This post  by Craig Ranke was on CIT's Research Forum and is a classic illustration of delusional thinking.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

At the LCF someone asked:

QUOTE

Craig, i have watched your movie and theres one thing that troubles me slightly. If Lloyd is lying and his wife is lying and knows what really happened, as you insinuate, why would he keep the cab? Why would he let you examine it? I would have thought if he was involved to the extent you imply he would have had the cab crushed, gotten rid of it. Instead he shows you it without hesitation. Not really the actions of a guilty man.

I composed a very detailed reply so I want to copy it here:



The evidence proves that the plane did not hit the light poles because it was on the north side of the gas station.

This means that Lloyde's story has been proven false regardless of how hard it is to believe or how many questions you have regarding "why" he did this or that.

That being said, if you want to speculate "why", try to keep your mind in your hypothetical frame of reference considering he WAS involved with the operation and consider what his true role would have been if this scene had been staged.

Obviously if they stage a scene it's because they WANT it to be seen. They WANTED plenty images with Lloyde and the cab and the pole on the road to sell the official flight path. They WANTED his everyman face, unassuming personality, simple demeanor, and harrowing story to be in the media.

There would be no purpose in staging the scene otherwise.

They did not want to hide him away.

I like the characterization of Pentagon attack blogger StevenWarran who has a knack for poetic descriptions:

QUOTE

I submit Lloyd England was the star of a short entre-acte, titled, The Taxi Driver and the Downed Lamp Poles, part of a larger epic�in which the poles starred, not Mr. England�called The Rumsfeld Conspiracies, where these downed lamp posts serve as a corps de ballet, tangible �proofs� of a 757-jetliner�s trajectory and altitude.

To make these staged "tangible proofs" known enough to at least hover subconsciously within the American psyche, Lloyde was told to go forth and talk to the media as much as he pleases.

They weren't about to release an official report that forensically analyzed the plane hitting the poles, exactly what poles were hit and where, and the physics involved with the cab coming to a sliding stop on the road with the pole sticking out of the hood as reported by Lloyde...




Oh no! None of that. In fact the light poles would be virtually ignored by the officials and not even collected until almost 3 weeks after the attack.

They instead relied on the media to deliver Lloyde's story, focusing on the human interest element, with nice old Lloyde emotionally relaying is alleged near death experience to do the work for them.

The science of the situation was ignored as a shocked and grieving public soaked in all the emotional stories of heartache, loss, and near death experiences on 9/11 for years to come.

Obviously this worked REAL GOOD as even many in the movement happily drank that kool-aid and in essence decided to accept the official narrative at the Pentagon, mostly due to the light poles and the cab, as it became clear that all the talk about missiles was ridiculous.

Enter CIT.

We relentlessly interviewed as many witnesses as we could find and ALL of them in the most critical area unanimously place the plane on the north side!

Got that?



But Lloyde wasn't meant to hide away and be quiet. That would have defeated the entire purpose of the staged scene. He talked to many mainstream media outlets before talking to us and they even officially used the image of his cab (undamaged hood and all) and pole in the Moussaui trial.

Lloyde was used to people swallowing his story hook line and sinker.

It was apparent to all of us in our first interview in 2006 that Lloyde relished the attention.

I bet he is sad that he hasn't gotten MORE attention and in fact his wife flat out told us that she was hoping he could sell the cab for "$100,000" or something as a piece of world history!

I speculate that whoever put him up to this told him that he would be made a hero of sorts and that he would probably get lots of "fringe benefits" if you know what I mean.

Do you really think Lloyde would have been worried about me or any citizen investigator if he was fully aware of the powerful dark forces behind him who have his back?

No way! He doesn't have a reason in the world to clam up about his experience...ESPECIALLY after all these years knowing how easily the story had been sold to the masses.

So if you want to speculate WHY he acted like he did you need to look at the situation in context and realize that no matter what...the evidence proves his story false.

There is no way around it.

I thought I'd post this comment by Adam Ruff on 'Truthandshadows' , the most deluded man west of the Pecos, and  east of the Pecos and indeed in  the Pecos...

ruffadam

June 21, 2016 at 1:14 pm

I would be interested to see if there is ANY actual hard evidence beyond commentary? Talk is cheap and actors can act, lord knows they did both at Sandy Hook. But for this to have been real we would have 50 funerals, 50 authentic death certificates, 50 bereaved families with a long history of photos and videos of their lost loved one. There would potentially be 103 facebook, twitter, snap chat, pages that have been established some time ago and they would show real history that could be verified. There should be 103 groups of friends coming forward to talk about their lost or wounded friend, 103 medical records established filled with authentic documents and SS# etc. There should be 103 groups of coworkers or fellow students that know the person. In short there should be real proof these people really existed. A lifetime of bread crumbs should have been left behind for each person.

I think we should each take one of the “victims” and see if we can even establish that they are real. We should talk to their friends on FB etc ask for photos from the past etc. Speak to their coworkers and friends, tell their story! We should see if the death certs are available, go to the burials, see for ourselves if this is true. I strongly suspect we will find that “victim” after “victim” has no real history, no real friends willing to talk, and no job full of coworkers who knew them. Let’s find just one that is real folks, just one. Take a random name and see what you can dig up. I bet it isn’t much.

REPLY

I thought I would add this post from 'Truthandshadows', the forum of Craig McKee , just to illustrate yet again the adage about taking a horse to water. In this case the horse is Adam Ruff, who was taken to the water a long long time ago but is basically too blinkered to realise what is in front of him. Here he clearly and angrily  proclaims the   illogical  deduction he uses to 'prove' that a plane flew over the Pentagon. You couldn't ask for a better illustration of false logic, from someone accusing others of false logic. It's priceless.


---------------------------------
Adam Ruff

Travis I beg to differ with you about the “controversy” with the pentagon evidence. There is no controversy about it other than the contrived controversy created by people like Wayne.

1. The witnesses establish beyond a reasonable doubt a North of Citgo (NOC) flight path.
2. That flight path is incompatible with the official story damage path. NOC therefore proves the “official” damage was staged. Proof of staging is proof of an inside job by the way.
3. The NOC flight path is incompatible with impact because there is no evidence of an impact along the NOC trajectory. Therefore the observed plane MUST have flown over and away from the pentagon.

It is simple inescapable logic and all the flim flam and distractions in the world are not going to change that.

What part of this are you having trouble with Travis? Where is the controversy? In my opinion the only error in your thinking process about the pentagon evidence is that you think people like Wayne are honest and legitimate truthers when in reality they are not. All his arguments are smoke and mirrors. Anyway as long as you focus on what Wayne wants you to focus on you will never fully grasp the very simple and logical deductive reasoning that leads inexorably to the conclusion that the NOC flight path is the most dangerous (to the perps) evidence that we have. Why? Because ONLY people in control of the pentagon could stage evidence and a cover-up at the pentagon. The pentagon is the death nail to the real perps and that is why there is such a massive disinformation effort directed against this evidence and those who promote it.

Wayne is NOT one of the good guys Travis in fact he is a very bad person indeed who is directly engaged in the attempted cover-up of DAMNING evidence that 9/11 was carried out at least in part by insiders within our own government. We long ago past the point of “honest disagreements” with Wayne and now he is repeatedly using disinformation tactics to try and make it appear there really is still a “controversy”. There is no controversy, Wayne is participating in the cover-up of 9/11 it is as simple as that. I can think of nothing more despicable other than actually committing the crime itself.

This exchange was on a website Truthandshadows run by Craig McKee. It just shows you can take a horse to water but if he doesn't recognise water he will not be inclined to drink. If he is a 911 truther he will assume it is some kind of poison and will  accuse you of trying to poison him.

A.Wright

October 5, 2015 at 3:00 pm

@Paul Zarembka
As an academic can you answer a straightforward question of logical deduction.

There is an event with two possible explanations, A and B.

They are mutually exclusive –
If A is true then B is false. If B is true then A is false.
There is evidence for A. There is evidence for B.
Do you
1: Look at the evidence for A and conclude that A is true. Conclude that since A is true that therefore B is false?
or
2: Look at the evidence for both A and B before reaching a conclusion about which is true?

REPLY

1. hybridrogue1

   October 5, 2015 at 3:55 pm

   Agent Wright,

   As the answer to you benumbing& trite question is glaringly obvious; this is not a question at all, it is another of your disingenuous attempts at accusation that the people on this forum have not investigated all aspects of the case at hand

   Just more of your cheesy baseless insults. You are insufferably lame and transparent.
   \\][//
2. A.Wright

   October 10, 2015 at 10:22 am
   I posed this question a few times

   “There is an event with two possible explanations, A and B.
   They are mutually exclusive –
   If A is true then B is false. If B is true then A is false.
   There is evidence for A. There is evidence for B.
   Do you
   1: Look at the evidence for A and conclude that A is true. Conclude that since A is true that therefore B is false?
   or
   2: Look at the evidence for both A and B before reaching a conclusion about which is true?”

   Option 1 is an illogical deduction using false deductive reasoning. Option 2 is obviously the correct logical reasoning to use when investigating anything.
   HR1 recognised this.
   Quote Hr1
   “As the answer to you benumbing& trite question is glaringly obvious; this is not a question at all, it is another of your disingenuous attempts at accusation that the people on this forum have not investigated all aspects of the case at hand.”
   ————–
   In this case A is ‘the plane flew north of the gas station’ and B is ‘the plane hit the Pentagon.’

   So do you
   I: Look at evidence that the plane flew north of the gas station and conclude that it flew north of the gas station. Conclude that since the plane flew north of the gas station that it could not have hit the Pentagon?
   or
   2: Look at the evidence that the plane flew north of the gas station and also the evidence that the plane hit the Pentagon before reaching a conclusion about which is true.”

   Having recognised this , here are posts from HR1 using false deductive reasoning of option 1.

   ——
   Jens Schmidt:
   Do you think it is possible that the airplane at the Pentagon event could possibly be in the position to hit those light poles given the trajectory it is known to have been on?
   —
   As to your proximate question; “Why is staged the most likely scenario,” — Because we know an aircraft did not fly on that course and could not have downed that light pole.
   This is getting complicated because you are making it more complex than it actually is.
   —
   There is no “Could be” about it. It is impossible for the Pentagon aircraft to have stuck the light poles and cause the damage path inside the Pentagon. That is what this whole article and thread has been about.
   —
   It is impossible for the aircraft flying the trajectory it was on to have hit the light poles and cause the damage path in the Pentagon. Impossible.
   So Hufferd, Do you think it is possible that the airplane at the Pentagon event could possibly be in the position to hit those light poles given the trajectory it is known to have been on?
   ——-
   Now; It is perfectly obvious why Jens Schmidt refuses to answer this question. Schmidt’s answer would likely reveal that he/she thinks it is possible that an airplane actually hit the light poles in the Pentagon event of 9/11. This would also reveal that Jens Schmidt does not grasp the argument that it is impossible for that plane to have hit the light poles or the Pentogon due to its trajectory. That being a flight course coming from the west, flying directly over the Arlington Hilton, then over the Navy Annex and continuing to fly to the north side of the Citgo station and on towards the Pentagon.
   This trajectory in incompatible with the directional damage to the Pentagon, and it is impossible that the plane could have hit the light poles on such a vector.
   That would be Schmidt’s dilemma were he/she to suggest it is possible for the Pentagon plane to have downed the light poles.
   Schmidt can easily resolve this question by admitting that it would be impossible for that plane to have hit those light poles. The ball remains in his/her court.
   REPLY

1. 1. hybridrogue1

      October 10, 2015 at 11:14 am

      “Having recognised this , here are posts from HR1 using false deductive reasoning of option 1.”~Agent Wright

      Wright does not grasp the concept of Ultimate Fact; wherein the combined points of evidence and deductive analysis thereof is then adduced as “Ultimate Fact”.

      The ultimate fact has been adduced from all of the combined points of evidence in the 9/11 Pentagon case proving beyond reasonable doubt that the aircraft in question flew on a trajectory north of the Citgo station. See:http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s=49c680ff47c50fcefd79375f8995c465&showtopic=1863&st=15&#entry22008858

      This trajectory is incompatible with the known damage path inside the Pentagon. It is therefore based on all deductive and adductive reasoning that no airplane could have hit the Pentagon on 9/11; beyond reasonable doubt.
      . . . . . . . . .
      Everyone familiar with Agent Wright knows him/her to be a disingenuous agent provocateur, and none are impressed with his/her vapid attempts at reason and logic. As Adam Ruff remarks; Wright answers no questions, but only poses nonsense riddles ad infinitum.
      \\][//

      REPLY
2. A.Wright

   October 10, 2015 at 11:33 am

   @HR1 You repeat the same false deductive reasoning yet again! -the deductive reasoning that you said yourself was obviously false!
   “This trajectory is incompatible with the known damage path inside the Pentagon. It is therefore based on all deductive and adductive reasoning that no airplane could have hit the Pentagon on 9/11; beyond reasonable doubt.”

   REPLY
3. A.Wright

   October 10, 2015 at 5:01 pm

   @HR1
   I should say this is exactly the same false reasoning used by CIT, who presented their conclusions that ‘A’ was true with hardly a mention of the evidence for ‘B’ at all, proving that their logic is false.
   The question about two contradictory explanations for an event , A and B and how to determine which is correct
   Do you
   1: Look at the evidence for A and conclude that A is true. Conclude that since A is true that therefore B is false?
   or
   2: Look at the evidence for both A and B before reaching a conclusion about which is true?”

   Your answer was
   Quote Hr1
   “As the answer to you benumbing& trite question is glaringly obvious; this is not a question at all, it is another of your disingenuous attempts at accusation that the people on this forum have not investigated all aspects of the case at hand.”

   And you then went on to repeat and repeat the false logic of option 1.
   “It is impossible for the aircraft flying the trajectory it was on to have hit the light poles and cause the damage path in the Pentagon. Impossible.”
   1: Look at the evidence for A and conclude that A is true. Conclude that since A is true that therefore B is false.

   You asked if people thought that the plane could have hit the lightpoles – as if it was an accusation!
   Quote : “Schmidt’s answer would likely reveal that he/she thinks it is possible that an airplane actually hit the light poles in the Pentagon event of 9/11.”
   So much for option 2.

   REPLY
4. hybridrogue1

   October 13, 2015 at 8:39 am

   I think it is exceedingly revealing that Deets would agree with Agent Wright’s accusations that I and others here are using illogical reasoning in these debates.

   Obviously there is nothing wrong with Wright’s formulation – what is wrong is him applying it to us; as it is he who constantly mutilates the very principles articulated in his equation. It is hypocritical and disingenuous switch and bate to accuse others of his own willful sins.

   So here we have Deets, not only comparing Truth and Shadows to the justly defunct JREF forums; but also siding with a known, but anonymous stooge and toadyboy: Agent Wright.

   Of course this shreds any remaining validity one might have found in Dwain Deets arguments, his honesty, or his sincerity. He has committed virtual seppuku right before our eyes.
   \\][//

   REPLY
5. A.Wright

   October 13, 2015 at 5:48 pm

   @HR1 “Obviously there is nothing wrong with Wright’s formulation – what is wrong is him applying it to us;”
   Since the quotes I presented were entiirely your own words I’d say you applied it to yourself. The false logic is there for anyone to see. It is there in NSA for anyone to see. Personal attacks on me or anyone else won’t make the logic go away.

   REPLY
6. hybridrogue1

   October 13, 2015 at 6:09 pm

   “Since the quotes I presented were entiirely your own words”~Wright

   Quote those words back to me here and now Wright, or forever shut you face.
   \\][//

   REPLY

   1. A.Wright

      October 13, 2015 at 6:21 pm

      @HR1 The quotes are in the posts above.

      REPLY
      1. hybridrogue1

         October 13, 2015 at 6:29 pm

         “@HR1 The quotes are in the posts above.”~Agent Wright

         This will not do Wright, you post the quotes you say are mine or shut your stinking face.
         \\][//

         REPLY
         1. A.Wright

            October 13, 2015 at 6:35 pm

            @HR1 No. The quotes are in the posts above where you can scroll up and read them.
         2. hybridrogue1

            October 13, 2015 at 6:48 pm

            “No. The quotes are in the posts above where you can scroll up and read them.”~Wright

            You stinking lying prevaricating whore shill. I know every word I said and what you said. If you don’t post the quotes you claim are mine that prove I have not made a logical argument, You will prove yourself to be exactly as I characterize in my first sentence here – One more shot asshole.
         3. hybridrogue1

            October 13, 2015 at 7:19 pm

            Agent Wright, You are again evading a direct challenge to respond – to put up or shut up. Let’s have your answer as spurious as it is certain to be.
            \\][//
         4. hybridrogue1

            October 13, 2015 at 7:51 pm

            As it is clear that Agent Wright has squirmed off into the shadows once again, I will explain his nonsense here:

            My mode of argumentation falls squarely in Wright’s;

            #2: Look at the evidence for both A and B before reaching a conclusion about which is true?

            I have assessed the (A) government’s case for flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon. I have assessed the total lack of any confirmed evidence thereof.

            I have then assessed (B) the confirmed testimonials of the ‘North Side Witnesses’, and tried them agains what are now asserted to be ‘South Side Witnesses’ – although there were never such distinctions drawn until the CIT discovered through personal and direct investigation the witnesses referred to as the NOC witnesses.

            That many of the NOC witnesses have been attempted to be put into the SOC camp by the opposition is clearly a disingenuous ruse; as is shown in the witness comparisons originally compiled by Onesliceshort, and presented below as a fairly complete cast of the witness pool.
            . . . . . .
            Now as Wright has plainly misaprehended my arguments are plain. That Wright uses the first mode of taking only ‘A’ without consideration of ‘B’, also shows how disingenuous his argumentation is.
            \\][//
         5. A.Wright

            October 14, 2015 at 5:51 pm

            “There is an event with two possible explanations, A and B.
            They are mutually exclusive –
            If A is true then B is false. If B is true then A is false.
            There is evidence for A. There is evidence for B.

            Do you
            1: Look at the evidence for A and conclude that A is true. Conclude that since A is true that therefore B is false?
            or
            2: Look at the evidence for both A and B before reaching a conclusion about which is true?”

            ________

            Quote HR1

            “My mode of argumentation falls squarely in Wright’s;

            #2: Look at the evidence for both A and B before reaching a conclusion about which is true?

            I have assessed the (A) government’s case for flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon. I have assessed the total lack of any confirmed evidence thereof.

            I have then assessed (B) the confirmed testimonials of the ‘North Side Witnesses’, and tried them against what are now asserted to be ‘South Side Witnesses’ – although there were never such distinctions drawn until the CIT discovered through personal and direct investigation the witnesses referred to as the NOC witnesses.

            That many of the NOC witnesses have been attempted to be put into the SOC camp by the opposition is clearly a disingenuous ruse; as is shown in the witness comparisons originally compiled by Onesliceshort, and presented below as a fairly complete cast of the witness pool.
            . . . . . .
            Now as Wright has plainly misaprehended my arguments are plain. That Wright uses the first mode of taking only ‘A’ without consideration of ‘B’, also shows how disingenuous his argumentation is.”
            —————————-

            Now compare to HR1’s actual mode of argument from quotes here:

            ___
            This would also reveal that Jens Schmidt does not grasp the argument that it is impossible for that plane to have hit the light poles or the Pentagon due to its trajectory.
            ___
            Jens Schmidt:
            Do you think it is possible that the airplane at the Pentagon event could possibly be in the position to hit those light poles given the trajectory it is known to have been on?
            —
            As to your proximate question; “Why is staged the most likely scenario,” — Because we know an aircraft did not fly on that course and could not have downed that light pole.
            This is getting complicated because you are making it more complex than it actually is.
            —
            There is no “Could be” about it. It is impossible for the Pentagon aircraft to have stuck the light poles and cause the damage path inside the Pentagon. That is what this whole article and thread has been about.
            —
            It is impossible for the aircraft flying the trajectory it was on to have hit the light poles and cause the damage path in the Pentagon. Impossible.
            So Hufferd, Do you think it is possible that the airplane at the Pentagon event could possibly be in the position to hit those light poles given the trajectory it is known to have been on?
            ——-
            Now; It is perfectly obvious why Jens Schmidt refuses to answer this question. Schmidt’s answer would likely reveal that he/she thinks it is possible that an airplane actually hit the light poles in the Pentagon event of 9/11. This would also reveal that Jens Schmidt does not grasp the argument that it is impossible for that plane to have hit the light poles or the Pentagon due to its trajectory. That being a flight course coming from the west, flying directly over the Arlington Hilton, then over the Navy Annex and continuing to fly to the north side of the Citgo station and on towards the Pentagon.
            This trajectory in incompatible with the directional damage to the Pentagon, and it is impossible that the plane could have hit the light poles on such a vector.
            That would be Schmidt’s dilemma were he/she to suggest it is possible for the Pentagon plane to have downed the light poles.
            Schmidt can easily resolve this question by admitting that it would be impossible for that plane to have hit those light poles. The ball remains in his/her court.
            _____
         6. hybridrogue1

            October 14, 2015 at 6:10 pm

            And so what Agent Wright? As I have already determined by looking at the evidence from both sides of the argument, that it is impossible for the plane on that trajectory to have hit the light poles or made the damage in the Pentagon; there is no reason to argue for any but what my legitimate analysis has determined.

            You have again blown a load of nothing here with your stupid and vapid remarks.
            You are truly an utter dolt Wright.
            \\][//
         7. hybridrogue1

            October 14, 2015 at 6:52 pm

            I have already tried to explain to Agent Wright the concept of Ultimate Fact; which in law and logic is the drawing together of all the facts as deduced in particular points and adding them together as one ultimate fact. The deduced facts are adduced to this single “ultimate fact” that is then considered to be proof beyond reasonable doubt.

            Wright apparently hasn’t the mental capacity to grasp this fairly simple and straight forward concept. I am sure the larger readership can. Which is the reason that Wright is the odd man out on this forum.
            \\][//

This is a post on the blog of CIT the investigators who concluded, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the plane that everyone thought hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11th 2001 actually flew over the building and flew away. The logical method used was to omit the evidence that the plane hit the building. That an apparently intelligent person would be unable to recognise this logical flaw in their reasoning after 7 years of thinking about it, passes my understanding.  

DC 9/11 Conference

Statement by Craig Ranke & Citizen Investigation Team
July 31, 2013
As some of you may know, a 9/11 conference is planned for this September in Washington D.C. It's called, "9/11: Advancing The Truth." I first heard about this conference earlier this year from a contact in the local D.C. 9/11 truth group. He was immediately skeptical, and after hearing his explanation, so was I.
His group was approached by some people from out of town who said they wanted to stage a big "debate" about the Pentagon at the Sheraton hotel in Arlington. This on its face was suspect. It's 2013, not 2002 or even 2007. We already know what happened at the Pentagon. The evidence is conclusive. The cat's out of the bag. There is no genuine "controversy" in the "movement" about the fact that the plane did not hit or even the flyover; the supposed "controversy" was and is a contrived fraud created by a relatively small clique of liars intent on seeding doubt and disinformation in defense of the official impact narrative. In the past we've repeatedly invited our biggest attackers from this cabal to debate us on camera in a simple, open, no-frills, neutral setting, and they all refused (except one, who ended up having to concede virtually all of the major points and ultimate defeat). This isn't surprising because we've already exposed their bogus talking pointsand demonstrated that they are not honest people and don't have a leg to stand on. All of this has been well-established, so I think we're justified in our skepticism of anyone who still wants to proliferate the notion that "movement" is truly that "divided" on this subject.
Another eyebrow-raising aspect was the fact that they wanted to have it at the Sheraton. That is expensive. Who would want to bankroll the thousands of dollars that would be needed to arrange such a thing, and why would such an expensive venue be needed for a niche event like this anyway?
Furthermore, even if there was a genuine "debate" to be had at this point, wouldn't its value depend heavily on who the participants were? If the goal was to somehow "settle" a supposed "debate" between (say) 757-impact theorists and the NOC/flyover evidence, would it suffice to have any old people show up and debate? If Joe Impact debated Joe Flyover and won or lost, what would that prove? And who would want to pay thousands of dollars to make that happen? Answers: nothing and no one.
In early April, I was contacted by Sheila Casey, another member of the local 9/11 truth group in the D.C. area who I know personally. She had been in touch with some of the organizers, and she wanted to see if we had any interest in attending an event like this and having a "debate." I told her why the entire premise of the event was ill-advised, but added: "If the event is going to happen regardless of your approval or disapproval CIT's official response is that we would be happy to CONSIDER participating if we are first provided with the basic pertinent details such as, who is hosting, who is funding, who is invited, who has confirmed, what is the full itinerary, agenda, premise, title, and goal."
She told me what she could at the time, but the plan was rough at that point, the details were tentative, they had only raised a few hundred dollars (out of what would eventually be thousands), and she wasn't sure where the rest would come from. Months went by after that and we never received any information, an invite, or even an informal communication from the actual organizers of this event, even as they laid their plans and invited many others, including multiple plane impact proponents.

Then, earlier this month (July), I finally got a call out of the blue from one of the organizers, Matt Sullivan, who said he wanted to invite me. He explained that the plan was now to have a THREE-WAY debate between myself, Barbara Honegger, and Dwain Deets, the latter of whom would argue that the plane hit the building. I asked him some questions, told him that I thought that'd be a pretty bad format for a subject like this, and that I had reservations about the conference in general, but that I would consider it and get back to him. It was the week of Independence Day and I had a lot going on.

After our conversation, Matt e-mailed me a written invitation as well.

Later that week, on Sunday evening, I visited the website for the conference, only to see my own name and picture listed as a "Featured Speaker" (cached copy here). I e-mailed Matt Sullivan the following day (July 8):

Matt,

I went on dc911conference.org last night and was very surprised and annoyed to see my name and a picture of me displayed rather prominently near the top of home page under "Featured Speakers" for Sunday. This was not on there last time I was on the site earlier this week, and it was added without my knowledge, consent, or any apparent honest reason. As you know I was just invited by you earlier this week and have NOT agreed to speak at the conference. When you called me I told you that I'd *consider* it and get back to you. I haven't even gotten a chance to fully review the invitation and information you sent me because I've been busy this week, partially due to the holiday. Please remove my name and picture from your site immediately.

I really have to ask: Who else's name and likeness are you using on your site as "Featured Speakers" for your event despite the fact that they are actually not confirmed at all. Which supposed "Featured Speakers" ARE actually confirmed? I'm talking about people who have actually said "yes, count me in, I will definitely be there" -- not people who you have simply invited, or who have said maybe or even probably. Can you give me a full list as of today, July 8th, 2013? Right now you have the following people's names and pictures prominently displayed on the home page of the site as "Featured Speakers": Richard Gage, Webster Tarpley, Peter Janney, Wayne Madsen, Mark Gaffney, Abby Martin, Barry Kissin, Dwain Deets, Craig Ranke (false), Kevin Barrett, Dick Gregory, Barbara Honegger.

Didn't you also have William Pepper's name and picture up there last week? Did he cancel, or was he never confirmed in the first place?

Do you not see a problem with doing this kind of thing? Especially since you are already selling tickets for $75-$125 right below our names and pictures?

Craig

Matt did not respond to this. I did get a short voicemail from his wife Elaine the following day; yet despite the timing she only said very generally that she wanted to talk to me about the conference without elaborating or even acknowledge my e-mail. I had a feeling they were trying to avoid giving me a written response, so I decided to wait for one. Given the circumstances and the fact that they were already misleading people about my status (and likely the status of others) on their website, I was no longer comfortable talking to them on the phone, which could later be more easily misrepresented by them.

Six more days went by, and that response never came. Meanwhile, they fraudulently left my name and picture on their page as a "Featured Speaker". Then, finally, on July 15, I got a voicemail from Matt asking for my "final answer" as to whether or not I would participate in the conference while still not answering any of my questions.

I wrote him another e-mail that evening telling him that I received his voicemail and repeating my demand that he remove my picture from his website. I went on to explained the basis of my unease and distrust for them at that point and my consequent discomfort with the idea of discussing this over the phone. I reiterated my request for a prompt, detailed, and honest response in writing to the fair questions I had put to him the previous week, as well as others that I now had after looking more closely into the timeline and circumstances related to this conference.

Among the new questions that I asked:

Why was I not invited or even spoken to about this event until early July, way after most if not all of the other proposed participants, such as Barbara Honegger, who was invited AND intimately involved in the planning and fundraising process since way back in May, if not earlier? This is especially problematic since Honegger has also said that "the whole original purpose" of having this conference in the first place was, according to you and George Ripley, to stage a debate about the Pentagon, and that you planned on having the "CIT position" represented since very early if not the very beginning. (I understand that you are now claiming to have recently scrapped the "debate" idea.)

Also:

When I asked you over the phone, you told me that Barbara Honegger was not on the organizing committee and downplayed any involvement by her in organizing this event at all. This flew in the face of what I had heard at the time, and as it turns out, Honegger has admitted that she has been a confirmed participant for over a month and a half, participated in the conference calls organizing this event with you, helped shape the list of invitees, helped choose the title and theme of the event, and was [personally] responsible for securing $2000 out of the first $3000 of funding. Is this not true? If so, why do you think she's lying about these things? If it is true, why did you not disclose this to me when I specifically asked you about her involvement?

And:

Honegger has said that Abby Martin's contract with Russia Today (RT) forbids her from speaking at this event. Is she wrong? Is Abby Martin confirmed for your conference and able to speak? If not, why is she listed as a "Featured Speaker" on your website?

And:

If you were me, would this all seem on the up and up to you? Would you not be asking these same kinds of questions right now?

That was July 16. When I checked the site the next day, I had quietly been removed as a "Featured Speaker". They later removed Abby Martin's name and picture from the "Featured Speakers" list as well. However, none of this was acknowledged publicly, or even to me privately. Another full week went by and I didn't hear one word from Matt or any other organizer. Still no answers to my questions, no explanations for any of this behavior, nothing.

Then, on July 23, I got an e-mail from Craig McKee. Matt Sullivan had contacted him earlier that day claiming that they had not heard back from me and asking if he (McKee) would be interested in presenting instead. McKee wanted to know if this was true before responding. I was in Hawaii for a wedding at the time, but when I got home on the evening of July 24, I shot him back a quick e-mail before bed to let him know that I had received his e-mail, that Matt was once again not being honest, and that I would provide him with more details ASAP once I got settled back in after my week-long trip.

Early the following morning (July 25), I suddenly got an e-mail from Matt.

Craig,
Sorry I did not see your e-mail.
All it would have taken was a phone call (or to reply to one of my man calls) to resolve this.
As it is, sorry you are miffed. We will find another speaker.
Matt

Nothing about this e-mail was honest, ingenuous, or believable.

1) As documented above, I sent not one but two e-mails, the first of which was sent 16 days earlier.

2) These e-mails were sent to the same e-mail address that he sent the invitation to me from, and in that very invitation he had instructed me to "reply directly" to him, which indicates that he was using it for official/important correspondences related to this conference, and which is what I did both times.

3) The timing of Elaine's voicemail to me and the removal of my (and Abby Martin's) picture from the site strongly suggested that my e-mails were both received.

4) Unless he called on an unknown number and didn't leave a voicemail, his reference to his supposed "many calls" to me seems to be a flat out lie. As explained above I had one and only one missed call from him after he originally called on July 1 to invite me. It was on July 15. He left a voicemail, and I promptly responded via e-mail.

5) He said that "all it would have taken" to "resolve this" was for me to have called him on the phone, yet I had already explained to him why I was not comfortable talking on the phone and wanted to communicate via e-mail. His statement also implied that if only we would have talked my many concerns would have been easily put to rest, yet he STILL made absolutely no effort to answer a single question or explain any of his behavior, instead simply offering "sorry you are miffed".

6) He said that they would "find another speaker" even though I knew that they had already invited Craig McKee after falsely telling him that they never heard back from me.

7) The timing strongly suggests that this was a hasty attempt by Sullivan to invent an excuse for falsely telling McKee that he had not heard from me.

At this point it's clear to me that this event is a "rigged," counter-productive set-up, and has been since the beginning. It was conceived as a "Pentagon Debate" based on (and perpetuating) the false premise that there is a real "controversy" in the "movement" over this issue. And, even if this wasn't already well-established as a fraudulent premise (it is), the value of such a "debate" to "settle" anything would still be contingent on our (CIT's) participation, yet instead of reaching out to us early on to get our input, gauge our interest, and explain/discuss why they thought it was worthwhile, the organizers worked behind the scenes for many weeks with one of our proposed debating opponents (Honegger) to fund and plan the entire thing and even contacted/invited numerous impact advocates before ever even saying one word to us.

Revealingly, we've also now learned that the plan as of the end of May was (and may still be) for some designated person -- most likely Matt Sullivan, according to Honegger -- to take "notes" during all of the Pentagon presentations and try to come up with a "consensus statement." We also now know that weeks before we were invited or even contacted about this event at all by the organizers, Honegger had already told several activists on a conference call: "Just so you know I'm going into that debate with a proposed way of solving the consensus problem across all three of the speakers. So I'm going to be doing my personal best to propose a consensus solution." (mp3)

This is all very much consistent with the RAND Corporation-inspired Delphi technique -- a known method of manipulating groups toward a "consensus" that is in actuality the organizers' predetermined conclusion, which is already being used against the "truth movement" by the so-called "Consensus Panel" -- and is further indicative of the duplicitous and "rigged" nature of this "conference." Please read the following articles for more information:

• Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus - How it is leading us away from representative government to an illusion of citizen participation by Lynn Stuter
• Let's Stop Being Manipulated! - The Delphi Technique by Albert V. Burns

This is all further punctuated by the fact that none of this was disclosed to us before or when we were invited, even after I repeatedly questioned Matt Sullivan directly about Honegger's involvement; Not the "consensus" plan, not Honegger's critical fundraising and intimate involvement in the planning process -- none of it. Instead, he originally tried to deny and downplay her involvement, and then when I found evidence that this was not accurate, he simply refused to address it at all.

A month after Honegger's "consensus" admissions, George Ripley, one of the primary organizers of the "conference," admitted on a recorded conference call that they would indeed be writing a "conference statement," which he more specifically characterized as a "unity statement from the conference with regards to the demands that we want" from the government.

On the same conference call, he elaborated (emphasis added):

[Matt Sullivan] insists that, well, the starting point is that CIT has requested a public debate. And so, uh, that's the format that we have laid out thinking that of course that the outcome actually-- theoutcome of this project has to be a consensus statement, uh, agreeing that we are not fighting amongst ourselves so much as we are DEMANDING that the FBI and the Pentagon release the relevant data to show us the truth." mp3

In the same vein, he also said:

I think that the Pentagon issue really boils down to the need to create a letter of agreement among all of the participants in the form of a demand to the FBI and the Pentagon to release the videos. That we don't have the information necessary to make an informed decision. And uh, [that] that's the real problem. (mp3)

This was late June, just days before Matt Sullivan called to invite me, yet, again, I was not told about this at all and did not find out about it until recently while reviewing archived recordings. The fact that BEFORE EVEN INVITING US the organizers of this event had already agreed what the "outcome" of the Pentagon "debate" "has to be" and had a hidden/obscure plan to issue a predetermined "consensus statement" on behalf of all participants, including us, is classic Dephi deception and further underscores the ulterior motives behind this controlled farce of a "conference."

Furthermore, the specific "consensus statement" that the organizers of this conference have discussed "Delphing" onto the participants is completely illogical and the exact opposite of what CIT has not only preached since the beginning but repeatedly and decisively proven, which is that we CANNOT rely on  "evidence" that has been sequestered and controlled by the suspect, and that INDEPENDENT, VERIFIABLE evidence is the key to unlocking the truth about what actually happened at the Pentagon. The "gatecam" videoreleased by the Pentagon is a proven fraud. The Citgo tapes were manipulated. The alleged "black box data" is a proven fraud. The 84 RADES data is a proven fraud. The light poles were staged. The whole thing is a deception. The independent evidence has established this. The notion that the suspect -- the people that Ripley and the other organizers presumably think were behind the 9/11 false flag mass-deception AND subsequent cover-up and sophisticated disinfo campaign -- will now release the "relevant data" that will "show us the truth" is outrageous, and the fact that they did not disclose the plan to get us to sign on to such a strategy is beyond suspect.

Even though the "three-way debate" format has supposedly now been changed to a "three equal-length presentations" format that they have dubbed "What happened? Three perspectives" (who knows what the format will actually be when people get there), this doesn't preclude the contrived "consensus" approach, and it still completely trivializes the evidence and gives the totally false impression that the "truth movement" actually doesn't know what happened at the Pentagon and merely has various "theories" or "perspectives." This type of approach wouldn't go over for a WTC "9/11 truth conference," particularly if it was planned and rolled out under similar circumstances, and it's no more credible or productive with the Pentagon.

Barbara Honegger has predictably already gone out of her way to misrepresent the details and paint me as evasive. On July 15th she wrote:

For the record, I accepted the originally proposed debate format for the Sunday Pentagon session and was actually looking forward to it, but was told that Craig Ranke/CIT wouldn’t participate in a debate. It’s ironic if he still hasn’t accepted – assuming that’s correct, as his photo is on the Conference website as a speaker – as the format was changed in response to his requests

Again: 1) I had not declined participation. 2) I was fraudulently added to the site by her fellow organizers as a "Featured Speaker," which undoubtedly helped draw attention to and hype the event (and possibly sell tickets) while conveniently making it easier to create the impression that I was somehow "backing out" if I ended up declining the invitation, exactly like Honegger tried to do here. 3) I did not "request" the new format. 4) I did express concerns about the three-way debate format, but so did she and Dwain Deets, as admitted by Matt Sullivan himself. Deets too has admitted that he had expressed concerns about such a format

It's pretty well known to people who have been paying attention that, after years of working tirelessly on this issue (the 9/11 Pentagon event), I have been taking some time this year to deal with other things in my personal life. This was never meant to be a permanent break, and I am hoping to be able to turn my attention back to 9/11 and CIT relatively soon. Honegger and I both live in California, so if she wants to debate me so bad we can do it later this year, preferably AFTER she finally releases her "book" that she has been promising and hyping for the past year or two and I have had a chance to carefully review it and familiarize myself with any new supposed "evidence" therein. The fact that she has failed to deliver on this much-talked-about book for all of this time and then before even releasing it worked behind the scenes to set up and fund an elaborate rigged conference attempting to draw me into a phony "debate" with a predetermined "outcome" and prepackaged "consensus" conclusion, and then tried to paint me as evasive for not (yet) accepting (or declining) the shady, belated invitation while I waited for important answers (that never came) from her fellow organizer, Matt, speaks volumes. If we do "debate" I feel the most honest and productive format would be to have it in a simple, neutral venue where we can have an open-ended, free-form conversation for the record -- the very thing I've always advocated, which our attackers have been conspicuously reticent to accept.

As I said earlier, despite the fact that Matt Sullivan knew I had not yet given him a response to his invitation and was waiting for answers to my (fair/important/reasonable) questions, he and his wife already went ahead and began contacting others in search of someone to serve as a representative of "the Citizens [sic] Investigation Team (CIT) position" while falsely telling them that he never heard back from me and/or that I outright declined. It seems the plan is to try to recruit someone who is seen as a supporter or ally of CIT so that they can be portrayed as a suitable stand-in and the plan can go forward.

As of today, July 31, 2013, I am -- for the first time, despite the false claims of The Sullivan and others -- officially and explicitly declining my invitation to the DC 9/11 Conference.

Furthermore, we are urging any "supporter" of CIT to do the same, and want to make it crystal clear that we do not in any way encourage or endorse their participation. If anyone does accept it will be against our wishes and they do not in any way speak for us.

As ever, the true campaign to expose the 9/11 false flag op is under attack from people claiming to be on our side yet are working to deceive genuine truth seekers, plant seeds of doubt, marginalize the best evidence, inject disinformation, create impotent limited-hangout talking points, and provide illogical dead-end courses of action. As we have shown for years, this goes way beyond any one conference. We would like to once again reiterate that independent, verifiable evidence is the key to the truth, and we already have enough to conclusively prove that the plane flew on the north side of the Citgo, could not have and did not hit the light poles or the building, and was seen flying away by multiple eyewitnesses such as Roosevelt Roberts Jr., proving that 9/11 was a full blown black-op run by criminal elements within the U.S. military-industrial complex. They have the means, motive, and opportunity to create and disseminate fraudulent evidence, and they have already done so repeatedly. Demanding more "evidence" from them will only yield more of the same, if anything at all. Evidence controlled and provided by the suspect cannot trump the independent, verifiable evidence that already exists in the public domain proving their guilt.

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/