PentaCon is not a Hoax

I want to publicly apologize to Craig Ranke, aka Jack Tripper, for creating my previous thread, "PentaCon a HOAX?". I failed to do enough research on my own before making that thread. I had mistakenly thought that Ranke used the Pilots for 9/11 Truth "NTSB" animation to help corroborate the PentaCon, when in fact it was just the opposite. Ranke purposely AVOIDED connecting the PentaCon to the P49T "NTSB" animation, which P49T readily admits reflects faked data.

After a very robust and meaningful discussion on the previous thread, I have been convinced of Ranke's sincerity and honesty, and I have no reason to raise any questions about the PentaCon movie being a hoax.

Craig, I want to personally apologize to you for my mistake and wish you the best.



MOD EDIT:CAP TITLE

[edit on 6/8/2007 by kinglizard]

Originally posted by nick7261
which P49T readily admits reflects faked data.

.

You keep saying this but you fail to quote where we say it.

You are spinning and twisting our words. Either quote us properly or do not quote us at all.

Admit you spin the quotes, retract your statement and quote us properly.

nick7261

Nice to see that kind of attitude here

I think the implications in the Pentacon are huge although complicated, so I commend you and Caustic for attempting to take that challenge on.

Thank you sir.

This thread speaks a lot as to your integrity.

Originally posted by johndoex

Originally posted by nick7261
which P49T readily admits reflects faked data.

.

You keep saying this but you fail to quote where we say it.

You are spinning and twisting our words. Either quote us properly or do not quote us at all.

Admit you spin the quotes, retract your statement and quote us properly.

Rob,

I didn't "spin" anything about what you said. This thread is about the PentaCon not being a hoax -not about the "NTSB" animation not being a hoax. Unlike Craig, you've done nothing to clarify the questions raised to you. Instead, you've filled post after post with personal attacks and insults.

Anybody who cares can look at the posts you've made can come to their own conclusions about what you've stated. The "NTSB" animation contains faked data. The csv file contains faked data. My conclusion is that neither can be used to make any intelligent commentary on the *REAL* flight path.

Your conclusion is that it makes sense for P49T and their "expert" aviators to continue to analyze faked data files. Worse, you continue to rationalize the promotion of Pandora's Black Box, which analyzes the faked animation to make conclusions about the *REAL* flight path.

I understand now why Craig totally divorced himself from the "NTSB" animation and P49T to corroborate his witnesses.

How veddy veddy interesting.

I expected to walk into a broken down trailer house and a lot of noise but here's a whole new FEMA trailer with a new JT and a new Nick and a new discussion and I just now took down my crappy review of your vid too. Serious, not fifteen minutes ago. Explicitly in an effort to help calm thngs down and stick to the issues.

shooomp - it all lines up.

Peace all.




[edit on 7-6-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Thank you sir.

This thread speaks a lot as to your integrity.

You're welcome!

I was totally off base about the PentaCon and I'll be the first to admit it when I'm wrong. Thanks for graciously accepting my apology.

Correction:

We didn't "divorce" ourselves.

We simply never accepted the NTSB data as valid because:

1. It does NOT match the eyewitness flight path.

2. It is data supplied by the perpetrators and is therefore inherently untrustworthy.

3. We know the plane never hit the building so clearly the data had to have come from some unknown source.

NICK! They said partly faked/occasionally altered and again we're instantly way off topic. !!!


The PentaCon is not a hoax.

But that doesn't mean it makes much sense. IMO. Wait - is this to become a new thread fo discussing what exactly it is? If so still not in the mood...

Craig looks much more angular now, almost impregnable, like a reborn death star thing.

That's not a moon!

Originally posted by nick7261
The "NTSB" animation contains faked data.

Keep going Nicky.. you're almost there. Please find the correct quote because your above quote is wrong and we never said that...

The csv file contains faked data. My conclusion is that neither can be used to make any intelligent commentary on the *REAL* flight path.

Again, almost there.. but not quite. Your above twist of our words is apparent.

. Worse, you continue to rationalize the promotion of Pandora's Black Box, which analyzes the faked animation to make conclusions about the *REAL* flight path.

Completely wrong, dishonest, misleading and innaccurate. Please quote once instance where we say the NTSB reflects the *real* flight path.

I understand now why Craig totally divorced himself from the "NTSB" animation and P49T to corroborate his witnesses.

Yet another spin of the facts. CIT and Craig plug Pandora's Black Box at the beginning of their film and link to our site from theirs and vice versa. Your misleading and dishonesty is apparent for anyone who reads.


We'll be waiting for proper quotes and/or retractions. Thank you.

NICK! They said partly faked/occasionally altered and again we're instantly way off topic. !!!

Wrong CL, please quote us properly or not at all...

[edit on 7-6-2007 by johndoex]

geeze.. it went through 3 times?

deleted - triple post.



[edit on 7-6-2007 by johndoex]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
How veddy veddy interesting.

I expected to walk into a broken down trailer house and a lot of noise but here's a whole new FEMA trailer with a new JT and a new Nick and a new discussion and I just now took down my crappy review of your vid too. Serious, not fifteen minutes ago. Explicitly in an effort to help calm thngs down and stick to the issues.

shooomp - it all lines up.

Peace all.

Wow!

That is very impressive and commendable.

Unfortunately your "crappy review" has been around for a while and circulated quite a bit and has no doubt affected many impressionable browsers.

A nice retraction piece or re-review would be most definitely appreciated.

JDX: Sorry. I meant basicallyy it's off-point, that's not what you said, you said whatever exactly. It's not "faked." And we shan't get dragged. This is about the PentaCon.

CR: Maybe I'll say something. I will take it on again in my own way and time. I don't think it's Pentagon disinfo any more. I apologize for any specific wrong things I may have allowwed linger, but your fans are a smart enough lot. Crrect the damage, show where I was wrong and that I've taken it down, etc. They'll see common sense hopefully, and still not buy it. We'll let reality take care of that.

Sorry I'm slow and prob X-posted now

Funny how you still slobber over Arabasque's ill-informed cut and paste compilation.

Dude has clearly not analyzed a single one of these witness accounts.

For some reason no matter how many times I ask him he refuses to post a single account that directly contradicts the citgo witnesses.

Guess why.

Because none exist!

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
JDX: Sorry. I meant basicallyy it's off-point, that's not what you said, you said whatever exactly. It's not "faked." And we shan't get dragged. This is about the PentaCon.

This thread became about P4T when quotes are misleading, dishonest and spun up... (most likely intentionally since we have repeated ourselves numerous times and you people still misquote and spin it up)

I'd like to use this thread as a challenge to Arabasque or anyone who refuses to believe the plane flew on the north side of the citgo station despite the rock solid testimony we present.

Can anyone provide a valid reason to dismiss the independently corroborated claim that the plane flew on the north side of Columbia Pike and the Citgo station?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I'd like to use this thread as a challenge to Arabasque or anyone who refuses to believe the plane flew on the north side of the citgo station despite the rock solid testimony we present.

Can anyone provide a valid reason to dismiss the independently corroborated claim that the plane flew on the north side of Columbia Pike and the Citgo station?

You mean like the overwhelming abundance of evidence that contradicts this little fairytale? Yes! The damage done to the Pentagon itself is consistent with an aircraft like a 757 hitting it after flying into the building from the south of the Citgo station. Basically, if you look at the mapped damage to the Pentagon, you will see that the internal damage is in direct line with a flightpath to the south of the CITGO and also in line with the damage light poles, etc. In fact, numerous eyewitness accounts also corroborate this. I was able to find eyewitness accounts that also said that it was a small corporate jet, while the larger portion identified it as either a 737, 757, A-320 or just as a corporate jet. (Strangely enough, nobody seems to be an eyewitness to a missile attack, but thats another CT so we'll let sleeping dogs lay.) As a law enforcement officer I'm well aware that eyewitness testimony is often flat wrong, even if it comes from other cops. You can deny it, but its true and has been verified in case after case. Any decent cop will tell you that eyewitness testimony is nice and reads well in the papers, but physical evidence is what makes the case. Look at all the cases of people wrongly imprisoned based on "eyewitness testimony" that have been released after review of the physical evidence such as DNA. The physical evidence in this case is overwhelming in support of the 757 flying into the building at an oblique angle after passing to the south of the CITGO station. The only way to contravene this evidence is to ignore it.

F-Dog

I failed to mention that I have no doubt that the witnesses that are cited in the PentaCon account are telling the truth, or rather what they think is the truth. That is the problem with eyewitnesses. People remember things differently than what really happened. This is why physical evidence is so vital. Physical evidence has no memory that can be faulty. It can't be corrupted into stating something false out of fear, greed, malice, etc. Physical evidence doesn't suffer from stress induced hallucinations.

However, PentaCon doesn't get let off this easy. By latching onto the eyewitness testimony of a handful of witnesses, you are not only ignoring the physical evidence, but also the testimony of numerous witnesses (I was able to count about 100 in the brief web search that I did) who agree that the plane flew on the path indicated by the physical evidence.

F-Dog

That was a standard, generalized, uninformed reply from someone who clearly refuses to critically analyze the facts.

The physical evidence is extremely dubious/anomalous/questionable which is why we embarked on this investigation to begin with.

Lack of plane debris, anomalous hole, foundation undamaged, no damage where the vertical stabilizer would have hit, the list goes on and on.

And we KNOW that eyewitness testimony can be unreliable. We even say that in the movie but when specific claims are INDEPENDENTLY CORROBORATED that seriously changes very quickly.

You like everyone else who randomly attacks eyewitness testimony in general to dismiss the information in The PentaCon ALWAYS conveniently ignore that cold hard fact.

Think about it.......we read an email exchange from back in 2003 where Lagasse said he was on the "starboard" side of the plane which destroys the official story. People blew it off thinking he might have confused starboard and port and because it was just one account and it was simply an email.

We talk to the manager of the citgo station in person in 2006 and she tells us about her employee Robert Turcios who saw the plane. SHE told us that Robert saw the plane on the north side and that this has always been his story. We instantly thought about Lagasse's email to Dick Eastman and red flags went off like crazy.

But it was merely an old ambiguous email and a 2nd hand account so it didn't mean much but if they were true it was CORROBORATION and it meant a lot.

So we talk to Robert Turcios and he CONFIRMED that he saw it on the north side.

Now it becomes evidence.

Once I got Turcios' and Lagasse's accounts on video and they both confirmed without a shadow of a doubt that they really for sure both independently saw it on the north side and that Lagasse really did mean he was on the starboard side of the plane when he said it back in 2003.

Now it becomes strong evidence.

It's clear these people are not hazy on this simple fact.

Plus don't forget.......

LAGASSE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE THE PLANE THROUGH THE BUILDING ON THE SOUTH SIDE!

That means he would have had to fabricate his entire account.

Now the fact that Brooks ALSO independently and definitively saw the plane on the north side makes it proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now it becomes extremely strong evidence.

But it doesn't stop there!

Edward Paik ALSO corroborates them since he has the plane crossing over to the north side of Columbia Pike on an angle headed straight for the north of the citgo.

That makes it undeniable proof.

And neither you nor Arabesque nor anyone else can provide a single account that directly contradicts them.

NOT ONE!

Go ahead. Post one. Prove me wrong.




[edit on 7-6-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]