Wednesday, December 23, 2009

CIT debates Australian 9/11 Truth activist John Bursill

While our most recent presentation National Security Alert has received widespread praise and support there's a small contingency of very vocal CIT detractors within the 9/11 Truth movement who have historically failed to discuss their problem with us and the information directly. Critics like Jim Hoffman and Michael Wolsey have opted to personally attack us from the comfort of their own website and blogs where they know we can't respond. Australian 9/11 truth activist John Bursill has aligned himself with this clique of individuals who have taken part in a very aggressive campaign over the years for people to marginalize and ignore research and evidence regarding the Pentagon attack while calling for them to focus only on the attack of the World Trade Center. Coming off the heals of "The Hard Evidence Tour Down Under" (that he organized and successfully accomplished) John Bursill became the first of this forceful group of individuals to agree to debate us directly via podcast. Paul Tassopulos from agreed to host the debate. It's about 2.5 hours long and I was able to get John to concede several important points that I have quoted below. Listen to entire debate here :

Download available here.
I realize it’s very popular to believe that a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon and I think that a majority of 9/11 truth activists believe that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.

Ranke: What I want to be clear here is that the only evidence you’re citing to suggest that it was in fact a 757 that hit the building are photographs that were presented by the government after the fact.

Bursill: Correct.

Ranke: So not anything to do with the damage or what was shown outside of the building on that day but rather these photographs presented by the very suspect that you believe perpetrated this crime. That is what you are basing that on, correct?

Bursill: Correct.

I think your witness testimony that you’ve got is definitely um, you know, courtable and it would be very interesting to see anything go to the court because then we would be able to ask for more data.
To my knowledge no hard evidence has been produced publicly that proves Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Ranke: The point is that you were unprovoked and you personally attacked us inappropriately and I’m just establishing that you were the aggressor and that’s why I called you out for this debate, ok?

Bursill: Ok.

Ranke: My point is that what he (Frank Legge) said in that statement and what is agreed upon by him as well as Jim Hoffman and all our detractors is that the plane unequivocally absolutely has to be on the south side of the gas station in order to hit the light poles, the generator trailer, and cause the directional damage to the building as reported and photographed leading to the C-ring hole. Do you agree with that?
Bursill: I agree what you’re saying that it has to be to the south of the citgo gas station, I agree.

Ranke: You agree that the location of the light poles and the damage to them is proven, correct?
Bursill: Yeah.
Ranke: You agree that the location of the generator trailer and the damage to that is proven, correct?
Bursill: Well I’ve seen the photos, yes.
Ranke: And you agree that the location of the damage to the outer façade of the building is proven and we know for sure where that begins, correct?
Bursill: From the building report, the internal damage?
Ranke: No no no no no…the outer façade damage, the initial damage to the building.
Bursill: Yeah I agree, that’s the damage.
Ranke: Alright, and, and we agree that the C-ring hole, the final end of the, labeled end of the damage, of all the physical damage to the building – the location of that is established independently by photographs.
Bursill: That’s correct.

I’ve watched your film (National Security Alert) like 3 times, and I think it’s impressive, and I think it’s very interesting.

You’ve been banned at two of the, two of the premier you know places that I think for activism at least, you know so, that’s in my world, that’s (inaudible) the internet, you know Truthaction, 911blogger, I never really go to many other places, uh forums except the 911oz forum where you know, we’ve controlled the debate a little bit there.

Ranke: Unfortunately you have admitted that you are in a limited hangout position at 911blogger and truthaction where the debate has been absolutely shut down and we’ve been attacked personally and you’ve fallen into that dogma, you’ve admitted, by attacking us personally unprovoked.

Bursill: I did fall into it but I’ve realized the error of my ways and I’ve apologized for it on that forum as we talked about.

Bursill: I told you I said the position, I think the position of the majority of people probably support um a lot of what you say.

Ranke: Then clearly there is a problem there if the limited hangout that is not allowing discussion of the matter. So we agree there too.

Ranke: If you don’t think that the 14 independent corroborated witnesses who definitively place the plane on the north side approach are equal to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane was on the north side, how may witnesses would it take and why that number?

Bursill: Well, I, you know I think that the 14 witnesses is plenty to put it on that side of the uh to have an investigation.


I’m not contesting; I think what the witnesses say is believable and I think they are telling the truth about what they believed happened.


Like I said I think the north side approach you know has got validity, I think that it is a valid hypothesis.

I’ve tried to move on from the Pentagon numerous times and then you guys came up with this really compelling argument which ignited the debate again.

Well anyway you’re going to come out of this (debate) looking better and I think that’s good for you man and you know that’s probably why a lot of people don’t want to discuss it with you.

You know a lot of the psychological things you’re talking about, the resistance, and the dogmas and all that, there’s truth in that, that’s why I am having the debate, I wouldn’t have done this for no reason. I think that this, you know this issue needs to be moved forward, like it’s not going to go away, you guys aren’t going to just give up on it.

Ranke: But they (Hoffman, Wolsey et al) have not put out any definitive evidence contradicting that the plane was on the north side.

Bursill: No they haven’t, I agree, I agree with that.

I accept your research it’s interesting and well founded and your video was well produced. […] I support my friends and colleagues that have gone out against you but I disagree with their, if there’d been ad hominem or if they’ve played the person and not the game and I don’t support um you know them doing that and I think that’s wrong. I know that for instance Michael Wolsey agreed with me that you know he was overly aggressive with some of the things he’s done and said against CIT, ok, he’s realized also that he was caught up in some emotion on this issue and a lot of the campaign. That’s agreed. Ok so like you know we just need to move forward and accept that you know you guys, I don’t know somehow we gotta just you know try to forget about what’s happened and just keep moving forward to truth and justice for the victims of 9/11. And I agree that I won’t speak out against CIT and I think I’ve been more supportive than not.

At the end of the day with all things considered you know I think that we just need to stop fighting about this issue and I will refrain from attacking you guys and I apologize for saying what I said.

If people want to know about what happened at the Pentagon I am happy to point them to you know to your video as well as all the other information.

I think the north side approach contradicts the official version successfully and I think it definitely adds weight to why we need an investigation. But um you know the Frank Legge position about what’s going on is my position currently and, you know I think um, you know, you’ve made your points very clearly and you’ve demonstrated that you’ve probably been dealt with poorly.

I apologize for the things that I’ve done and I definitely could have got caught up in some of that dogma. But like I said you know from a political point of view I suppose that I’m being cautious and um you know so that’s why I still express to people that caution is um is the best way to approach this subject but yeah the north side approach is um is powerful stuff and like I said that’s why I sent it out to my list, um, it’s very interesting and it adds to the weight of why we need a new investigation.

The reason I was arguing for you (to Wolsey) was because I know that what you’re saying is popular and has been accepted well, um you know, by the movement and that’s probably even why you had a stronger reaction against than you should have had because of the popularity of it, sort of like the fact that I got censored at the Australian (greens?) once the nano-thermite came out, um because you know it was then forensic proof and when they saw the case was clear then they censored me. You know, so I understand where you’re coming from being through similar things. Yeah I just think we need somehow I think we just need to back off and just let it all settle for a bit and just move forward eh?

Ranke: Well good you know and if you’re taking over for Michael Wolsey in the visibility podcast I’m glad to hear that because I certainly think you’ll handle it much better than he has.

Bursill: Well I’m still going to be critical and you know Michael’s like a great friend of mine he’s a great guy and you know like, and he’s got his view and you know everyone’s got their right to their view you know? He’s done a lot of good work and it’s terrible to see, because I know that some people, you know, now don’t like Michael because of what he’s, because his position he’s taken. Um you know and he was coming off the back, he’d seen a lot of disinfo go down over the years but the problem is when information like yours is not disinfo, it’s info, uh but it appears as if it’s similar to disinfo we’ve seen prior, then you know people really, all the animosity and aggression from this absolute disinfo in the past has now been brought forward and then really been turned on you.

Ranke: It doesn’t appear as disinfo that’s just a preconceived notion that they wanted to have.

Bursill: Well it’s possible I’m just using that, you know, to be broad with it but I think uh that because of that I think, you know, that’s maybe why things have happened, because like you said because it was popular, it was taking hold and then academics and scholars jumped on and supported it and then it was like, that was really scary to a lot of people because they thought disinfo or misinfo was coming forward into the realm and then people jumped on and go way too heavy, because you know Michael has said to me that you know that it could have been handled better and um that you know it was emotional and all the rest of it so there you go and I think we are moving forward with it.

One important point I tried to make during the debate didn't come out as clearly as I had hoped.

It was the part about probability and statistics being mathematical proof of a flyover. Truth activist/CIT supporter Adam Syed put it succinctly so I'll copy his response here:
Craig explains his line of reasoning (of why CIT has proof the plane was on the north side) and uses one of Richard Gage's lecture points as an analogy. This lecture point concerns statistics and probability. With the controlled demolition proof: There are 10 (or more) characteristics of the 'collapses' that are characteristic to only controlled demolition. Gage makes the point that: Let's just say that ONE of those characteristics MIGHT have a (generous) 1 in 100 chance of occurring in a "natural" collapse without explosives. Well, for TWO of those characteristics to occur without CD would already be a 1 in 10,000 chance, meaning quite low indeed. But for ALL TEN of these features to occur without CD is 1 in 100 to the 10th degree (1 in a trillion). In other words, zero, for all practical purposes.

Similarly, at the Pentagon we have 13 eyewitnesses who independently corroborate each other in placing the plane on the north side of the gas station. Of these 13, let's say there's a 1/100 chance of one of them being wrong. But the odds of two of them both being wrong about the plane's location w/r to Citgo is 1/10,000, etc. The probability that all 13 witnesses are wrong about the plane being on the north side is, for all practical purposes, zero.

And all people, including CIT detractors, agree on the simple fact that if the plane was north of Citgo, it did not cause the directional damage beginning with the light poles and continuing on to the E, D, and C rings of the Pentagon. And since there is no directional damage in the photographic evidence to suggest a North Approach impact, the logical conclusion is that the plane continued on. Besides, why would the perps stage any of the damage if they planned to actually crash a plane into the building?

This is why Craig is so adamant and forceful about the north side approach being scientific proof of a flyover every bit as much as the nanothermite paper.

Quite true.

This is why I called flyover witness Roosevelt Roberts the "nanothermite of the flyover theory". That got John so mad that he basically refused to listen to my reasoning.

The analogy is that even without the physical evidence of nanothermitic residue in the WTC dust the 2 seconds of free-fall collapse of WTC 7 is ABSOLUTE PROOF of controlled demo, similarly even without Roosevelt Roberts or any other flyover witnesses the north side evidence is ABSOLUTE PROOF of a flyover. There simply is no other logical alternative.

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Why does it matter if the plane flew north or south of the gas station?

I'm going to use this blog to highlight some of the more important questions we have answered on the FAQ page of

Although it's usually pretty obvious to most that it is impossible for a plane north of the gas station to hit the downed light poles, people sometimes have trouble understanding why this proves it could not have hit the building.

Hypothetically, there isn't a reason the plane couldn't hit the building from ANY approach -- but the point here is that, like the light poles, ALL physical damage including to the generator trailer and the building itself requires the plane to approach in a very straight, fast, low, level, and deliberate manner in a trajectory that is only in alignment with an approach south side of the gas station, the Navy Annex, and Columbia Pike at all times.

FAQ #2
on our website is the most comprehensive article explaining this in full detail with images so I will publish it here as well.

Why does it matter which side of the gas station the plane flew on? Couldn’t the plane have flown on the north side of the gas station and still hit the light poles and building?

As made clear in the video presentation National Security Alert, it is impossible for a plane on the north side -- let alone one in a significant right-hand bank as described by all witnesses who were in the best locations to observe the plane's flight path as it approached from over the Navy Annex -- to hit the light poles or cause the directional damage to the building as photographed and outlined in the ASCE Building Performance Report. This fact has not been contested by a single pilot, physicist, engineer, scholar, or skeptic who has viewed the information.

1. Light Poles

The downed light poles are in a straight line to the alleged impact spot. Only a plane flying in a straight line on a south side flight path can hit all five light poles. There is virtually no room for error. Even a minor deviation from this flight path would have caused the plane to miss one or more of the poles. A plane on the north side misses all five poles.

(click images to enlarge)

2. Damage to the building

The damage to the Pentagon, starting with the damage to the facade and leading up to the curious, almost- perfectly round hole in the C ring, is directional, meaning that it delineates a very specific trajectory for the plane.

This was noted as early as September 15, 2001 by Pentagon Renovation Manager Lee Evey, who said in a DoD News Briefing:

...this is the damage pattern that we see to the columns inside the building, and you can almost trace the path of the aircraft. This is why we believe it came in at an angle. The key here is, the red dots are where the columns are missing or cut completely.

That statement was made while he was showing a slide show containing this image (which is still available here on the DoD's website):

The specific trajectory required is the same straight south side flight required for the plane to hit the light poles.

The white image depicting the damage to the building leading up to the C ring hole, which has been scaled down to size and overlaid on top of the Pentagon in the image above, is taken directly from page 53 of the ASCE Building Performance Report. Here it is as it appears in that document:

Here are some pictures of the C-Ring hole, which is labeled "Hole in wall" by the ASCE in the image above.

The overhead image above showing the location of the internal hole in the C-ring (end of building damage) in relation to the outer damage to the facade (beginning of building damage) is photographic evidence that independently establishes the trajectory of the building damage as reported by the ASCE.

As you saw above, the south side flight path aligns with the damage path from the ASCE report image, and the fuselage lines up with the C-Ring hole. This is not the case with even the closest-possible hypothetical north side flight path, and remember, this path had the plane much closer to the station than all but one witness reported, and does not account for the significant bank reported. With these things taken into account the plane would have hit the building closer to perpendicular, causing a damage path that is even more blatantly inconsistent with observed damage path outlined in the ASCE report.

The images below are also from the ASCE Building Performance Report, and they all depict a south side flight path.

(Image from ASCE report, p. 19)

(Image from ASCE report, p. 36)

(Image from ASCE report, p. 39)

3. The generator trailer

Furthermore, the damage to the generator trailer outside of the building is also irreconcilable with the north side flight path described by the witnesses.

In the September 15, 2001 DoD News Briefing cited above, Pentagon Renovation Manager Lee Evey continued:

On its way in, the wing clipped. Our guess is an engine clipped a generator. We had an emergency temporary generator to provide life-safety emergency electrical power, should the power go off in the building. The wing actually clipped that generator, and portions of it broke off.

This allegation was also made by the ASCE.

On page 13 of their report they published this image, showing the plane approaching on a south side flight path and in line with the generator:

Then on page 18 they said:

The aircraft flew over the grassy area next to the Pentagon until its right wing struck a piece of construction equipment that was approximately 100 to 110 ft from the face of the building (0.10 second before impact) (figure 3.14)

Here is the image that they published on page 20 of their report as Figure 3.14 with the caption "Aircraft at impact with generator".

It's impossible for a plane approaching on the north side flight path described by the witnesses to have caused the damage to the generator trailer.

Statement from Robert Balsamo, an FAA certified pilot and certified flight instructor with 4000+ hours total flight time:

"A conventional fixed wing aircraft, 757 or otherwise, cannot maneuver from north of the former Citgo gas station to cause the physical damage to the light poles, generator trailer, or the Pentagon without structural failure of the airframe itself. The maneuver would require G forces exceeding aircraft capabilities and that of the human body. Physics and math do not lie. If you accept the placement of the plane as independently and unanimously reported by the witnesses presented in CIT's video National Security Alert, science proves that it did not cause the physical damage at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001."

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Truth News Radio Australia interviews Craig Ranke

Hereward Fenton had me on his show to discuss the evidence we have uncovered and address the false claims regarding the Pentagon attack of Australian truth movement personality Frank Legge. Right click here and choose "Save As" to download and listen to the episode.

Sunday, September 27, 2009

9/11/09 Anniversary in NY report from CIT

I had an amazing time in New York this year for the 8th anniversary of the attack. After landing at JFK on Thursday evening Sept 10th the first cab driver who offered me a ride to the city was this energetic friendly Haitian guy. He knew to avoid the freeways and navigated the back streets like you'd expect of a real pro. We got to talking about 9/11 and he told me his experience on that day being near the area when the towers collapsed.

He already fully understood that there were many questions and as soon as I told him why I was in the city he about freaked out. He asked a ton of questions and pretty much offered to be my personal driver all weekend for no cost! I stayed right in the city and everything I needed was walking distance or it was too easy to just grab a cab when I needed one so I didn't take him up on the offer. Naturally I gave him a DVD of National Security Alert.

I met up with our fearless webmaster/consultant/editor Adam who had just arrived by train. We checked into Hotel 17 and went searching for a place for a late dinner and found an excellent Thai joint. New York is the best for spontaneously finding awesome restaurants.

The morning, Friday 9/11/2009, was set to get going early with a string of radio interviews. I had to be up at 6:30am which was really 3:30am for me since I was still on west coast time.

Les Jamieson with was given a two hour segment on WBAI radio from 6-8:00am where he would interview various presenters from the We Demand Transparency conference that I was scheduled to speak at the next day. He had me call in to give a general overview of our findings in a 15 minute interview but I was already scheduled for an in studio appearance at 9:00am for a full hour program with regular radio host Sally O'Brien.

Immediately after my interview with Les I received the scheduled call from the Mancow radio show and was put on hold to go on the air with them in Chicago. It was about what I expected. When introducing me Mancow made the point right away that he thinks what we "believe" is "insane". I kept my cool and repeated the point how we are not asking him to believe us but to believe the witnesses. Overall I was able to get out my main points while getting plugs for the CIT and Pilots for Truth sites. Mancow wasn't abusive and really chose to let his listeners attack me instead. It was well worth it.

So immediately after that we had to try and get a cab in NY during rush hour while it was raining. Trust me, it wasn't easy. We made it to the studio with 3 minutes to spare before the show started.

Right click and "save as" to download a recording of the show here:

The interview went great. Sally was really cool, she chose excellent music for the intro and outro, asked great questions, and handled the callers really well.

After the show we walked over to ground zero. We checked in with the WeAreChange folks who were holding their annual vigil/information spreading gathering. Bruno and Katy from WeAreChangeLA were there from the west coast so we hung out and chatted with them for a bit.

It was pouring down rain which made the day feel appropriately solemn.

We took a cab back to the hotel and while in the cab, Aldo called me for a progress report. The cab driver was from Ghana and overheard me talking about the WBAI interview. As soon as I hung up the phone he said, "Was that you on WBAI this morning talking about the Pentagon attack? Wow man! Great job! I heard that one guy calling in and saying you was a liar. How you gonna call someone who talked to the witnesses a liar!?"

That felt really good and made me realize that there were a lot of people who heard that broadcast.

Obviously I gave him a DVD of National Security Alert as well. All I have to say is that the NY cab drivers definitely know what's up!

After getting back to the hotel we were exhausted so we grabbed some lunch and passed out for a few hours.

That evening we went to the WeAreChange event at a bar/restaurant. Erik Lawyer from Firefighters for 9/11 Truth and Richard Gage from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth both spoke and were on FIRE (no pun intended). Great job by them. There was a lot of energy in the room that night. Daniel Sunjata was there and spoke as well and of course I made sure to introduce myself and give him a copy of National Security Alert.

After the event we grabbed dinner at some awesome non-traditional Mexican restaurant and then swung by the "after party". We didn't stay long, but we did run into Richard Gage as we were getting ready to leave, who came over and greeted us warmly. He mentioned that Michael Wolsey and a few others had been trying to persuade him to distance himself from us, and said that he was interested in getting together at some point the next day to discuss some of the allegations and hear our perspective. Richard has handled the pseudo-"controversy" that Wolsey and friends have attempted to create around our work in a very intelligent, fair-minded, and diplomatic way. He has been careful to get a hold of us when things are said to him instead of simply taking them at face value. We made plans to get together at some point the following evening, and then we headed back to the hotel to get some sleep.

The conference began in the morning at St Marks Church and had a healthy attendance. I was supposed to screen National Security Alert in a back room but the organizer, Sander Hicks, and I determined that it wouldn't be a good idea to break up the conference so he got me a table to set up out front. That way people could talk to me about the info one on one between speakers or if they wanted a break from the conference. We had a bunch of images printed out that we used to help explain everything.

It worked out really well as I was able to get into the details with a lot of people and of course everyone went home with a copy of National Security Alert. I distributed close to 300 DVD's throughout the weekend.

I also gave a concise speech to the crowd that went over extremely well. People REALLY got it and basically swarmed me afterward for DVD's and to discuss the info. I hope somebody video recorded my speech, because we didn't. Adam was actually busy working the table talking to people even DURING my speech!

Canadian Broadcasting was there filming for some Canadian equivalent to "Frontline" type show called The Fifth Estate and interviewed me so hopefully that will eventually be used although we know how media types have a tendency to twist information.

(Edit to add: The show is scheduled to air on Friday November 27th.)

After the conference we went out to dinner with Sander, Richard, Erik, and others from the conference. We weren't able to talk much with Richard over dinner since there were no seats left next to him by the time we arrived, but we did have a great conversation with Justin Martell, another great activist/researcher.

After dinner we took a walk with Richard over to the WeAreChange event at Cooper Union. On the way there we went over some of the evidence related to the Pentagon attack and some of the spiteful and dishonest claims made by Wolsey, Hoffman, Ashley, et al. By the time we made it over to the Cooper Union we were swarmed by people (mainly people wanting to talk to Richard -- he's a popular guy!), so we decided to continue the discussion later.

At that time one of the best experiences of the trip happened...

Outspoken WTC victim family member Manny Badillo made a specific point to come right up to me and said, "CIT??! Manny Badillo. THANK YOU! Thank you so much for your work" and he gave me the biggest most genuine bear hug ever.

That meant a lot to me.

I went inside in time to hear Immortal Technique give a little speech and got to meet him outside. Of course I gave him a DVD of National Security Alert.

After that a group of us moved across the street to a pizza joint that sold beer. We sat down with Richard Gage and Erik Lawyer and a few others and had a chance to REALLY get into all the details about the evidence. It was a very productive discussion.

That pretty much concluded the trip, and the following day was devoted to traveling back to LA.

Craig Ranke on Matrix News September 2009

Kate and Richard Mucci with Matrix News interview Craig Ranke with Citizen Investigation Team regarding the important eyewitness evidence they have uncovered proving the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon a deception.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

CIT subscription based blog launched

Welcome to the official Citizen Investigation Team blog. Please sign up to receive notifications of posts as we will use this space to make important announcements regarding new developments in our ongoing investigation into the Pentagon attack, progress in our campaign to force accountability, and any information that we feel is important for you to know.

Thanks for your attention and action.


Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis
Citizen Investigation Team