The Flight Data Recorder (FDR) of Flight 77 supports the official flight path
The Animation could not exist without the FDR data. The Flight animation is supposed to be a "reconstruction" based on the black box data (FDR), and yet it does not match the data found in the FDR for Flight 77.
Many mistakenly believe and claim that the flight animation "is" the FDR when they are two separate things.
It cannot reasonably be claimed that the "animation" represents the actual flight path of Flight 77 because the animation does not match data found in the FDR. An animation is a "reconstruction" and is not the "original" source of the data.
It is frequently claimed that the "Black Box" data of Flight 77 shows a flight path which contradicts the official story of the Pentagon attack. On the truthaction forum, Snowy Grouch, also known as Callum Douglas, a 9/11 researcher who has studied the flight data recorder and animation writes:
I would also like to know who EXACTLY are these people who are claiming that the animation is the black box data or similar. Provide some links please otherwise its just conjecture.
Unfortunately, this belief is fairly widespread from the comments on forums that I have encountered. I have had to post responses several times on 911blogger, correcting this claim. In fact, shortly after Callum Douglas requested evidence of these individuals, a forum poster in the very same thread no less, repeated this false claim saying, "The 'imaginary' north flightpath is supported by the FDR raw data file". So much for "conjecture", then. It is hardly the only example. Pilots for 9/11 Truth Rob Balsamo also confuses the FDR and animation on the radio stating:
The information that we have from the NTSB right now as it stands, this airplane's not hitting the Pentagon. Andthat's from the flight data recorder. What they say is from the Flight data recorder.... The NTSB data. The plot, the animation that they plot out, It has it on the north side of that CITGO gas station... [The CIT witnesses]... corroborate the flight data recorder as far as the flight path being North... The heading... that they show in the hard data file that we have...it shows that it kind of lines up with the south path.
In this interview, Rob Balsamo refers to a "flight data recorder" and "animation they plot out". These are two separate things and the flight data recorder (FDR) does NOT support a north path. In fact, as you can see above, Balsamo also later acknowledges thatthe "hard data file" supports the official flight path. Callum Douglas writes that the claim that the "FDR" supports the north path is completely false:
The Animation and FDR are two separate things. In the 9/11 truth movement, many confuse this and mistakenly believe that the FDR and flight animation are the same thing. As a consequence of this mistaken belief, many mistakenly claim that the "FDR" contradicts the official flight path. While it is true that the animation contradicts the official flight path, it is also true that the FDR supports the official flight path as shown in the image above.
Several points should be made here:
The Black box data is not the same as the flight path animation data
The animation is supposed to be a "reconstruction" of the black box data and yet they do not match
The Black box Data supports the official flight path.
Why the contradiction between the FDR and animation? This is unclear and where there is controversy. On his blog, Caustic points out that the animation has an incorrect magnetic declination and Calum Douglas responds:
The question is... do you believe that seasoned professionals at the NTSB with decades of experience in crash re-construction FORGOT about magnetic declination! One of the most basic concepts in map reading and navigation... Most unlikely, so the question iswhy does the animation give a north path and the FDR file a south one? If I were you I`d try phoning the NTSB, see how far that gets you.
Unfortunately, at this time the NTSB has refused to clarify or explain the discrepancy between the FDR and animation. This has resulted in adding to the ongoing controversy.
However, the "animation" cannot exist without the original black box data. This is because the original source of the data for the animation should originate from the FDR. It cannot be claimed that the "animation" is right and the "black box is wrong" since the animation is a reconstruction based on the black box data. It is possible that a mistake was made in the reconstruction of the data and seems to be the most plausible explanation at this point. John Farmer writes:
I have put in an FOIA with the NTSBrequesting the parameters used to generate the animation, but to date there has been no response. Some have said that the animation is generated using the physics data in the FDR. If that is the case, then that would account for the deviation observed if the heading data had indeed been tampered with. That does not mean that is the case, but certainly is a possibility. That is why it is important to understand how the animation was generated. I will leave that to others since it really is in the domain of professional pilots and aeronautical engineers (outside my expertise).
The NTSB explains how they generate an animation from the FDR:
Dan Bower is an Aerospace Engineer at the NTSB who is directly involved with analyzing data gathered from Flight Data Recorders. Unfortunately, there are many different formats this information can take. The FDR data, says Bower "is different for each airplane and each style of Flight Data Recorder." Because of that, he adds, "as soon as we have an accident, we call the airplane manufacturer to get the conversion algorithms... On Bower's PC, which runs the Windows NT Operating System, he uses multiple software packages to manipulate and animate the FDR data in a variety of ways. "We have some flight performance software that allows simulations with three, four and six degrees of freedom," explains Bower. Within that software and other packages, Bower can animate the data as charts and graphs, using an airplane model or as cockpit instruments changing over time. While these animations don't offer the level of detail or realism that comes from the SGI, they are used to illustrate factual data in the best way possible. The software that Bower uses can also output data in the format used for the SGI-based animations. Once the data is moved to that machine, one goal is to make the animation look as realistic as possible. For this process, detailed models are used, backgrounds are carefully constructed and terrain models are incorporated into the scene. A lot of time is also devoted to determining which viewpoint or viewpoints to use for viewing the animation."
Far from being a "simple" process, it seems that there is indeed room for error in creating a flight animation. It stands to reason that it is possible that a mistake could have been made in the creation of the animation. And this is where the controversy only gets stranger because the 9/11 commission also had an animation of Flight 77 and this animation supported the official flight path. In other words there are at least two animations and they do not match.
Also of interest is that the FDR data ends about "4-6 seconds" before impact. Caustic Logic quotes John Farmer who believes that the FDR was modified:
“The significance of this," Farmer contends, "is that at the final recorded position, the altitude data begins to make sense. The elevation of the area in the vicinity of pin #1 is ~150 – 160 feet above MSL. Add to that the radar altitude of 273 feet above ground level (AGL), […] an altitude of 420 – 430 feet above MSL matches well with witness accounts...” and explains in the conclusion: "Since investigators have assumed that the FDR data is representative until ~1 second prior to impact (stopping recording at impact) numerous false assumptions regarding the data have resulted. In fact, as discussed before, the EOF for the FDR reflects a position 4 – 6 seconds prior to impact due to the time error in the RADES data. Further investigation is warranted to determine how and why the FDR data set was altered."
It certainly appears as though data from the FDR is missing which I agree does warrant an explanation and additional investigation. This is not an insignificant question.
While some have claimed that they "faked" the FDR data, it cannot reasonably be claimed that the "animation" represents the actual flight path of Flight 77 because the animation supposed to be a "reconstruction" of the "original" data found in the FDR.
Interestingly, Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) has never used the animation to support their claims of an alternate flight path.
A Response to Misleading Claims About the CIT Flyover Debate
By Arabesque
It has come to my attention that several misleading arguments and claims have been made about my commentary on CIT. A witness at the Pentagon saw the light poles on the ground after the attack. Later in an interview, he gave the incorrect location of where they were placed. Completely ignoring this fact, it is alleged that:
“Arabesque deliberately omitted Lagasse’s explicit statement that he didn’t the see light poles hit.”
This statement is misleading as I have never claimed Lagasse saw the poles get hit. The relevant point that I made is the fact that he got the location of the poles on the ground wrong. Is this fact not relevant to CIT and their defenders? Apparently, it is not because they seem to completely ignore this while accusing "me" of being "deliberately" misleading. A simple question: If a witness gets the location of the light poles (and taxi cab) at the Pentagon wrong, is it relevant whether or not he saw the plane hit them to figure out the testimony he gave is factually wrong? Amazingly, for some people this is a really hard one to figure out.
On the truthaction forum, "Stefan" quotes CIT while making his point:
CIT: Did you see it hit any lightpoles?
Lagasse: Did not see them hit any light poles, but obviously when I got to the scene the lightpoles were down.
This most important piece of testimony Arabesque first omits, then denies, then accuses the people who refer to it of making misleading statements.. The implications of Lagasse's testimony is self-evident to anyone who has heard what he actually says in context, rather than just the cherry picked quotes Arabesque feeds his readers.
Stefan "cherrypicks" and distorts:
I did not quote Ranke's words "out of context". Ranke clearly states, "Why should he remember where the light poles were knocked down when he told us that he DID NOT SEE THE LIGHT POLES?" The word "where" denotes "location".
The question of whether or not Lagasse saw the "plane" hit the poles is completely irrelevant to the issue that he misplaced their location.
I never "claimed" that Lagasse saw the plane hit the light poles, and yet Stefan is accusing me of "omitting" this fact. How could I "omit" information when it is completely irrelevant to the claim I am making?
If you have followed CIT and their debating tactics on forums, this kind of absurdly infuriating straw-man argumentation is frequently what you encounter. CIT and many of their defenders have never clearly acknowledged that Lagasse's statement that he got the location of the light poles wrong affects the credibility of his testimony, preferring to distract with the irrelevant pointthat he never saw them get hit by the plane. Well that's "interesting" because I never said that he saw the plane hit the light poles. I said that he got their location on the ground wrong.
Let's examine the original quotation by Craig Ranke in its original context:
Note that Ranke says, "remember where the light poles were knocked down... when he DID NOT SEE THE LIGHT POLES." As I explained above, "where" is a word used to describe "location". Lagasse did indeed remember "where" the light poles were knocked down, although Ranke claims above that he does not. For additional context, if you click the link on that quotation, you will see that Ranke was responding to a forum user who pointed out that Lagasse got the location of the poles wrong. Ranke's answer is clearly in response to this.
However, on the Truthaction forum, Stefan ridiculously attempts to claim that Ranke really meant, "see the 'plane hit' the light poles", but given the complete context of the full statement above (and the post that it was in response to), this would make Ranke's statement (i.e. "where the light poles were knocked down") completely nonsensical:
[Stefan claims Ranke meant:] "[Why would Lagasse] remember where the light poles were knocked down... when he DID NOT SEE [the plane hit the] LIGHT POLES."
Oddly enough, Stefan accuses "me" of taking words out of context, when in fact, this is exactly what he is doing. Again, "plane hit the poles" is completely unrelated to "where" they "were knocked down". Even if the meaning is changed to what Stefan claims Ranke meant, he still used the word "where" which is describing the location of the poles, and is completely unrelated to the issue of whether or not the plane hit them.
Clearly, Ranke's statement is deceptive as I have explained above. I am not claiming that Lagasse saw the light poles get hit by the plane. I am claiming that he placed them in the wrong location. In the diagram below, Lagasse got the location of the taxi cab and light poles wrong, placing them in the same location saying:
“there was a light pole here that was knocked down [pointing to an incorrect location]… none of these light poles over here were knocked down”
Not only did Lagasse get the light poles wrong, he was adamant that the light poles knocked down on 9/11 were not knocked down! He also misplaced the location of the Taxi cab which can be seen in the illustration above. This hasn't stopped CIT from repeating the claim that this witness is part of the "smoking gun" evidence that the plane flew North of the CITGO. CIT has refused to acknowledge in any clear way that Lagasse's testimony is not credible based on the mistaken testimony he has given.
It is important to note that CIT and Stefan do NOT acknowledge the fact that Lagasse's mistaken testimony affects the credibility of his flight path. In fact, CIT and Stefan bizarrely claim that the fact that Lagasse got the location of the poles wrong "only serves to prove how certain he is of where he saw the plane.” Stefan supports this absurd position, writing:
[Legasse] incorrectly states that the light poles were in the same place as where he knew the plane was. It’s just logical deduction and all it does is speak to Laggasse’s unshakable certainty that the plane flew where he said it did.
This is a ridiculous claim on so many levels that it barely needs explanation. When a witness gives mistaken testimony, it does not make their testimony "more" credible, it makes it less so. And yet, CIT and their supporters absurdly claim against all reason that in fact, the opposite is true. And this is where CIT and their supporters tip their hand and reveal that they are not interested in a rational discussion of the Pentagon witnesses. They are going to claim that if a witness is mistaken about important details, it only proves how certain the witness was of the flight path. This is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.
To the outside observer, it should rightfully seem bizarre that I would have to clarify these issues at all. That is, until you have observed a repeated pattern of deceptive argumentation from certain quarters of the 9/11 "truth" movement.
These brave researchers [Craig Ranke, and Aldo Marquis of Citizen Investigation Team] have been repeatedly smeared by -- who else? -- the anonymous cyber-entity that calls itself "Arabesque." This web handle (I have no idea if an actual person corresponds to it, or whether its true name is Operation Arabesque) specializes in cherry-picking little out-of-context word-turds from the internet, and assembling them into deceptive TIN RATS (They'll Never Read All This S**T). The result looks somewhat like actual scholarship to those unfamiliar with the genuine article, and provides those guided more by emotion than intellect -- especially people who are deathly afraid that the 9/11 truth movement will become identified with a claim that looks outlandish to the general public (!) -- with reasons to embrace their knee-jerk emotional reactions rather than engage intellectually with the evidence. (Check out this excellent deconstruction of Operation Arabesque's deceptive attacks on CIT.
It's funny how the opinions of real 9/11 truth leaders like David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage (who recently endorsed CIT's work) are ignored by certain 9/11 sites, while the deceptive nonsense spewing from the cyber-orifice of Operation Arabesque is accepted. It makes you wonder about the judgement, if not the sincerety [sic], of the people who run these sites.
William Lagasse: "These poles were not knocked down" CIT: "He didn't see the light poles"
Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis (CIT) distort and promote unreliable witness statements as “smoking gun” evidenceof "mass hallucination"at the Pentagon on 9/11
In this post I expose the following distortions and misleading claims:
CIT claims that Lagasse, a witness who misplaced the location of the light poles, taxi cab, and even his own location is "smoking gun" proof
CIT insinuate that the witness "did not see the light poles" when confronted with the fact that the witness misplaced the location of the light poles
CIT claims that the fact that the witness got the location of the light poles wrong "only serves to prove how certain he is of where he saw the plane."
CIT and their supporters confuse and obfuscate Lagasse's testimony that the "plane did not hit the light poles" with his statement that he "saw the light poles [on the ground]"
CIT misleadingly claim that Lagasse could "not" have seen the plane on the "south" side of the station because "[Lagasse] would not be able to see the plane through the building at all," when in reality, the CITGO gas station does not completely obstruct the view "at all".
In their first documentary, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis interviewed William Lagasse, a police officer and witness to the attack on the Pentagon. William Lagasse has always maintained that the plane struck the Pentagon on 9/11:
William Lagasse: “[The plane] flew into the building.”
In his recorded statements, Lagasse claims that the plane flew north of the CITGO gas station. Craig Ranke has always maintained that his eyewitness account is “credible” and part of the “smoking gun” evidence that the plane did not hit the Pentagon. In fact, Lagasse’s testimony is not credible. As I pointed out in my original review, Lagasse misplaced the location of the light poles and the taxi cab:
[Ranke] then explains that “the official story says that the plane came on the south side and hit the light poles here [pointing].” Legasse responds:
“No Chance.There’s no chance. If… as a matter of fact [emphasizing strongly], there was a light pole here [where Lagasse claims the plane flew] that was knocked down, and there was [another] here, that was knocked down—not any over here… none of these light poles over here were knocked down… I’ve never seen anything that was on the south side of that gas station—ever.”
This statement is factually inaccurate. In the statement above, William Lagasse denied that light poles knocked down on 9/11 were knocked down. He claims that they were knocked down in an alternate location. He also claimed that the taxi cab struck by the light poles were in an alternate location. Early on in the interview, Lagasse even misremembered his own location in the CITGO gas station. When this is pointed out and he is shown the video, he later corrects his account to match what is in the video. Even more striking, he places the plane where he mistakenly placed the taxi cab and light poles. Logic dictates, that if Lagasse saw the plane fly where the light poles were actually located, not where he mistakenly thought they were, he would have actually observed the plane on the south side of the CITGO gas station.
What has been Craig Ranke’s response to these facts which cast grave doubt on the reliability of Lagasse’s testimony? When pointed out by a user on the forum Above Top Secret that “The officer also pointed to the wrong place for the light poles as well. As he had trouble remembering what pump he was at”, Craig Ranke deceptively responded:
Why should he remember where the light poles were knocked down when he told us that he DID NOT SEE THE LIGHT POLES? Of course he would believe that the light poles/physical damage that he DID NOT SEE (or read reports on after the fact) would line up with the flight path of the plane that he DID SEE! That only serves to prove how certain he is of where he saw the plane.
This statement is deceptive for several reasons:
It is deceptive because Lagasse did indeed see the light poles as I quoted him describing their placement above.
It is deceptive because Lagasse did not see the "plane" hit the light poles, which Craig Ranke is conflating with Lagasse’s statement that they were placed in the wrong location.
In other words, instead of acknowledging that Lagasse gave inaccurate testimony, Craig Ranke distorts the eyewitness statement by implying that he "didn’t see the light poles", when in fact, the witness only said he didn’t see the "plane" strike them. In fact, Ranke contradicted himself in that very same thread, when he wrote: "[Brooks,] like Lagasse, did NOT see any poles get clipped and merely deduced this after the fact from seeing the poles on the ground." So much for "not" seeing the light poles. In the statement above, Craig clearly denies that Lagasse saw the light poles, and yet in the very same thread, he contradicts himself.
This is not the only example of this. On 911blogger, after I wrote that that Lagasse "didn't even know where the light poles were actually knocked down", Aldo responded:
This is an additional denial that the witness saw the light poles, despite his description of their placement that I quoted above. Instead of acknowledging that the witness got the location of the light poles wrong, Aldo deceptively claims that he "couldn't see the light poles from there." This is obviously misleading as Lagasse explains in CIT's own interview:
CIT: Did you see it hit any lightpoles?
Lagasse: Did not see them hit any light poles, but obviously when I got to the scene the lightpoles were down.
Clearly, CIT has engaged in a pattern of deceptively implying that the witness "could not see the poles" when in fact, he did see them and misremembered their actual location.
When it is pointed out that Lagasse could have been facing in the wrong direction, he responded that “I do not have eyes in the back of my head!” As I pointed out in my original review, we know that Lagasse got the location of the light poles and taxi cab wrong. We also know he even misremembered his own location in the CITGO gas station. It is not much of a stretch to point out that Lagasse could have misremembered which direction he was facing? In addition, Lagasse did not need "eyes in the back of his head" at all, since he only needed to be facing a slightly different direction to observe the plane on the "south" side of the CITGO gas station.
Ranke also implies that Lagasse could not have seen the plane on the "south" end of the station, writing:
"Obviously whether or not [Lagasse] was at the back or front pump has what he described as 'no bearing' as to his placement of the plane on the north side which is obviously true. [Lagasse] would not be able to see the plane through the building at all."
This is another obviously deceptive claim. It is certainly true that in general, people can not see through opaque objects obstructing their view. However, the CITGO gas station does not completely obstruct the view, and even if it did, it would not block your view of the plane as it passed over and by the CITGO station towards the Pentagon.
Despite these issues, CIT would outrageously have you believe that Lagasse is part of their "smoking gun" evidence when his testimony is filled with errors. As I have demonstrated, Lagasse's testimony is not credible.
1. He misplaces his own location 2. He misplaces the location of the light poles 3. He misplaces the location of the cab which was damaged by these light poles. 4. He claims the plane struck the Pentagon which directly contradicts his flight path and the theory that the plane flew over the Pentagon
Has this prevented CIT from promoting Legasse testimony about the flight path as a reliable? In fact, the opposite. When it is pointed out to CIT that Lagasse got the location of the taxicab and light poles wrong, they deceptively and repeatedly imply that Lagasse “did not see the light poles” or "could not see them", when in fact, Lagasse stated that they were in the wrong location and that he did not see the "plane" strike them. Despite these issues and the fact that this witness is adamant the plane struck the Pentagon, CIT has continued to promote this witness as a “credible” report of the flight path of the plane and that the plane flew over the Pentagon.
Clearly, this is blatantly deceptive and misleading and these distortions and misrepresentations by Craig Ranke should cast grave doubt on the credibility of "CIT" and their research.
CIT's Deceptive Flight Path Argument: "North" or "South"? What about "Hit the Pentagon"?
By Arabesque
A Simple question for CIT and their supporters:
When a witness says the plane hit the Pentagon, is that part of the "flight path" or is it not? How could the question of whether or not the plane hit the Pentagon not be relevant to the flight path?
The CIT flyover (what I correctly rename to the "mass hallucination theory") largely depends on dismissing hundreds of witness accounts, and deceptively insinuating that the widespread and unanimous reports of the plane hitting the Pentagon do not count as evidence evidence of the "flight path".
This should be blatantly obvious, but apparently it is not to CIT and their supporters: When witnesses describe the plane striking the Pentagon, that is in fact part of the "flight path". There is a name for this logical fallacy and it is called "Special Pleading".
"The plane hit the Pentagon" is in fact the most important and significant claim regarding the "flight path", although CIT and their supporters would have you believe that it is not relevant, even when many of the various witnesses that CIT cite as evidence themselves claim the plane hit the Pentagon while completely hand waving away the fact that there are no credible reports of a flyover:
In other words, according to CIT and those who support their work, the Pentagon attack was a "mass hallucination" event in which any witness who claims that the plane hit the Pentagon was either deceived by an illusion or a government operative.
I have a difficult time explaining why this claim is taken seriously at all.
I have several accounts on audio which I will upload over the next few days. The most significant finding thus far is that I confirmed with people in the VDOT area that the plane did clip the VDOT antenna... the antenna being bent over seems to be common knowledgehere in Arlington. I... found it easy to verify the flight path. This... is perhaps the most important finding in recent years (that the VDOT antenna was clipped).
I will update this post with additional information soon.
Anyone who has even paid remote attention to the way that the Mainstream Media (MSM) portrays the 9/11 truth movement is sure to notice that it is portrayed in a certain way. Certain issues are ignored in favor of bogus theories and disinformation. A good example of this is exposed in Jim Hoffman's article, Popular Mechanics Attacks Its "9/11 LIES" Straw Man. Hit pieces that rely on attacking obviously suspect "theories" instead of addressing much of the compelling 9/11 evidence as mentioned by Jim Hoffman are frequently seen from the mainstream media. In another obvious attack piece smearing the 9/11 truth movement with the tactic known as "guilt by association", Nick Schou focuses on controversial 9/11 researcher/theorists Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis. Ranke explains:
When he arrived at Aldo's residence, Nick seemed affable enough. From the beginning, he expressed his intention to focus on our personal back-stories and involvement with personalities within the 9/11 truth movement first in the article. He would get into the evidence later, he said.
What makes this hit piece particularly striking is the fact that it appears that Ranke and Marquis actively offered damaging "gossip" to this reporter. Ranke explains that:
We understood how some of this wasnecessaryfor aninterestingarticle and were happy to oblige.
Source: thepentacon.com/NickSchou.htm
In other words, Ranke and Marquis willingly gave "gossip" to a reporter who proceeded to use this information in his hit piece:
Their relationship quickly soured. E-mails posted on conspiracy chat rooms show that what started as a professional disagreement about how to prove that the U.S. government was behind 9/11 had become a highly personal grudge match. Here's a typical e-mail from Ranke to Pickering:
And from Pickering to Ranke: "You are a mentally ill little man, and until you get some help, you always will be. A disgrace to truth . . . Fuck yourself. . . . Fuck you."
Even more striking is that I could not find the comment from Pickering on any online sources apart from this article. This meant that it was directly provided to Schou by Ranke himself. Ranke acknowledged this saying that part of the private email exchange was posted online (it is unknown if it was done with permission by Ranke):
Ranke admitted he did not publish the quote online, saying, "Schou wanted proof that Pickering really did quit the movement and spiral out of control so yes I forwarded him the exchange." Now, the obvious thing to do would have been to refuse to discuss 9/11 truth member "gossip" in the first place. After all, if CIT was sincerely interested in discussing their theory about what happened on 9/11, they should have stuck to their theory and nothing else. As Ranke explains:
However, despite our desire to delve into the evidence itself, Nick skillfully kept the conversation on a superficial level. In retrospect, his main interest did not seem to be the evidence, but rather juicy gossip or controversial quotes which, taken out of context, could be construed as outrageous claims on our part (with the release of his article, this has proven to have been the case).
Does Ranke think that the mainstream media is on the same side of the 9/11 truth movement and reports 9/11 information fairly? Does Ranke believe that by reporting this "gossip" to the reporter, that he would not cover it? That this information would reflect favorably on the 9/11 truth movement? Does Ranke believe that after the fact, he has the right to complain about a hit piece in which material that he provided was used against him? Apparently, the answer to the last question is "yes":
There can now be no question that Schou went into this articlewith an agenda and a clear desire to portray us a certain way. It's rather apparent he was unwilling to put in the necessary effort to validate, refute, or even understand the evidence and preferred to focus on gossip instead.
Apparently, Ranke could only figure out this was a hit piece in which a reporter was asking for "gossip" after the article was published. In fact, no one can force anyone to talk about something that they do not wish to discuss. Ranke admitted he was "happy to oblige" in reporting this gossip to this reporter. Clearly, this hit piece was a self-inflicted wound.
Personal attacks requires motive and intent. In my experience, personal attacks and irrelevant commentary are used to intentionally create hostility within the 9/11 truth movement, possibly with the intent of distracting attention away from facts, evidence, and legitimate debate. Personal attacks are a diversion and distraction similarly exploited by FOX propaganda specialists like Bill O'Reilly and Michelle Malkin. Likewise, the 9/11 truth "debunker" site "Screw Loose Change" strongly emphasizes personal attacks against 9/11 truth advocates instead of debate. As Jim Fetzer explains (note: see this article for my observations on Fetzer and his definitions of disinformation), Ad hominem attacks are disinformation:
As for CIT's claim that the plane flew "north of CITGO" gas station, this has long been debunked. Among the witnesses that CIT cites as "evidence" include witness accounts (5 years later) who said the plane hit the Pentagon (implicitly debunking the north flight path), appeared to show up on different location on the CITGO gas station video from where they claimed to be (CIT claiming that the perpetrators purposely altered the video), with another witness claiming that light poles were "not knocked down" where they were in fact, knocked down.
Disingenuously, CIT claims that these witnesses are somehow "smoking gun" evidence of a "military slight of hand deception" that "fooled" witnesses into somehow thinking that a plane hit the Pentagon despite the above and other glaring problems with the theory.
What was this evidence for a plane flying over the Pentagon instead of impacting it on 9/11? CIT found four witnesses claiming that the plane flew in a direction that would place it north of the CITGO gas station on 9/11. Ranke explains what he believes to be the significance of this evidence, “[nobody] directly refutes the north side claim. NOBODY! …until you can counter this evidence with stronger evidence there is a much higher probability that north side claim is accurate.” However, three of these same witnesses strongly suggested that the plane impacted the Pentagon, which is in direct conflict with the claim that the plane flew north of CITGO gas station since the physical damage could only be explained by a south approach.
CIT is infamous for their “take no prisoners” debating style best explained by Aldo Marquis, “I hate to say it, but unless anyone here can provide any new information and not their OPINION to effectively refute any of the evidence we have obtained, they should politely keep their comments to themselves,sit their [sic] quietly, and LEARN… This is not a debate club.This is war. Either you believe 911 was an inside job or you don't.” Craig Ranke explains similarly, “I am not here for debate. Sure I can debate with the best of them and I may come off as heavy handed or even arrogant… but… I have done the work and came back with proof.” When challenged about peer review of his flyover theory Ranke replied, “Peer reviewed! Sure! We want the entire world to review it.”
Circular Logic and the “Proven” North of CITGO Gas Station Flight Path
What is the basis for this “proof”? Craig Ranke correctly explains the value of evaluating evidence through corroboration:
“Everyone knows that eyewitness accounts are fallible but as they become corroborated the claim becomes exponentially validated. With enough corroboration,ALL claims can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. When we are talking about a simple right or left claim of this magnitude this is particularly the case. To get the side of the station wrong for people who were literally on the station's property would be a ridiculously drastic and virtually impossiblemistake to make that would require hallucinations. For all of them to hallucinate the same exact thing is simply not a viable consideration.”
Nobody saw a Global Hawk or Missile hit the Pentagon [true]
Nobody claims a commercial airliner flew over the Pentagon [true]
ALL Witnesses who claimed to have seen a plane strike the Pentagon weresimultaneously “fooled”. The evidence for this is that four witnesses gave accounts years after the attack that the plane flew north of the CITGO gas station, but still hit the Pentagon. [The “PentaCon” Eyewitness Hypothesis]
Of these eyewitnesses interviewed by CIT, William Lagasse falsely indicated where light poles were knocked down, while denying that others were knocked down. Amazingly, CIT implies that this does not affect the reliability of his flight path account—in fact, Ranke brazenly and disingenuously claims that it makes his testimony about the flight path even more credible:
How could Lagasse “not see the light poles” as Ranke suggests if he claimed that “there was a light pole here that was knocked down [pointing to an incorrect location]… none of these light poles over here were knocked down”—a falsestatement? If Lagasse didn’t see or remember seeing these light poles on the ground on 9/11, he presumably would have replied “I don’t know”, instead of “none of these light poles… were knocked down”. Lagasse also misplaced the location of the taxi cab to the location where he thought the light poles were knocked down. This factual error strongly suggests that Lagasse witnessed the plane where the actual light poles were knocked down—not where he mistakenly thought they were knocked down. Along with incorrectly placing the location of the damaged Taxi Cab and light poles, at the very least this puts the accuracy of his “smoking gun” testimony in doubt.
In summary, CIT has made these misleading claims about Lagasse:
They claim that he “did not see the light poles” when Lagasse specifically claims that light poles were “not knocked down” and others were “knocked down” in an incorrect location.
They claim that because he misplaced the location of the light poles it makes his testimony of the flight path more reliable, despite giving factually incorrect information
A C-130 “Diversion”, “Planted” Light Poles, Psy-op Trees, Radar Data and Videos “controlled by the perps”, and “Ludicrous” Theories
Putting aside this implausible scenario, how then to explain the knocked down light poles? When asked if he believed explosives were used to take them out Ranke replied incredulously, “We have never claimed explosives were used to bring down the light poles. That is ludicrous.” What was CIT’s “non-ludicrous” explanation?
“I would almost say that you are slightly mentally challenged or you are a dishonest operative trying to attribute words to us we've never said. WE NEVER SAID EXPLOSIVES WERE INVOLVED. Light poles were removed months in advance. A VDOT representative said "anything is possible" when it comes to them not being aware of a removal. No one would notice 5 light poles missing, that were removed in the middle of the night… 4 prefabbed light poles were laid out in the grass in inconspicuous areas in the night time/early am hours. You can't see the poles from the elevated highway. No one would be paying attention to light poles on the side of the road that they can't even see. Most people were looking straight ahead, on their cell phones, listening to their radio for news in NYC.”
The light pole damage is compelling for another reason as I stated in my original review of the PentaCon, “Even more significant is that the structural damage inside of the Pentagon aligns perfectly with the flight path as suggested by the light pole damage and generator… The filmmakers even acknowledge this point when they claim that the plane could not have caused the structural damage inside of the Pentagon if it approached from north of the CITGO gas station. This is very strong evidence that the PentaCon eyewitnesses are wrong. Not only is there physical evidence suggesting a plane hit the Pentagon, there is compelling eyewitness testimony corroborating what happened.”
Were these specially designated psy-op trees another part of the spectacularly complicated and convoluted “military deception” successfully carried out by the Pentagon attack planners? This claim is extremely dubious since as you can see in the photos for yourself; while these trees partially block a view of the Pentagon, they would not block any view of a potential Pentagon flyover. It is a stretch to say that these trees would even fully block the view of the plane if it hit the Pentagon. This is clearly one of the most disingenuous arguments promoted by the CIT investigators, bordering on deliberate disinformation. The sound of the plane impact and resulting silence afterwards is noted by several witnesses. Firefighter Allan Wallace was mere feet away from the impact zone at the Pentagon and described “a flash and a horrific crunch.”
The Truly Massive COINTELPRO and Spook Campaign to Hound CIT and “Neutralize” their “Smoking Gun” Evidence
The CIT researchers give us equally convoluted and absurd insinuations that they are being “neutralized” by a “COINTELPRO team” and “spooks”. CIT research Aldo Marquis describes “the ‘team’ that came out after to help reinforce [the 'official story']. ‘John Farmer’, ‘Arabesque’, and ‘Adam ‘Caustic Logic’ Larson’. There is not a doubt in my mind that we are dealing with ops here. I dare Adam Larson to provide a history and proof of his identity. I defy Arabesque to do the same. You can all laugh, but what they do is called ‘neutralization’. This is exactly what COINTEL, does…” Craig Ranke has also insinuated that Caustic Logic “made a sad attempt to neutralize our info… and he's a bad writer too. It's like he is a cointelpro flunkie but he keeps trying!” While Ranke says “neither [Arabesque or Caustic Logic] are smart enough to be actual cointelpro,” he contradicted himself elsewhere when he called Caustic Logic “a brainwashed minion of the Pickering/Hoffman/Arabasque [sic] squadrather than a professional.” Ranke sums up his dismay that “people like the Frustrated Fraud havedirected so much energy to spin and neutralization [sic] of the facts…”
These accusations of a campaign to discredit CIT’s “smoking gun” evidence were not limited to only 9/11 researchers; Aldo Marquis accused an entire online conspiracy theory forum of a conspiracy to manipulate their research: “Craig, I told you. ATS [Above Top Secret Forum] is trying to control the information. This thread should not have been moved to our forum. Yet it was. I am not putting up with this spook operation at ATS.” Aldo Marquis continued this accusation against members of the ATS forum as well as the administration saying, “and for the record I was against this BS forum to begin with… There is no answer that will ever satisfy the idiots and spooks on this forum. They get an answer and avoid it and carry on with their agenda.”
Similarly conspiratorial thinking was seen after a FOIA request finally forced the release of the CITGO gas station video camera video discussed above. Craig Ranke was up in arms with disgust, claiming that the video was altered with the intent to discredit his “smoking gun” proof claiming “…the video has been proven to be manipulated/altered before and after its released… all the witnesses at the Citgo did not see ANYTHING fly on the south side of the station. The plane and the plane only was on the north side of the Citgo. This was clearly a hasty, desperate response and poor attempt by the perps to discredit Robert Turcios AND the north side flight path.”
Or was this yet more obvious evidence that the PentaCon witness statements aren’t the “smoking gun” the CIT researchers disingenuously claim it to be?
If you can’t Beat em’ Join em’—CIT: the “Light Side” of the Force?
It cannot be denied that CIT is adamant and unwavering in their controversial beliefs. As Aldo Marquis says, “We are the good guys. We are the guys with the evidence and know how. We are the guys who put out lives on the line so you all could know what happened at the Pentagon.”
Obviously frustrated after many skirmishes with the brilliant Pentagon researcher Caustic Logic, Craig Ranke wrote an open letter, “Caustic Logic… Consider this letter a plea for logic and a friendly reaching out to get you to come over to the light side… I think it would be very effective if you were able to concede that you no longer believe in a 757 impact and even join forces with us if you will.” After a phone interview in November 2007, Caustic Logic was given another offer of “choosing to side with the more logical, reasonable, and scientific conclusion that the north side evidence is valid and committing to helping us spread the word with your blog.”
Like Caustic Logic, after writing my review of the PentaCon I was similarly given an offer to “join” their effort by Ranke, and later “a truce.I use hard rhetoric with people who deliberately set out to discredit our research and you are currently the ONLY one who has an active article against us still online… Because of your direct attacks against our information I have been particularly harsh with you and I apologize. I believe that you have honest intentions but are misguided. I promise to discuss information with you in a civil tone.” I did not remove my review as requested, while Caustic logic removed his article because “I never felt it was written or approached quite right… I will direct readers to Arabesque's far-superior critical review.”
The “take no prisoners” approach by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis is frequently antagonistic in tone to anyone who doubts their “smoking gun proof”; this is but a short sample of their work:
“The fact that they all saw the plane on the north side proves that the plane was on the north side. If you STILL don't understand the implications of this then I doubt you have the mental capacity to ever understand. Most likely it is just denial.”
“I am not surprised that you would refuse and once again bail on this discussion without EVER having addressed the north side evidence directly. Some call that the ostrich syndrome.”
“It's ok, take some time, look at the ASCE report and think about. You'll eventually get it. ;)”
The “smoking gun” assault of the CIT debating team turns harsher and more vicious the more skeptical the adversary. In particular, other Pentagon researchers are especially derided, insulted, and antagonized by CIT:
Aldo Marquis: “You screwed everybody. You didn't do your homework. You made a movie that got heavily debunked and yet you CONTINUED TO SELL IT!!!!! You should be ashamed of yourself. Now you are releasing watered down version which now makes you and everybody who supported you look like fools. I actually back up my accusations with facts, research, evidence, and logic Dylan. That's not your department.”
“You are a fraud Russell Pickering. You hide on that forum and conduct your operation from there. But this will soon come to an end. Rob and I are looking for you pal, give us your number so we can discuss this like men AND RECORD IT. If you are right, you shouldn't be worried… It is so obvious what you are Russell, in fact, I am sure it is why you ‘moved’ and changed your phone number. I spent hours with you Russell. Hours. Now it all makes sense. Everything you did, your motives, your actions. It's so evident."
Craig Ranke: “Farmer.....you are by far the creepiest of the group. Every sentence you type reeks of manipulation. It's like you simply don't have the ability to express yourself honestly or openly. Your blogs are so completely vacuous yet simultaneously pretentious. No matter how confusing and pointless you make them you simply can't hide the fact that you have ulterior motives for posting them in the first place. It's quite sad and the fact that you pop up within seconds in whatever forum your name is mentioned makes it clear that you are obsessed with the 9/11 truth movement and haven't even come close to disassociating yourself with it as you had claimed you were doing after your unprovoked irrational public blow up against us in the LC forum because I posted one of your images.”
Craig Ranke: “Funny how you still slobber over Arabasque's [sic] ill-informed cut and paste compilation. Dude has clearly not analyzed a single one of these witness accounts.”
Aldo Marquis: “He is seriously corrupted in his motive, because this is apparently about the ‘Russell Pickering Show’ as I call it. This is about his theory. Not about the truth.”
“Do you realize what an affront you are to 9/11 truth? To argue in FAVOR of the official story with nothing but government data while claiming you are fighting for 9/11 truth is beyond hypocritical and borderlines on treason as far as I am concerned. You should be ashamed of yourself anonymous blogger.”
“The vast majority of people on this forum "doubt" this testimony proves 911 was an inside job. YOUR own poll proved it. MANY people who are hard core troothers weighed in with comments in that thread and said the film was, basically, a non-event. You were outvoted by somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-1. Sure, you claim that the "JFER'ers" somehow stuffed the ballot box but that doesn't explain why only 7 people HERE, in the [Loose Change] forum, agreed with you and Merc. This is getting old. You think you have a smoking gun.”
“I watched that Pentacon Movie..... Name is PERFECT.... we were CONNED to watch it… This Jack guy states that all the witnesses agree of what side of the Citgo station they see the plane. ALL of these witnesses ALSO claimed to have seen the plane slam into the pentagon. So, we are to take what they say about the location of the plane as Gospel yet dismiss what they say about the plane hitting the Pentagon.”
“I think you get so freaking pissed off because you went and spent time, effort, and money to DC, created the Pentacon flick, and people still don't believe it. I think you go beserk because you REALLY believe it is a smoking gun but most people do not. I certainly don't. I respect the fact that you and Craig went there. I really do. But you have to respect the fact that it doesn't convince everyone. And just because we're not convinced, you don't know how to handle it without insults of "troll" and ‘JREF’er’.”
“The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.” - Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 191
On the Scholars for 9/11 Truth Forum, Victoria Ashley correctly summarized the critical problem with the flyover hypothesis as promoted by the CIT researchers, “If I were a person trying to sell a product and I did a survey of people and found that people ranked my product the best, would you trust that survey? This is why there are scientific standards. You are not looking for the truth when you do not consider all the evidence as a body. You are looking for what people said that can then support your thesis, whatever it may be. This is non-scientific, unfortunately. I don't say that to be rude or to say what your intentions are, only to underscore that the only type of investigation of the Pentagon that is sincere about being a scientific investigation is one thatdoes not discard evidence or make claims about evidence as though the claims are factual when they are not.”
As for the flyover theory, it is not directly supported by any witness statements as acknowledged by CIT. Instead, CIT makes the claim that the witnesses who claimed the Pentagon were struck were “fooled”. In order to “support” this theory (frequently referencing the “proven” north of CITGO gas station flight path), CIT makes the following hypothetical and clearly deceptive and disingenuous claims:
A carefully timed “illusion” enabled a flyover
Witnesses were confused with the other planes in the area despite their significantly different appearances, locations, speeds, and altitudes
The fireball allowed the plane to fly past the Pentagon without anyone noticing
The Pentagon trees were used to disguise the plane from impacting the building, completely ignoring the fact that they would not prevent witnesses from seeing the plane fly over the building
The light poles were taken down in the middle of the night and planted on the crime scene without anyone noticing or reporting this happened
The video evidence contradicting both the north side claim and the flyover are “manipulated by the perps” to counter CIT’s “smoking gun” evidence
The alleged flight path North of the CITGO gas station is considered “proven” despite the contrary evidence that three of these same witnesses claim that the plane hit the Pentagon
Radar data which clearly contradicts the flyover theory is dismissed as “controlled by the perps”
The CIT researchers frequently and falsely interpret criticism of their theory as a personal attack along with accusations of government sponsored “neutralization”. As the flyover theory is clearly unsupported by any credible evidence, the CIT theorists frequently rely on vicious, slanderous, and libelous ad hominem attacks and antagonism to those who dare to question their flyover theory. Any disagreement with the “smoking gun” evidence is derided with hostility on internet forums, while any criticism of the theory is largely interpreted as an “attack” or “spook operation”. Pentagon researchers in particular, are highlighted for accusations including “treason”, “supporting the official story”, “COINTELPRO”, and “brainwashed”. Similarly, any witnesses who contradict the north claim are called “propaganda”, “agents”, and in the case of a taxi cab driver, “the devil”. Aside from the weakly supported flyover hypothesis,whether intentional or not, the ridiculous antics and outrageous behavior of the CIT researchers are damaging and destructive to the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement.
A Blog Devoted to Discussing 9/11 News, Research, and Disinformation
"When we act, we create our own reality"
“The aide said that guys like me were ‘in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who ‘believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.’ I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ‘That's not the way the world really works anymore… We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.'"
“Arabesque is the best writer in the movement, bar none. Arabesque writes with great clarity on all areas of the 9-11 cover-up, meticulously documenting each point through the use of extensive endnotes. Arabesque has also proven that he isn’t afraid to take on the disinformation specialists who would serve to discredit legitimate questions, research, and evidence which would directly contradict the 'official conspiracy theory' about the events of September 11th, 2001. This, I believe, is one of the most important issues facing the 9-11 movement today.” — Michael Wolsey, Visibility 9-11
The Animation and FDR are two separate things. In the 9/11 truth movement, many confuse this and mistakenly believe that the FDR and flight animation are the same thing. As a consequence of this mistaken belief, many mistakenly claim that the "FDR" contradicts the official flight path. While it is true that the animation contradicts the official flight path, it is also true that the FDR supports the official flight path as shown in the image above.
