take this one step at a time. If you can not go there yourself and rent a car, you can go to google streets and get images of the same highway around the Pentagon, and get some rough measurements of relevant details.
    Suppose you are in your car, driving 50 or 60 miles an hour, down that very highway 395. Where are you looking? Do most people stick their heads out the window and look upward while driving? I would say that they are looking mostly toward the front of their cars, and occasionally, from side to side to check mirrors when changing lanes.
    Now, suppose some large object is traveling perpendicular to the highway (not parallel to it), over your car, traveling not 10 or 15 miles an hour, not 100 miles an hour, but 500 to 550 miles an hour. How long would it take you to react to turn your head, and focus on that object, before it passed out of sight? We’re not talking about an airplane traveling at 30,000 feet.
    Could anyone, who was not outside their car, standing on the side of the road, already focused on the pentagon building say with any certainty what it was that passed over their heads at 550 miles per hour?
    Its about 1000 feet from route 395 to the Pentagon. At 500 to 550 miles per hour, the plane was traveling 730 to 800 feet per second. Per second. So, this eye witness, heard the plane, rolled down the window in his car, stopped, stuck his head out the window, focused on the plane, and recognized exactly what was traveling over his car, in the 1.2 second time span it took for the plane to pass over the highway and hit the pentagon? That is one super observation.

  39. I just would like to pipe in here and say that this is the third site I have run into this character Albury.
    Albury is a full time shill against the 9/11 Truth. Anyone who gives him the time of day is making a big mistake–he is a runaround spinner.
    Aren’t you Albury? ~Willy Whitten

  40. I want to believe that Richard Gage made a mistake in judgement in saying and doing what he did, he is human.
    I know based upon comments he’s made in response to certain questions obviously trying to draw him in and away from his true stated scientific expertise — that he messed up in taking sides outside of that stated of expertise of his. It seems to me he was trying to correct his behavior in that regard. Things got sticky and conflicting when he allowed this to happen, to become part of who it is he now represents. Being Richard Gage, he must be constantly careful and constantly think, as I am sure he already does, when it comes to 9/11. It’s been like that since day one on anything 9/11 related.

  41. The perps have more money than God and Mr. Gage is just human. In time he will be incentivized and neutralized. I have yet to see anyone resist that kind of temptation. Soon he will recede from prominence and just enjoy the good life, like all the others before him.
    Discounting CIT is just a first step.

  42. no doubt the forensics ( real stuff strew about to study ) exists in NY, the OBVIOUS demolition of two “struck” towers and the “unstruck” 7 – and the physical evidence ( ashes to ashes and DUST TO DUST ) but between CIT and PILOTS – eye witness and EXPERT TESTIMONY backed by FOI DATA that appears to be forged ( pilots “simulator” data received from NTSB packed with “anomalies” and flaws – there is an extremely high probability of what DIDN”T happen – and this all leads us ( 9/11 truth and justice ) to the same conclusion. Too bad “superstardom” breeds such arrogance and condescension. CIT AND PILOTS need to be included and appreciated for the work they HAVE and ARE doing in “distilling” data and testimony in the effort to truly INFORM US and support the meting of JUSTICE!

  43. Gage understands that he needs to keep himself in a decent cash flow. That means keeping himself in good standing with most truthers and fleecing the random passer-by’s. If you tout nonsense that hand waves away DNA, 100+ witnesses, & debris from a plane in order to maintain delusions of plane performing a fly-over no one saw happen, then people aren’t going to be very keen on giving you money to support your lunacy.
    Its been 10+ years and not a single truther out of Gage’s gaggle of 1600+ experts nor the loons at Pilots have published a single study in a reputable forum on the planet. We call that delusional.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *