by Kevin Ryan
There are many questions to be answered about the events at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Here are a dozen such questions that, if answered, might help to bring about justice.
1. Exactly how was Flight 77 hijacked, considering, among other things, that the alleged hijackers were said to be identified as security risks (possibly linked to al Qaeda) when they tried to board, and were not physically imposing (all 5 and a half feet tall or less, and slender in build)?
2. How was the nation’s air defense system disabled on 9/11, and how could anything have hit the Pentagon approximately 80 minutes after the first plane was known to be hijacked?
3. Why was Dick Cheney tracking Flight 77?
4. Why were explosive experts, who had a history of covering-up the OKC bombing and have since been accused of obstructing other investigations, hired to write the FEMA report? (Mete Sozen and Paul Mlakar).,
5. Why did the roof of the Pentagon collapse 30 minutes after impact, giving additional evidence for the use of explosives? Note: The use of explosives at the Pentagon seems to be in agreement with the use of a large plane, which would have had little penetrating power.
6. Why was AMEC, the company that had just finished refurbishing Wedge 1 of the Pentagon, hired to lead the clean-up effort at Ground Zero?
7. Why did the NTSB not make public reports on any of the planes as is the normal procedure?
8. Why did none of the planes squawk the hijack code?
9. Why was the official explanation for alleged phone calls made by Flight 77 passenger Barbara Olsen changed several times, and ultimately how could Ted Olsen’s story make any sense?
10. Why did high-ranking Pentagon officials cancel travel plans for the morning of September 11 “…apparently because of security concerns.”?
11. How could Hani Hanjour still have successfully piloted Flight 77 given his poor qualifications?
12. Why are those interested in The Pentagon not intently reviewing documents released by the FAA and 9/11 Commission that reveal startling questions about the aircraft and events of that day?
Why are these questions NOT being pursued by independent investigators? That’s because the attention of many potential investigators has been hijacked by the much less useful question of “What hit the Pentagon.” This is certainly the favorite subject of intentional disruptors and official story supporters.
A great example was when 9/11 Commission staffer Miles Kara and I exchanged messages a few months ago. He had written to my local group in an inquiry seeking support for his positions. My response was apparently not to his liking, and he therefore sought something in my own work that could be criticized. Despite the fact that the vast majority of my 9/11 work has centered on the World Trade Center, Army intelligence officer Kara searched through my articles and presentations over the last seven years and chose one minor statement I made about the Pentagon, in March 2006. He then enlarged this into his own emotional statement, suggesting that those who question what hit the Pentagon do “a disservice to the men, women and children who died there that day. Visit the Pentagon Memorial and sit on the bench of the youngest victim.“ Kara was most interested in discussing what hit the Pentagon only so that he could turn the issue into an emotional question about the victims. That is usually the case with mainstream media hit pieces, and with intentional disruptors as well.
The question of what hit the Pentagon leads directly to the question of what happened to the passengers, as Miles Kara was trying to insinuate. That fact was also emphasized by the leading promoter of the “fly-over” theory when he gave a presentation in Europe recently. His presentation ended with the questions he really wanted us to think about.
“Demand answers to the question of what happened to the people on the plane.”
“How did they really die?”
“Where they killed them, how they killed them, I can’t know.”
“I can only know what the witnesses tell me.”
Is this a good way to encourage people to question 9/11, and to bring justice? Obviously not.
Finally, note that “endorsements” are a good way to pit people against each other, and that’s exactly what has been done. There has never been another issue in the truth movement that has required the pursuit of endorsements but, for some reason, this least important question about the Pentagon is promoted as an important issue requiring us to divide into camps. Divide and conquer is the strategy of the intentional disruptor.
In other words, what hit the Pentagon does not bring us closer to justice but actually brings us farther from that goal because it exacerbates the divisions within the truth movement while we waste time. That’s probably why the intentional disruptors and government supporters always drive the conversations to that one question.
People who are serious about 9/11 truth and justice focus on the facts that help us come not only to truth, but to a useful truth. We should make only minimal reference to any facts that do not help us achieve truth and justice. Instead, we should make note that what hit the Pentagon, for example, is a minor and nearly useless issue that is used by intentional disruptors and official story promoters as they work to keep the truth from being exposed.
 Complete 911 Timeline, American Airlines Flight 77, http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=aa77
 Norman Mineta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission makes clear that Dick Cheney was tracking Flight 77 while it was more than 50 miles away from Washington DC. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y
 Mete Sozen has since become a leading spokesman for the official story about the WTC as well. For more about him, see my articles “Looking for Truth in Credentials: The Peculiar WTC ‘Experts’”, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=RYA20070313&articleId=5071 and “Finally, an apology from the National Geographic Channel”, http://911blogger.com/news/2009-08-22/finally-apology-national-geographic-channel
 Some very seriouis accusations have been made against Paul Mlakar by Prof. Raymond B. Seed of the University of California, Berkeley, Letter entitled Re: New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina, And the Soul of the Profession, October 30, 2007, http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-15/pentagon-investigation-leader-paul-mlakar-obstructed-investigation-new-orleans-according-uc-berkeley-professor
 Kevin R. Ryan, Demolition Access to the WTC Towers: Part Four – Cleanup, 911Review.com, February 11, 2010, http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p4.html
 911Research.com, NTSB Reports: Long-Hidden NTSB Reports Contain Flight Data, http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/ntsb.html
 David Ray Griffin, Ted Olson’s Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials, GlobalResearch.ca, April 1, 2008, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8514
 The Family Steering Committee for an Independent 9/11 Commission, http://www.911independentcommission.org/
 Complete 911 Timeline, Hani Hanjour, http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&the_alleged_9/11_hijackers=haniHanjour
 See the FOIA responses obtained by the 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington,
Also see the documents released by the 911 Commission,
Here’s an example:
UAL and AAL employees: Contradictions about transponders. ACARS data missing. UAL had radar continuity.
Many of the documents are just cover pages saying the information is still “Restricted”. These include interviews of the CIA agents, Prince Bandar, and the first responders.
 Miles Kara, Archive for the ‘Bloomington Group’ Category, 9/11 Revisited website, http://www.oredigger61.org/?cat=25
 Parody video of CIT tour and presentation in which, at 02:18, the speaker tells his French audience the reasons why CIT is working so hard. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx0tFvlQ2F0&feature=player_embedded
Friday, October 22, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
"Take note of the fact that CIT demands that you agree with everything they say. It's like a cult. If you disagree with anything they say they attack you and accuse you of not being honest. Just like a cult. Also like a cult, the initial claims seem more reasonable than the insanity you will be exposed to later. The initial claim of "North of Citgo" is very reasonable, but once they get you on board with that they expect you to accept the insanity they spew in regards to Lloyde England. They even encourage people to take actions against Lloyde England. It's just like a cult. Members are expected to prove their loyalty with irrational beliefs and actions and when they don't, they get attacked. STAY AWAY FROM CIT. THEY ARE DANGEROUS." - former CIT supporter
Friday, October 8, 2010
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
911blogger.com has published a new article by Arcterus demonstrating CIT's utter uselessness to the cause of 9/11 truth. The article leaves aside CIT's lies, distortions and unethical behavior and focuses solely on the legal impracticality of their "evidence". One particularly compelling highlight:
Let's start with their own witnesses being cross-examined with each other. CIT's own witnesses state that the plane impacted the building. Their case for claiming the physical evidence was faked revolves around the testimony that the flight path as on the north side of CITGO. They would HAVE to find some way to convince the jury that part of the testimony was right and another part was wrong without directly saying so. Now even if they made this possible, invalidating a witness discredits their ENTIRE testimony. Even if you're only arguing against part of it, it only makes the entire testimony look bad. It's so unlikely it might as well be said to be impossible that an entire jury would accept a testimony to be PARTIALLY accurate. They would almost definitely disregard it. Even if, by some miracle, each and every one of them thought in this way, that would go out the window upon cross-examination. Take, for example, Sergeant Lagasse. CIT says that Sergeant Lagasse giving irrefutably wrong locations of the taxi cab and light poles actually supports their theory. Well, that's all fine and dandy, but back in the realm of reality, all it means is that he's WRONG. And if he's wrong, it means the entire testimony could be wrong.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Barrie Zwicker, once considered a fairly reliable media critic, recently told the audience at the Deep Politics conference in Santa Cruz, California that "credibility is overrated". Now we know he really means it. In a disturbingly absurd video pronouncement posted recently, Zwicker swears undying allegiance to the CIT crusade and in equally absolutist terms announces that all of CIT's critics are government agents. Does he offer any evidence at all to back up this shockingly paranoid and disruptive claim? Of course not. And why should he - every CIT follower knows that only agents could possibly have a problem with CIT. You can watch Barrie Zwicker flush the remains of his sanity down the toilet here.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Another one of CIT's much-touted endorsers offers a clarification:
Earlier this year I wrote a review of CIT's "National Security Alert" in which I recommended that we all take a closer at the eyewitness accounts supporting the "North path" of American Airlines Flight 77 at the Pentagon. CIT's investigation includes detailed in-person interviews which appeared quite compelling. As AE911Truth's focus is the destruction of three buildings at WTC, I didn't perform an exhaustive review of CIT's material and methods. My quick statement should not be portrayed as an endorsement of CIT's conclusion that the airliner "flew over" the Pentagon.
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Despite this, CIT continues to use Richard Gage's well-respected name as a recruiting tool, featuring only his original "quick statement" on their Praise page and regularly implying that he supports CIT's Flyover fantasy.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Ever wonder why CIT sound exactly like marketing professionals? It's because they are. Both Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis are employed as sales representatives by a small but very profitable company called Melissa Data, located in Rancho Santa Margarita, California. Oddly, Ranke and Marquis have publicly admitted to promoting CIT from their workplace, with no apparent concern about getting in trouble with their employer - even while posting threatening statements from Melissa Data's IP address. But we really enter twilight zone territory when we discover that Melissa Data set up a fake news site for the apparent sole purpose of publishing a CIT press release. At this point, we really have to ask just what kind of company is Melissa Data?
And what is Inspiriant Solutions?
Monday, September 7, 2009
From the videomaker:
A mock trailer for a movie I'm not actually gonna make. I believe 9/11 was an Inside Job but I don't question whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon. The entire Pentagon attack was a psy-op in my mind to distract researchers and promote pointless debate and speculation that only discredits the movement. We now have scientific proof of demolition, let's focus on that instead of debating about what happened at the Pentagon. I also believe CIT and Pilots For 9/11 Truth are, whether they realize it or not, part of a disinformation campaign.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Due to the unwanted attention that CIT Watch has brought down on the so-called Citizen Investigation Team's enemy list, Craig and Aldo have made a very weak attempt to whitewash their ugliness into something slightly less ugly. But only slightly. For the most part this only amounts to removing the word "enemy" and prefacing the list with a double layer of disclaimers. Aldo has entirely scrubbed his initial request for followers to compile information and pictures in an ongoing "database of enemies" and has also deleted his suggestion of kicking one of his enemies in the teeth. This attempt at throwing history down the memory hole seems to contradict CIT's original adamant defense of their actions - if there was nothing wrong with it, why change it? And in a typical act of CIT deception, no mention is made of the heavy editing that has taken place.
The funny part is that an enemies list is somehow supposed to be less offensive simply because it's not called an enemies list anymore.
The funny part is that an enemies list is somehow supposed to be less offensive simply because it's not called an enemies list anymore.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Peter Dale Scott writes:
"I have not endorsed the flyover theory for Flight 77, and I do not personally believe it."
These words are contained in a form letter that Scott is sending out in reply to the many inquiries he has received from those who have been shocked and appalled that a scholar of his caliber would actually endorse the shoddy work of CIT. Scott makes clear that while he finds the witness testimony interesting, he has never supported CIT's absurd flyover theory nor does he support their habit of vile ad hominem attacks on witnesses and activists.
Also see: Peter Dale Scott Does Not Endorse the Pentagon Flyover Theory (and Neither Do I)
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
"I think that best describes what non-CITers are thought of by CIT followers. Enemy. Not once can I recall a debate I had with a CIT follower (or, for that matter, CIT themselves) where I wasn't treated as a disinfo operative or someone with malevolent intent towards the organization. CIT has followers so blinded by ENTIRELY NON-SCIENTIFIC claims that they're literally unable to understand how anyone else can't believe as they believe. The only possibility? Well, if they're not new to the issue, then they must be agents of disinformation."
from CIT: A World Where Facts Are Irrelevant
I received a lot of very encouraging feedback to Saturday's blog about the so-called Citizen Investigation Team's enemy list, including messages from a few (now former) CIT supporters who had no idea how ugly CIT could get. And, as expected, the response that was the funniest, saddest and simultaneously most disgusting came from CIT itself. For the most part this amounted to an extended hand waving session in which Craig Ranke refused to take any responsibility for CIT's actions - basically claiming it's lies - ALL LIES - and besides, they have every right to keep a public enemies list if they want to! So there.
But aside from this expected silliness and complete lack of accountability for their actions, the reader was also treated to something a shade more sickening. In addressing the fact that CIT has called taxi driver Lloyde England both "the devil" and a "demon", Ranke not only refused to apologize for or acknowledge their very poor treatment of a Pentagon attack survivor who was kind enough to take CIT into his home (and be secretly taped recorded), but he insists that it's quite justified and even quotes the dictionary to show us just how much he really means it:
demon noun 3. a person considered extremely wicked, evil, or cruel.
But even that's still not enough and Ranke then goes on to obliquely compare the 73 year old cab driver to Dick Cheney, Osama bin Laden and whoever rigged the WTC buildings with explosives, wondering aloud how anyone could possibly have a problem with this. The sad thing is, CIT's treatment of England is far from being an isolated transgression. This blog will be looking more closely at their dealings with other Pentagon witnesses in the very near future.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
The so-called Citizen Investigation Team is already well known for their vicious personal attacks both on their interview subjects and on their critics. Pentagon witnesses who didn't tell them what they wanted to hear have been labelled "demon", "devil", "accomplice" and "plant". Likewise, those who have criticized CIT's methods, tactics or theories have been met with similar attacks and even threats and harassing phone calls. So it's really no surprise that Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis would initiate a public hit list of their critics - encouraging their followers to compile photos and personal information about those who've dared to openly disagree with them.
The list starts out targeting an unsavory group of so-called "debunkers" but then quickly moves on to activists within the truth movement who CIT considers their enemies. Photos and personal information are posted along with a deluge of personal attacks and veiled threats, with CIT encouraging their followers to be as nasty as possible. Aldo Marquis, who apparently gets off on playing the heavy and calls himself an "investigangsta" on CIT's site, at one point suggests kicking one of his detractors in the teeth. No one blinks an eye.
Is this what the 9/11 truth movement has become?
Thanks to CIT, unfortunately it is.
Friday, August 7, 2009
A magic show depends on misdirection - getting the audience to focus their attention on something unimportant so the performer can "con" them into thinking he has achieved something he hasn't. CIT operates by distracting truth seekers from the myriad crimes and actionable issues surrounding the Pentagon attack and training their focus on essentially irrelevant details and a bogus flyover theory. By this method, CIT's followers are duped into asking the wrong questions about the Pentagon attack so the perpetrators will never have to worry about the answers.
The Visibility 9/11 radio show with Michael Wolsey recently hosted researcher Jim Hoffman to discuss CIT's strange campaign of misdirection. Over the course of this interview, Wolsey and Hoffman take CIT apart and put the pieces in the trash. This show is a must listen!
Visibility 9/11 interveiw with Jim Hoffman mp3
Monday, August 3, 2009
Victoria Ashley of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice exposes many of the so-called Citizen Investigation Team's deceptions in this comprehensive article. Ashley's previous essay Discrediting By Association brought the hammer down on notoriously shady characters like Jim Fetzer, Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds. Now she shines a light on the CIT hoax.
To Con A Movement