Perceval said:On the CIT web site it is stated:
"The missile theory has remained popular and the divisiveness it has nurtured caused many to shy away from the hard evidence CIT presents proving a deception in a much different way."
This statement does not make sense. The missile theory has not nurtured divisiveness in a way that a theory that explosives were planted and a decoy plane flew over would not! I mean, seriously, you need to get off your high horse on this one and start understanding the reality of the forces that were involved in carrying out 9/11.
I agree that the "missile theory" is not promoting divisiveness. In fact, based on the evidence, it seems pretty clear that something penetrated the building in a "guided direction". There probably was an explosion as well - of some sort.
A theory that NOTHING penetrated the Pentagon, that it was JUST an internal explosion with a "flyover" to help fake some sort of object flying into the building, is not likely to receive wide acceptance even if it WAS true - which I doubt. You might even say that this is an extension of the "blue screen - no planes hit the WTC" theory.
We appreciate the work that Craig Ranke is doing and we have perused it carefully along with piles of other material. The problem is, even a "final theory" will never accommodate all the factors brought to light by different "citizen investigation teams" and that is by design.
I suggest you read L. Fletcher Prouty's book "JFK" and his other book "The Secret Team" to get an idea of how these organizations work, how much money they have to spend on creating cover stories and fake evidence, all the while carting away the real evidence, and how all of that is by design.