08 March, 2010

pilots for 911 truth interview - 9 years after 2001

pilots for 911 truth interview - 9 years after 2001

People's "cognitive dissonance" and "learned helplessness"
does not permit them to allow themselves to question
the events openly, much less publicly or -- HERESY --
demand that public officials give answers.


Reports on Obama Health-care, Hollywood oscars and
"democratic elections in Iraq" are hammered into our
brains, without even a whimper of critical reporting.
The "mastermind of 9/11" - Khalid Sheilk Mohammed -
has "confessed" and a military tribunal of the
9/11 masterminds is horse-traded against Guantanamo
KZ closure. This is reported with a straight face.
Stalinists would be proud of such a media-record.

So, then,

here is another counterweight to the "official truth".

Craig Ranke, co-founder of the Citizen Investigation
Team: "the notion that the Pentagon is in Washington DC
under restricted airspace is a common misconception"

Craig Ranke, director of National Security Alert and
co-founder of the Citizen Investigation Team agreed to
answer the questions of Enquetes et Faits Divers
(France). If you have not seen the documentary National
Security Alert published in June, 2009, we suggest that
you view it before reading this interview.

Enquetes et Faits Divers: You are the founder of the
Citizen Investigation Team. Could you present to our
readers details regarding your organization, your work,
and especially your discoveries ?

Craig Ranke: My name is Craig Ranke and I am a
co-founder of Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) along
with my partner Aldo Marquis. We are just two regular
guys from California who had questions about the 9/11
attack on the Pentagon and decided to take matters into
our own hands by talking with the witnesses directly to
see what they had to say. Although we have spoken with
many of the previously-published eyewitnesses we were
especially interested in finding previously unknown
witnesses who had never been talked to by the media or
government because we knew this would be the purest form
of independent verifiable evidence we could find. The
only way to achieve this was to go to Arlington Virginia
to canvass the areas near the Pentagon on foot in
search of witnesses, so that is what we did. It was
fairly easy to find multiple witnesses who describe
seeing a large commercial airliner headed toward the
Pentagon shortly before the explosion on 9/11, so any
notion that there was no plane involved with the attack
at all was quickly shown to be incorrect. We therefore
focused specifically on documenting the true flight
path of the plane so we could compare it with the
official reports, data, and most importantly the
physical damage, starting with the downed light poles
and ending with the directional damage to the Pentagon
itself. This damage path delineates a very specific
trajectory with virtually no room for error. As it
turned out the witnesses independently corroborated a
flight path that is irreconcilable with the physical
damage, proving the plane could only have flown away
after the explosion rather than hit the light poles or
the building.

The most pertinent landmark is the former Citgo gas
station where we were able to obtain video-recorded
interviews on location from three very important
witnesses who unanimously and independently reported
the plane flying on the north side of the gas station.
Again, the destruction path requires that the plane
must have flown on the south side of the gas station in
order to have caused the damage. This very simple right
or left detail as it relates to this single key landmark
is enough to confirm or deny the official 9/11 Pentagon
attack story of a plane impact. The required official
flight path was unanimously denied by the witnesses at
the gas station, who all placed it on the north side,
and this very simple claim continued to be corroborated
as we spoke with other witnesses in the areas nearby,
most notably several employees at Arlington National
Cemetery (ANC) directly across from the gas station.
Besides the witnesses at the gas station, these ANC
witnesses were in arguably the next best location to be
able to accurately judge where the plane flew. Also, a
number of them are on record with the Center for
Military History in 2001 describing the same north side
flight path, which eliminates the notion that they are
misremembering due to faded memory.

While only those who were deceived into believing
the plane hit the building were willing to talk to us,
we did get a hold of a Pentagon police officer
(Roosevelt Roberts Jr) who saw what he thought was
"another plane" flying away from the building at "about
50 feet" altitude immediately after the explosion.
Since there was no other plane that could possibly fit
that description we knew that his account confirmed
what the witnesses at the gas station and Arlington
Cemetery already proved: that the plane did not hit the
light poles or the building and continued on after the

E&FD: If the plane did not hit the light poles or
the Pentagon and flew over the building, what caused
the physical damage ? What about the witnesses like Mike
Walter who have claimed for years that they saw the
plane hit the building ?

C.R.: We feel that the only logical conclusion based
on the evidence is that the damage was caused by
pre-planted explosives.

We have spoken with dozens of witnesses directly,
many of whom were in prime locations to have been able
to see a missile, drone, small plane, or ANY additional
low-flying object on the south side of the station, if
one existed. We were not able to find a single
eyewitness who reports any such thing. Also none of
them corroborate the supposed white "smoke trail" seen
in the dubious security video either.

Furthermore, one thing that was clear in almost
every case is that they fully believed the official
story in terms of the plane crashing into the building
and causing the damage (although many of them did not
literally watch it occur, but rather simply saw the
plane headed toward the Pentagon, followed by a large,
loud explosion, and deduced that it must have impacted).
It is because they were convinced of this that they
were willing to speak with us so openly to begin with.
If they had seen a missile or any other flying object
on the south side they would have known that the
official story was a total lie and would have likely
been afraid to speak so openly about their experiences,
if at all. It would be much like the situation with
Roosevelt Roberts Jr., who has been very unwilling to
talk about his experience on 9/11 anymore now that he
understands that what he saw proves a false flag
operation. We were made aware of another witness, Dewitt
Roseborough, who also seems to have seen the flyover
based on his previously-published account, and sure
enough when we called him he was completely unwilling
to answer any questions about his experience.

So, it is clear that none of the witnesses we spoke
to saw a second flying object of any kind, even though
many of them were in locations which would have made
spotting one very easy.

Furthermore, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates
that the light poles were staged in advance. This
evidence includes the bizarre, physically impossible and
uncorroborated story of cab driver, Lloyde England
(whom we have interviewed twice). Not a single
eyewitness has confirmed seeing the light poles get
struck, and many of the witnesses who had previously
mentioned the light poles admitted that they did not
actually see the poles get hit, but rather saw them on
the ground later or heard about them on the news (e.g.,
McGraw, Brooks, Elgas, Sucherman). Not a single
eyewitness reports seeing light pole #1 inside Lloyde
England's cab, and there are no photographs of this
either. Meanwhile there are photographs of his cab on
9/11 and 9/12 which show that there was not a single
scratch or dent on his hood. The evidence that the
light poles were staged also includes the anomalous
physical damage to the light poles themselves, most
notably the fact that the base of the pole is cleanly
and symmetrically severed, whereas photographs of other
poles that had fallen in the same area due to high
winds show a jagged and random damage pattern, which is
what one would expect if the pole were broken by a
sudden force such as wind or being struck by a 90 ton
jet. See the following page on in our "Frequently Asked
Questions" (FAQ) section for more information and

As most researchers know, the section of the
Pentagon which was damaged on 9/11 had been largely
unoccupied for several years prior to the event due to a
renovation. This would have given the suspect ample
opportunity to plant explosives. It would have been much
easier than planting explosives in World Trade Center
Buildings 1, 2 and 7, and yet there is now overwhelming
evidence that this is how those buildings were
destroyed. Pre-planted explosives would also make the
most sense with a flyover in the sense that it would
give them the most precise control over what and who was
destroyed, which is likely the primary reason that they
executed a flyover in the first place as opposed to
actually crashing a plane into the building.

I understand that the well-known French researchers
Thierry Meyssan and Pierre Henri Bunel have made
comments recently that they are aware of our work and
are supportive. However, my understanding is that they
have also said they still believe that it is likely that
an airborne missile was involved with causing the
physical damage. Again, there is absolutely no
independent, verifiable evidence supporting this, and
yet there is a multitude of evidence against this idea.
I have shared some of this evidence here, but there is
more that we have documented in some of our videos and
articles, and on our research forum. If we had obtained
any support for a missile throughout the course of our
investigation we would have certainly reported it. We
appreciate the fact that Meyssan and Bunel are
responsible for much of the initial skepticism
surrounding the Pentagon attack throughout the world,
and their early conclusion that the damage seen at the
Pentagon on 9/11 could not have been caused by a 757
has been vindicated. However, by failing to focus
heavily on the eyewitnesses they have been forced to
rely primarily on speculation for what DID cause the
damage. Since there is no proof that a missile was
involved and yet so many reasons to believe that there
was not a missile we are respectfully requesting that
Meyssan and Bunel let go of this theory while using
their significant public platform to focus what IS
conclusively proven: that the plane flew north of the
gas station and therefore did not hit the light poles or
building, explaining why Lloyde England's story does
not make sense and why it was seen flying away after the
explosion by multiple eyewitnesses such as Roosevelt
Roberts Jr. Regarding the witnesses who believe they saw
the plane hit, we address this question as well in the
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section of

As we explain on the FAQ page, we have analyzed the
statements and locations of almost all of the witnesses
who have been cited as having seen the plane hit the
Pentagon, and in many cases we have been successful at
contacting them and interviewing them directly about
their experience on 9/11. We have found that most of
the witnesses simply saw or heard the low-flying plane
headed towards the building, and then a short while
later heard or saw an explosion in the distance. They
then deduced that the plane must have hit the building,
as any of us would, but they did not see it happen. In
fact, quite often the individuals who are cited as
having "watched the plane hit the Pentagon" were not
even in a position to see the Pentagon at the time of
the alleged impact.

While many people erroneously assume that many
hundreds or even thousands of people would have been
able to watch the plane impact the building this is not
the case due to the complex topography of the area. The
Pentagon is only five stories high (with the initial
damage basically confined to the bottom two floors),
and it sits at the bottom of a significant slope to its
west, the direction from which the plane approached.
There are very few areas at all where you would be able
to see the alleged "impact", and most who would be able
to see the plane at all would only see it for about a
split second.

Additionally, contrary to popular belief, the
section of Route 27 (the highway which runs directly in
front of the west side of the building) from which a
person could have seen the plane impact the building is
less than a quarter mile long, and the view of the
alleged impact spot was obscured by trees even for many
of people on this very small strip.

The relatively small number of witnesses who were in
locations from which they may have been able to see the
alleged impact spot and who do genuinely believe that
they saw the plane hit the building were fooled by a
carefully planned deception, executed with military
precision, as revealed by the conclusive north
side/flyover evidence. However, as we have seen in the
case of Lloyde England, there are also witnesses who
are implicated by the evidence as being complicit liars
who were tasked with putting out false eyewitness
accounts as propaganda to sell the notion that the plane
hit the building. In many cases it is difficult to know
with certainty whether or not a specific witness falls
into this category, but in the case of a few witnesses
we are unable to come to any other conclusion as a
result of their statements, behavior, and the full body
of evidence we have gathered. This is certainly the
case with Mike Walter.

It would probably be accurate to say that Walter has
been used by the media more than anyone else to sell
the proven-false official story that the plane hit the
building, having been interviewed about a half a dozen
times on 9/11 and many times after. On 9/11, shortly
after the event, he indicated that the plane was on the
official light path, saying that it clipped a light
pole, which he points to. And yet within 24 hours he
also described a "graceful bank" which is only
reconcilable with the north side approach. In more than
one occasion in subsequent years he contradicted his
report from 9/11 by specifically pointing out the north
side flight path, most notably in an interview for a
French "debunking" video where he is actually standing
on the north side of the Citgo station during the

But again, when the world was watching on 9/11 and
trying to figure out what had happened, there was Mike
Walter, pointing to the south side flight path and light
pole number 1, saying that both the light pole and
Pentagon were hit. Furthermore, the notion that Mike
Walter would later blend the required official south
side flight path with the banking north side path (where
the plane really flew) definitely works in favor of the
deception by creating the false impression that there is
an acceptable margin of error between the two paths. It
is also possible that he is now trying to cover his own
tracks by being on record supporting the true flight
path so he could claim innocence if the deception is
fully exposed.

Also, on the morning of 9/12/2001, he was asked in
an interview with Bryant Gumbel on national television
if he was actually able to see the plane enter the
building. He stuttered and stammered and indicated that
he did not have a clear view of this because there were
trees in the way; and yet he went on to later
contradict himself, releasing a video in which he
insisted that he watched the plane enter the building
and watched the wings fold back, and that therefore any
so-called conspiracy theories about the damage to the
building being inconsistent with a 757 are wrong.

Walter's current high level position with the
mainstream media as a television news anchor with
Gannett-owned WUSA is also a very suspicious detail that
cannot be ignored, particularly given the fact that
there were so many other writers and editors for Gannett
and its subsidiaries who (according to their accounts)
just so happened to be over half an hour late for work
and just so happened to be in excellent positions to
see the plane in the final seconds and report that it
hit the building, even though we now have conclusive
evidence that it did not. This includes, but is not
limited to: Bob Dubill, Mary Ann Owens, Richard
Benedetto, Vin Narayanan, Joel Sucherman, Steve
Anderson, Fred Gaskins, Mark Faram, Philip Thompson,
Christopher Munsey, and Peter Kopf. A number of these
are reporters who claim to have been within less than
1/4 of a mile of each other on Route 27, right in front
of the Pentagon. We also recently learned that the
chairman, CEO, and president of Gannett at the time had
joined the board of directors of Lockheed Martin, the
largest defense contractor in the world, just five
months before 9/11. With that being said, I want to
reiterate that, although there are exceptions, we feel
that most of the previously-published witnesses who are
cited as having watched the plane hit the building are
NOT lying. Again, we believe this because after speaking
with many of them directly, confirming their stated
location, and analyzing their true point of view in
relation to the topography and landscape, it became
clear that most of these witnesses were not in a
position to literally see the alleged impact point or
even the Pentagon at all in most cases. In many cases
they simply saw the plane, then seconds later saw and
or heard the explosion, and deduced that the plane must
have hit the building even though they did not see it.
Of the relatively small pool of witnesses who were in a
position to have possibly seen the alleged impact and
who do think that the plane hit the building, we feel
that some of them were truly deceived that the plane hit
the building, as intended by this black operation of
deception which was executed (at least in large part) by
a criminal faction within the most advanced,
well-funded military in history.

E&FD: The north side flyover was a new hypothesis
when you first released The PentaCon Smoking Gun
Version in 2007 so what put you on the trail to this
discovery ? Did you benefit from privileged information
or whistleblowing as it's called in the United States ?

C.R.: We did not subscribe to a flyover hypothesis
or any personal theory at all when we first launched
the investigation in August of 2006. We did not have any
privileged information and were not aware of any
whistleblowers. We went to Arlington with no
preconceived notions about what happened and made a
specific effort to ignore all previous theories,
official and otherwise, with the goal of allowing only
the independent evidence we could personally uncover
determine any conclusions we would draw.

That being said, we were aware that witness Sgt
William Lagasse had reported to researcher Dick Eastman
in 2003 during an email dialog that he was on the
"starboard" side of the aircraft when he witnessed it
from the Citgo gas station, which would mean the plane
was on the north side. However, we had no idea at the
time whether he mistook starboard for port or even
whether he was an honest witness at all since we had
never spoken with him (or any other witness) directly.
As soon as we heard from the gas station manager that
her employee Robert Turcios saw the plane on the north
side we instantly remembered Lagasse's 2003 description
to Dick Eastman and right away knew that this was the
answer to uncovering the deception if this detail were
to be confirmed by these witnesses directly and
corroborated by others. Obviously this is exactly what
happened, and at this point given this overwhelming
eyewitness testimony there can be no doubt that the
plane did in fact fly on the north side of the gas

E&FD: What do you think about the contradictory
releases from the NSTB regarding Flight AA77? Could the
2006 released animation be connected to your
investigation ?

C.R.: Let me set the record straight right from the
beginning by telling you that the NTSB animation does
not match the eyewitnesses that we spoke with who prove
the true flight path. Before I explain why this is the
case let me first summarize for the readers what you
mean when you talk about ''contradictory releases from
the NTSB''.

The U.S. government claims that the Flight Data
Recorder (FDR) of Flight 77, which is sometimes
referred to as the "black box", was found inside the
Pentagon shortly after the 9/11 attacks. In 2006, the
NTSB released what they claimed was the raw data from
this alleged FDR. This data shows the plane on the
south side of the Citgo gas station, which matches other
official reports and the physical damage. However, as
explained in the video "9/11: Attack on the Pentagon" by
Pilots for 9/11 Truth, it shows the plane at an
altitude that is much too high for it to have been able
to hit the light poles and caused the damage to the
Pentagon. So, that by itself should be a huge red flag
for everyone. It proves that either the government has
provided fraudulent data, the plane did not hit the
Pentagon, or both.

In 2006 the NTSB also released an animation which
was supposed to be based on the raw data from the
alleged FDR. However, this animation does not match that
raw data. Like the raw data, it does show the plane too
high to hit the light poles or building, but it also
shows the plane on the north side of the gas station.
This is explained by Pilots for 9/11 Truth in a simple
10 minute presentation entitled American 77 Flight Path
version2 - In 3D.

Because the animation shows the plane approaching
from the north side of the gas station some have
concluded that the animation matches the true flight
path of the plane revealed by the witnesses we have
interviewed. However, anyone who has paid attention to
the interviews in National Security Alert knows that
this is false. The animation has the plane entirely
north of the Navy Annex and Columbia Pike at all times,
whereas witness Edward Paik saw it cross from the south
to the north side of Columbia Pike, passing over his
brother Shinki's auto shop on its way to flying directly
over the Navy Annex. While canvassing a nearby
neighborhood we were able to locate and interview
several other witnesses further back on the flight path
who saw the plane a short while before it reached the
auto shop and they corroborated Edward's claim that the
plane approached the Sheraton from the south side of
Columbia Pike. Those witnesses are featured in our
presentation "Flight 77" The White Plane.

Furthermore, the witnesses overwhelmingly report
that the plane flew directly over the Annex, not to the
north of it as shown in the animation. They also report
a lower altitude.

So, again, even though the 2006-released NTSB
animation does show the plane on the north side of the
Citgo station, the eyewitness evidence we have uncovered
contradicts this animation in many other ways and
proves that it is fraudulent. This is why you never see
us referencing this proven-fraudulent
government-supplied data in ANY of our presentations as
corroboration for our findings.

One question that many people wonder about is why
the government released an animation that shows the
plane on a north of the Citgo flight path which
contradicts the physical damage, their own raw data,
and the eyewitnesses. We cannot possibly answer this
question with absolute certainty, but my speculation is
that they did it to foster confusion or to cast doubt on
any REAL evidence exposing the north side approach.
Clearly this has worked if people think that we are
somehow connected to this data in any way. Obviously
the perpetrators would know where the plane really flew,
and clearly it would benefit them to cause confusion or
create the false impression that there is an acceptable
margin of error between the north and south paths by
releasing this contradictory animation and data.

The timing of the release of the alleged FDR data
and the animation also seems to support this
interpretation of their motives. Before we ever went to
Arlington we had been posting on the original "Loose
Change" online discussion forum (which is now closed),
and we were publicly scrutinizing the witnesses,
including attempting to analyze the true flight path of
the plane. Since this was one of the most prominent
9/11 research forums online at the time it makes sense
that government counter-intelligence would be
monitoring it. So, when we began publicly planning to
travel to Arlington to interview witnesses, they would
have easily recognized that we were on track to uncover
the true flight path of the plane. For this reason, the
timing of the release of the alleged FDR data and
animation is very dubious and does suggest that the
government put it out preemptively because of our
planned investigation in anticipation of what we might

So, if the animation is "connected" to our
investigation in any way it was as a preemptive effort
on the part of the perpetrators to undermine us. We
absolutely have not colluded with the government on any
level whatsoever and we are not involved in any way with
the release of the fraudulent NTSB animation. The
simple fact that we have not used this fraudulent
government-supplied data in any of our presentations is
a testament to that. While Pilots for 9/11 Truth has
certainly focused heavily on this data they have done
so merely to expose the discrepancies and expose how
there is no possible way for this official data to be

We have never believed that this fraudulent
government-provided data really came from the black box
of the attack jet and we have always maintained that it
proves nothing other than the fact that they have
tampered with evidence (a serious crime) and tried
controlling the debate. It certainly does NOT prove a
flyover or a north side approach and we have never cited
it in this context. The independent corroborated
witnesses are the only things that we have cited proving
a north side approach/flyover.

E&FD: In spite of the coherence of your methodology
and the importance of the discoveries which ensued from
it, the legitimacy of your research is strongly
disputed, sometimes within 911 Truth Movement. How do
you explain this hostility ?

C.R.: For the most part our latest presentation
"National Security Alert" has been embraced and met
with widespread praise. This includes formal statements
of approval from numerous well-known and respected
scholars, activists, pilots, journalists, etc., which
you can read here. Many others, including other public
figures, have expressed their strong support less
formally. Also, the English version of the video has an
average rating of five stars on YouTube, showing that
the overwhelming majority of those who have rated it
have given it five stars. The French version on
DailyMotion has almost a five star average as well
(approximately 4.9).

However, there has been a relatively small group of
vocal detractors who have not only refused to accept
the implications of this information (at least
ostensibly), but have also gone so far as to attack the
credibility of the witnesses and Citizen Investigation
Team personally. This is no surprise given the extreme
implications of the information that we have uncovered,
but for the same reason it is necessary for people to
pay close attention to who is instigating the attacks,
and to investigate whether or not the arguments and
claims made by these people are adequately and honestly
substantiated. If they do this they will find that the
attacks are disingenuous and do not refute the
overwhelming evidence proving a north side flyover.
They will also find that the attacks are usually
launched by attention-seekers, anonymous internet
bloggers who hide their names and faces, or else
individuals who are clearly very biased against the
notion that the plane did not hit the Pentagon for
personal reasons.

Regarding the last category of attackers, one must
understand that before we launched our investigation
there was a lot of frustration, disagreement, and
uncertainty within the 9/11 truth movement regarding
the Pentagon attack. Many felt that the eyewitnesses
debunked the missile theory and that it therefore could
be true that a plane hit the building after all. This
caused some individuals to shift their focus to the
World Trade Center, particularly the collapse of
building 7, while encouraging others to follow their
lead and stay away from the Pentagon attack. Some even
decided to engage in a very active campaign to support
the government's impact narrative at the Pentagon while
working to marginalize any new information that came
out to the contrary. Because these people have spoken
out so strongly in favor of an impact and in some cases
even gone as far as to imply that people who believe
otherwise are fools, evidence which proves that a plane
did not hit is devastating to their credibility.
Consequently, they work to aggressively label evidence
of this nature "disinfo", regardless of how credible
and conclusive it might be. This may be partly due to
misunderstanding for some and ego for others, but there
is also likely some level of counter-intelligence or
controlled opposition going on here as well.

None of our detractors have been able to present an
honest, rational, coherent argument against this
information, and none have been able to present
counter-evidence in the form of video-recorded
firsthand testimony from eyewitnesses who saw the plane
on the official south side approach. Since we first
released our interviews with the witnesses at the gas
station over three years ago, we have always encouraged
people who doubted that plane flew on the north side to
contact witnesses themselves and publish the results.
We are regular guys with full time jobs living in
California and we were able to locate and interview
dozens of witnesses, over a dozen of which were in a
position to judge where the plane flew in relation to
the Annex and/or Citgo station with accuracy. All of
them reported the plane on the north side flight path.
If the plane really flew on the south side of the
station then it should be very easy to find witnesses
who report this since witnesses who "erroneously"
report the plane on the north side would logically be in
the minority. Please ask yourself why there are people
who have spent hundreds of hours of their adult lives
attacking us online and yet in over three years not a
single one of them has produced video-recorded
eyewitness testimony from a single witness who could
see the gas station and reports that the plane flew on
the south side.

It's also important to note that almost all of the
people who have attacked us have refused to debate us
directly when challenged and instead have preferred to
put out extremely long, convoluted, dishonest attack
articles to confuse and frustrate the reader in the
hopes of casting doubt on the information or us
personally. Those who have been the most vocal in
speaking out against us in the past have either
completely quit the truth movement and disappeared or
they have suffered serious blows to their credibility.
Meanwhile, attention and respect for what we have
accomplished has grown and continues to grow. Since the
release of National Security Alert it is clear that the
overwhelming majority of people who look closely at the
evidence we present have had no problems understanding
how simple, important, and definitive it really is.

Another excuse that we have heard given for shying
away from this information is that it's just too good
to be true. There are some people who say that they
simply cannot believe that it is possible that regular
citizens could uncover information which exposes such a
monstrous crime so clearly. A few of these people have
advocated a theory according to which the plane actually
flew on the south side and hit the Pentagon while all
of the witnesses we spoke with who prove the north side
flyover are in on a big hoax or conspiracy, and CIT are
actually government operatives spreading disinformation.
If you are inclined to believe this all I can tell you
is that, besides being baseless and irrational, it is
totally false. For starters, as I said before, the ANC
witnesses are on record in 2001 with the CMH reporting
the north side approach. Lagasse is on record reporting
it in as early as 2003. At that time I personally had no
idea that 9/11 was an inside job at all and did not
start questioning the event until over a year later.
Getting that many witnesses from a variety of walks of
life to lie so convincingly on camera about such a
simple claim contradicting the official story is not
something we are capable of and there is no valid
reason for us or anyone else to want to do such a thing
anyway. There is especially no reason for the
government to create an elaborate "hoax" of this nature
that contradicts the official story so definitively
because the 9/11 operation was clearly quite successful.
The majority of the world population has been
successfully deceived as the fraudulent "global war on
terror" continues as vigorously as ever under the Obama
administration while propaganda supporting the 9/11 myth
is still widespread and accepted as reality by the
masses. The north side flyover evidence is real, easy
for the average person to understand, and completely
destroys the notion that 9/11 was anything other than a
false flag operation. We therefore feel that it is an
excellent tool for exposing the crime and putting an
end to the fraudulent wars, as well as the draconian
government programs which have been justified by the
9/11 lie.

E&FD: The north of the CITGO approach evidence you
have gathered is very convincing since it has been
independently corroborated by over a dozen witnesses.
Direct evidence for a flyover/flyaway seems less strong
since so far you have only obtained firsthand testimony
from one witness who says he saw the plane flying away
after the explosion (Roosevelt Roberts Jr). Certain
critics have therefore tried to separate the north side
approach from the flyover/flyaway by asserting, for
example, that the plane would have been able to fly
north of the CITGO, and then turn in order to align with
a trajectory to match with the physical damage (light
poles, generator, and the internal damage to the
building). Is this scenario possible ? In other words,
does an approach north of the gas station alone
physically prove the plane had to have flown over the
building even if there weren't any known
flyover/flyaway witnesses at all ?

C.R.: I have actually seen very few people attempt
to argue that the plane could fly on the north side and
still cause the damage, but anyone who would make this
argument is incorrect. It is scientifically impossible
for any type of fixed-wing aircraft on earth to fly
north of the gas station and then suddenly change its
heading in order to cause the damage to the light poles,
generator trailer, and the building. It is therefore a
scientific fact that if you accept the eyewitness
evidence proving that the plane flew north of the gas
station then you have no choice but to accept that it
flew away after the explosion.

This is usually obvious to the layman simply by
looking at the location of the physical damage in
relation to the witness flight path illustrations, but
now Pilots for 9/11 Truth has released a technical
document with calculations and animations thoroughly
demonstrating this. The document can be read online at
their website here and you can also download a printable
PDF version (0.91mb) from our website.

The document was written by certified pilot Robert
Balsamo, founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and it was
reviewed and approved by experienced pilots Captain Jeff
Latas and Commander Ralph Kolstad. Kolstad spent 13
years flying Boeing 757/767, mostly as an international
captain for American Airlines. He has command time in
tail number N644AA, the very plane dispatched as
American 77. He has logged 23,000 of flight time, spent
over 20 years in the US Navy flying fighters off of
aircraft carriers, achieving TopGun twice. As for Jeff
Latas: before going to work for JetBlue airlines, he
spent over 20 years in the United States Air Force, and
his exemplary military record includes nearly 5000 hours
in fighter aircraft, the Distinguish Flying Cross for
Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service
Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals. A detailed
bio can be read here :

With experts of this caliber supporting the notion
that a north side approach proves a flyover with
calculations and animations to back up their claims
there should be no doubt in the minds of people who
feel they are not qualified to make the determination.
Here is their final conclusion:

"It is impossible for any fixed-wing aircraft to
cause the directional physical damage to the light
poles, generator trailer, and the Pentagon leading to
the C-ring hole approaching from directly over the Navy
Annex and north of the former Citgo gas station. The
flight paths illustrated by the witnesses would require
G forces beyond the physical limitations of any aircraft
for it to transition to an approach that lines up with
the physical damage. Additionally, a hypothetical least
challenging scenario at low speed would require bank
angles that are irreconcilable with the physical damage,
as well as the witness statements, and require an
instantaneously performed roll that is impossible for
any fixed-wing aircraft."

Not a single pilot, expert, engineer, or
credentialed researcher who has looked closely at this
information and published anything on the topic at all
has contested the notion that it is impossible for a
plane on the north side approach to cause the physical
damage. Indeed, even of our most vocal and prolific
critics have admitted as much and have instead chosen to
attempt to cast doubt on the witnesses whose testimony
proves a north side flyover, or on us personally.

Furthermore, as explained in the Pilots for 9/11
Truth document, the simple fact is that most if not all
of the eyewitnesses did not stop watching the plane the
instant it came even with the north side of the gas
station. In order to assert that the plane may have
transitioned from the north side of the station to a
trajectory that would allow it to cause the observed
physical damage, beginning with the first down light
pole, one would have to ignore everything that was drawn
and reported beyond that point by the eyewitnesses,
which no objective and intellectually honest person
would do. This specifically includes, but is not
limited to, their placement of the plane over or very
near the parking lot outside of the Arlington National
Cemetery maintenance buildings, which a number of
witnesses are explicit about. So, even if the
hypothetical maneuver in question were possible, which,
as this paper shows, it is not, it would still be a moot

E&FD: For years, the 911 Truth Movement presented
the Pentagon as an "aviation no-man's-land ", in the
heart of a zone called P56 that forbids any flying over
the building at all, and that it is even protected by
supposed antiaircraft batteries. You have highlighted
how close Reagan National Airport is to the Pentagon
and its likely role in the success of the attack. Can
you speak to us about this important detail ?

C.R.: As we have explained in National Security
Alert and other presentations, the notion that the
Pentagon is in Washington DC under restricted airspace
is a common misconception. The Pentagon is not in
Washington D.C. at all. It is across the Potomac River
in Arlington, Virginia, which is not restricted
airspace. In fact, Reagan National Airport is only about
one mile from the Pentagon, and there are extremely
low-flying commercial jet airliners taking off and
landing directly next to the Pentagon every 2 to 4
minutes of every day of the year. This is easily
observable to anyone who goes to the area and it is
quite a normal sight for locals. As you drive on
highway 395 next to the Pentagon and take the 14th
Street Bridge across the river when traveling from
Arlington to DC it is very normal to see planes flying
only a few dozen feet above your car as they land or
take off from the airport.

When considering anti-aircraft missile batteries at
the Pentagon there is no public documentation or
admission from the Pentagon that this exists so any talk
of it amounts to nothing but speculation and is
therefore not evidence implicating direct government
involvement in the attack.

E&FD: Do you expect to put out a sequel to National
Security Alert ? Do you have any other projects
currently in the works ?

C.R.: We might eventually put out a revised and
updated version of National Security Alert, but that is
not something we are working on at the moment. Our
investigation is ongoing, so as we obtain new
information we will compile new presentations or work on
updated versions of our previous presentations. We do
have new information that we are compiling at this time.
We make it a point to keep our projects secret until we
are preparing to release them simply because we don't
want to alert the counter-intelligence teams to what we
are doing, but I can tell you that we are working hard
on some important new projects that will help people to
better understand the scope of what we have
accomplished. You can definitely expect more from CIT
in 2010.

E&FD: Craig Ranke, thank you for having taken time
to answer our questions.

Interview published on February 5th, 2010 by
Enquetes et Faits Divers (France)

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at Monday, March 08, 2010


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites