84 RADES radar data

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Yes, the Turcios pattern. Is this a similar deal? When did O'Brien talk to you?

I have no idea what you could possibly mean by that.

And I never said he talked to us. It is an email dialog.

His initial response was with Rob and then he responded to CIT'S detailed follow up saying he would reply to us as well but we're still waiting.

We have a commitment from public relations to remind him about it.

But there are enough published statements and what he told Rob so far already confirms them so to be honest we have all we need as it is but more confirmation never hurts.

Perhaps he'll give us an interview!

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by GreenFloyd

 

1. It wasn't AA77.

2. The loop it made was in a completely different place from where they reported with the NTSB and RADES data.

3. They had to make it loop the area so it could be blended with accounts of other planes in the area most notably the C-130 and E4B so if anyone saw it fly over the Pentagon and keep going they could say it was a different plane.


Your question is actually quite relevant because #3 is the entire reason that they had to fabricate the RADES and NTSB data to tell a different story from where the plane really flew and perhaps even why they had it fly north of the citgo despite the fact that it doesn't match up with the light poles.





[edit on 10-11-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Lytetrip, or Jacktripper, or Craig or whoever,

This is the point I keep coming back to. Why, in your opinion, did the "planners" develop such an intricate and complicated plan....a plan so fraught with flaws that they couldn't possibly hope to pull it off smoothly. So poorly executed that so many folks can see through the deception, So intricate and large that there must surely have been 100's of players involved.

Let me remind everyone of the intricacies...

planted explosives in the building
planted airplane parts spread about in the moments immediatley after the event
light poles strewn about by MIB
one light pole placed carefully through the windscreen of Lloyds car (but the geniuses didnt think to scratch up or dent the bonnet).
fake damage to generator
moving the generator about to make it appear it was struck by an airplane
making an airliner disappear
making all passengers and crew disappear
providing kin with remains and personal effects
extra flights to add distraction
faked FDR data
faked radar data
planted witnesses


why not this?....

A small group of perpetrators who stand to gain from the events of that day infiltrate AA, install remote control equipment in N644AA and send it into the Pentagon.....no fakery.....no hundreds of participants...no planting of explosives, light poles, witnesses etc.

Why not that? Why the house of cards you keep building?

reply to post by darkbluesky


Dismissing the evidence based on an argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy.

Please adhere to critical thinking principles and address the evidence directly.

The fact that you refuse to believe it does not make the evidence go away.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by darkbluesky

 

Dismissing the evidence based on an argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy.

Please adhere to critical thinking principles and address the evidence directly.

The fact that you refuse to believe it does not make the evidence go away.

You have no evidence...you have some data, witnesses, and theories.

Let me give some examples of real evidence....

Lab results certified by a credible laboratory that show explosives residue at the crash site.

Produce N644AA if it still exists since it didn't crash on 9/11 in your theory.

Produce the persons or the remains of the passengers/crew with clear proof they did not perish in an airplane crash on 9/11 at the pentagon.

Your investigative results are nothing but conjecture supported by some eye witnisses, some of whom contradict the main thrust of your theory.

Why not employ some conjecture to respond to my theory, which I think most would agree, seems to a much higher lilklihood of success without detection?


[edit on 11/13/2007 by darkbluesky]

reply to post by darkbluesky


Actually you are quite incorrect.

Evidence that has a long chain of custody that is completely controlled and solely provided for by the suspect is not valid in this investigation.

There is nothing to prove that any of the DNA actually came from the Pentagon but the word of the suspect.

ETA: I only skimmed your response and thought you were referring to DNA evidence.



[edit on 13-11-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by darkbluesky


One first-hand eyewitness account is evidence.

2 independently corroborated first-hand accounts become strong evidence.

3 independently corroborated first-hand accounts become proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have presented 4 and we have obtained 2 mores since then for a total of 6.

All of this proving the plane was on the north side without a single direct refutation from another witness.

It's more than evidence. It is proof.

Oh my, then the hundred or so witnesses that contradict those 5 is what???? Fantasy?

[edit on 13-11-2007 by spcengineer]

Originally posted by spcengineer
Oh my, then the hundred or so witnesses that contradict those 5 is what???? Fantasy?

This is especially funny coming from someone who said he BELIEVES the north side claim!

Were you lying about your own beliefs then or are you lying now?

I guarantee you can not provide one witness account specifically contradicting the north side claim.

Not even one let alone "hundreds".

Just like you do not have a shred of evidence for your claim that the camera views at the CITGO that were manipulated out of the data were "offline" before 9/11 you haven't a shred of evidence to counter the north side claim.

What basis do you have to call the manager a liar when she says that they were online?

Come on Farmer.

Why bother with the empty one liners in a forum when you have no evidence to back up anything you say?

I thought you were disassociating yourself with the truth movement yet here you are on a conspiracy site.

Imagine that.

Craig, get your windshield fixed already. I think it's obscuring your view(s).

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by darkbluesky

 

Dismissing the evidence based on an argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy.

I find it very interesting and mildly amusing that CIT has so cleverly crafted the ONLY 9/11 Pentagon conspiracy theory that does not rely on incredulity.

i.e.

there's no way those amature pilots could have flown the profile
there's no way a 757 could fit through that hole
there's no way the fragile composite nose cone could cause the punch out hole
It's incredible that there are no airplane parts

I give you credit Craig, you and your cohorts have crafted an extremely clever theory that in your opinion is completely un-impeachable.

On a related theme....my questions regarding the liklihood of success of one plan vs. another is not a dismissal of your theory, nor does it suggest that your theory in incredible. It weighs the chances of success of one theoretical plan vs. another and the liklihood of one plan being preferred over the other based on those success percentages.

I realize you cannot and will not give your opinion regarding my question because it will cause too many of your supporters to scratch their heads and wonder.

I'll also point out that almost every one of your peers in the conspiracy theory believers population holds to, and regurgitates ad nauseum all the logical fallacies based on argument from personal incredulity I cited above

Please adhere to critical thinking principles and address the evidence directly.

So you will only discuss your information? You're not interested in discussing other theories?

The fact that you refuse to believe it does not make the evidence go away.

Never said I don't believe it. I suggested that the complicated nature of the sequence of events required to support your theory are much less likely to be successful than the simplified theroetical plan I offered. Therefore, it follows logically that any moderately intelligent group of conspirators would choose the less complicated plan with the higher liklihood of success.

Don't you agree?

Come on...just give me one little old opinion.

I invite anyone else with an opinion on this idea to weigh in also.

[edit on 11/14/2007 by darkbluesky]

Since the entire premise of your question is a based on a logical fallacy and does nothing to refute the hard evidence we present....no I do not agree.

There is no such thing as a "likely" scenario when discussing a world wide psychological operation of this magnitude.

The notion that you can fantasize a "more likely" scenario is irrelevant to the evidence proving otherwise.

You can keep wallowing in a hypothetical world if it makes you feel better or more comfortable in refusing to accept what we present but I will continue to uncover hard evidence, facts, and accurate information while refusing all speculation and theories that do not address the evidence.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


You can keep wallowing in a hypothetical world if it makes you feel better or more comfortable in refusing to accept what we present but I will continue to uncover hard evidence, facts, and accurate information while refusing all speculation and theories that do not address the evidence.

You have 5 witnesses now? The Pentacon had 3. (sorry I haven't kept up) Lets keep in mind that 2 of the 3 claimed to have witnessed the impact.

Your claims are ALL based on the possibilty of the 3 (or 5) witnesses. That possibly saw the plane at the north of the Citgo. YOU dismiss all the other evidence and call those that refute your evidence as "suspects."

You claim that:

Literally thousands of pounds of an airplane were planted
(including pieces on the Pentagon lawn)

Light Poles were planted

Taxi Driver was paid off

DNA evidence was planted

Pentagon PRIVATE Contractors were in on it.

Plane flew over the Pentagon (without ANY witness to this)


The hypothetical world is yours Craig.


ETA : lets not forget the airphones that were shut off and the doctored video footage.


[edit on 14-11-2007 by CaptainObvious]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Since the entire premise of your question is a based on a logical fallacy and does nothing to refute the hard evidence we present....no I do not agree.

Just want to be sure I understand...

You do not agree that a group of moderately intelligent conspirators, with a choice of executing one of two theoretical plans, would choose to execute the less complicated plan? The plan with fewer active participants, the plan with fewer chances of detection, the plan which requires less obfuscation, less time critical coordination, less blocking and manipulation of official data, etc?

There is no such thing as a "likely" scenario when discussing a world wide psychological operation of this magnitude.

Huh? Aren't you and CIT proposing a likely scenario? That an AA 757 flew over the Pentagon, timed precisely with the detonation of pre-planted explosives, followed by almost simultaneous distribution of fake airplane debris and toppled light poles?????That the airplane then landed somewhere else and the passengers and crew were either secreted away or killed? That no one with knowledge of any of this has come forward publicly or annonymously with proof??

Isn't that a scenario??? Aren't you saying its almost absolutely confirmed (as opposed to likely) with your smoking gun evidence????

What the hell are you talking about? No such thing as a likely scenario?

The notion that you can fantasize a "more likely" scenario is irrelevant to the evidence proving otherwise.

You can discredit my opinion by labeling it as fantasy all you want. I think everyone else can decide for theselves who's theoretical scenario is more fantastic.

You can keep wallowing in a hypothetical world if it makes you feel better or more comfortable in refusing to accept what we present but I will continue to uncover hard evidence, facts, and accurate information while refusing all speculation and theories that do not address the evidence.

Of course you will...as long as the money keeps coming in.

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Since the entire premise of your question is a based on a logical fallacy and does nothing to refute the hard evidence we present....no I do not agree.

Just want to be sure I understand...

You do not agree that a group of moderately intelligent conspirators, with a choice of executing one of two theoretical plans, would choose to execute the less complicated plan? The plan with fewer active participants, the plan with fewer chances of detection, the plan which requires less obfuscation, less time critical coordination, less blocking and manipulation of official data, etc?

You are setting up a false dilemma which is yet another logical fallacy.

In an operation this complex to suggest that a simplistic "choice" of this nature was proposed to the perpetrators is ludicrous.

There may have been MANY reasons why that particular wedge was "renovated" and targeted.

Any of which may have been justification enough to choose what you assume is a more complex plan.

The incredible amount of assumptions on your part and lack of understanding of the situation from within and the likely multitude of factors and goals involved make entertaining your false dilemma beyond futile.

PARTICULARLY in light of the evidence we present.

Huh? Aren't you and CIT proposing a likely scenario? That an AA 757 flew over the Pentagon, timed precisely with the detonation of pre-planted explosives, followed by almost simultaneous distribution of fake airplane debris and toppled light poles?????That the airplane then landed somewhere else and the passengers and crew were either secreted away or killed? That no one with knowledge of any of this has come forward publicly or annonymously with proof??

Isn't that a scenario??? Aren't you saying its almost absolutely confirmed (as opposed to likely) with your smoking gun evidence????

What the hell are you talking about? No such thing as a likely scenario?

Your sarcastic characterization of the event clearly makes it seem "unlikely".

But the same type of characterization can be made of 19 rag tag fanatical religious zealots pulling this off as well.

9/11 was an unlikely event no matter how you slice it.

But nobody denies that the event occurred despite the misnomer of "9/11 deniers" that the duhbunkers have assigned to us.

Unlikely events happen every day and I believe the very fact of this staged event being unlikely was quite deliberate and even HELPS the perpetrators.

If you had studied history more closely you would understand how this psychological phenomenon is well known by megalomaniacal fascist hopefuls and was even spelled out in print by the most famous one.

The Big Lie

You can discredit my opinion by labeling it as fantasy all you want. I think everyone else can decide for theselves who's theoretical scenario is more fantastic.

Since you provide no evidence for your "opinion" it most certainly is fantasy.

Any theory that I propose is backed up by hard evidence.

"Everyone else" can certainly decide if they choose to accept a hypothetical scenario set up via logical fallacy or a legitimate hypothesis based on hard evidence.

To be honest.......we could care less if people refuse to accept the theory we present.

It doesn't matter what happened to the plane after it passed by the north side of the gas station.

But the evidence we present is enough to prove the official story a lie which is all that we need to do.

Of course you will...as long as the money keeps coming in.

Since I have only spent money in this pursuit for truth and justice and have not made a dime your baseless accusation and libelous characterization of my motive for doing this is incorrect and uncalled for.

I am happy to post this as only my second. Of all the "theories" bouncing around on these 9/11 threads - those I see those put forth by Mr. Craig here as probably the most annoying.

Craig - you keep bandering around about your "hard evidence and facts", as if by saying it enough will somehow make it true. None of it is HARD or FACTUAL! You know whats hard? Wreckage, damage, bodies, radar tracks. The debunkers as you call them have ALL the tangible evidence in this case. You don't have anything! Your entire case involves, what, 5 people who say they say the plane on the wrong side of a gas station. Thats it! You take that, and use that to assume that ANYTHING else is either planted or faked. Its 5 people vs a literal Mountain of physical and other HARD evidence and FACTS! How anyone at all can agree with that is beyond me.

It's ridiculous. I'm flabbergasted that this is even going on.

I read that shadow thread with great interest, as it seemed that some good work went into it. You refused to even consider it with with your infamous "evidence from the suspect is irrelevent" It must be nice not to have to answer anything tough, as you can just throw that line out trying to sound smart. It's a complete and utter cop-out.


Seriously, as suggested, lets show that pilot this radar information. Maybe he'll say - "No way! thats not true at all - something is wrong there!" OR - just maybe he'll say "Hmm - I could see how that could be right, if I was looking in this direction, and oh yeah - maybe I did see this a earlier than i though.. That looks about right."

In the first case he'll be your best friend, in the second case he'll be labeled as a liar and a paid stooge.

This entire no plane debate is a complete disgrace.

megaman1234

Originally posted by megaman1234
I am happy to post this as only my second. Of all the "theories" bouncing around on these 9/11 threads - those I see those put forth by Mr. Craig here as probably the most annoying.

Yes I can see how facts regarding information you refuse to accept and logic or reason that runs counter to your dogmatic beliefs could be considered "annoying".

Craig - you keep bandering around about your "hard evidence and facts", as if by saying it enough will somehow make it true. None of it is HARD or FACTUAL!

It's true whether or not I say it and you dismissing it doesn't make it go away.

Enough witness corroboration of any claim constitutes proof and is therefore hard evidence.

1 first-hand eyewitness account is evidence.

2 independently corroborated accounts is hard evidence

3 independently corroborated accounts is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have presented 4 and have 2 more yet unreleased for a total of 6.

Not a single account in the entire investigative body of evidence directly refutes the north side claim.

You know whats hard? Wreckage, damage, bodies, radar tracks.

None of which have been produced or independently obtained. If you aren't willing to consider evidence within the context of the investigation then you aren't objectively looking at the situation and are merely regurgitating what you have been told by the suspect.

The debunkers as you call them have ALL the tangible evidence in this case. You don't have anything! Your entire case involves, what, 5 people who say they say the plane on the wrong side of a gas station. Thats it!

That so happens to be proof of a deception whether or not you accept it.

You take that, and use that to assume that ANYTHING else is either planted or faked. Its 5 people vs a literal Mountain of physical and other HARD evidence and FACTS! How anyone at all can agree with that is beyond me.

So far you have failed to list any independently confirmed "facts" let alone a "mountain".

It's ridiculous. I'm flabbergasted that this is even going on.

Exactly. You are dismising logic in favor of a logical fallacy.

Your only argument against the evidence we present is an argument from incredulity.

Please adhere to critical thinking principles or go back to silently reading because logical fallacies are not a constructive method of civil discussion.

I read that shadow thread with great interest, as it seemed that some good work went into it. You refused to even consider it with with your infamous "evidence from the suspect is irrelevent" It must be nice not to have to answer anything tough, as you can just throw that line out trying to sound smart. It's a complete and utter cop-out.

I not only answer tough questions.....I provide hard evidence to back it up.

There is no proof of a shadow. Two dots do not equal a jumbo jet. If you are not going to look at evidence within the context of the investigation you might as well go back to watching fox news and believing everything they tell you.

Seriously, as suggested, lets show that pilot this radar information. Maybe he'll say - "No way! thats not true at all - something is wrong there!" OR - just maybe he'll say "Hmm - I could see how that could be right, if I was looking in this direction, and oh yeah - maybe I did see this a earlier than i though.. That looks about right."

There is no maybe about it. His already published statements directly contradict the data.

However we ARE in direct communication with him to get a direct reply on the RADES data.

Have you tried contacting him? If not you are not in a position to say what should or shouldn't be done in this regard because you have done nothing.

In the first case he'll be your best friend, in the second case he'll be labeled as a liar and a paid stooge.

We have no personal connection to any of the witnesses. You are telling me what I think and you have no right to do so.

O'Brien is in a position now where he will be forced to retract all of his previous statements or admit that the RADES data does not match. We have no inclination to pass judgment on him personally either way.

Because of this we will likely never hear from him again. But that won't stop us from continuing to follow up.

We believe O'Brien will not retract his previous statements particularly since his claims are backed up by Mineta, Monty Belger, quotes from the NORAD tapes, and most recently with this new groundbreaking witness testimony we have obtained on the Potomac River.

Unfortunately for the official story this is a fatal contradiction proving a cover-up via evidence fabrication.

This entire no plane debate is a complete disgrace.

This unsupported blanket statement using an incorrect label for our claims only serves to expose your bias and inability to accept the evidence.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
It's true whether or not I say it and you dismissing it doesn't make it go away.

Enough witness corroboration of any claim constitutes proof and is therefore hard evidence.

1 first-hand eyewitness account is evidence.

2 independently corroborated accounts is hard evidence

3 independently corroborated accounts is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have presented 4 and have 2 more yet unreleased for a total of 6.

Not a single account in the entire investigative body of evidence directly refutes the north side claim.

Why don't you take all your proof and hard evidence, get a lawyer and file law suits for destruction of evidence, conspiracy to destroy evidence, filing false statements, etc. in Commonwealth of Virginia State Court, Maryland State Court, and US Federal Court. You can name the following as defendants:

US Federal Government including:

FAA
NTSB
US DOD
NORAD

American Airlines
Arlington Police Department
Arlington Fire Department
The various search and rescue teams that responded
The various disaster resposne teams tha responded

reply to post by darkbluesky


Uh huh.

Brilliant idea.

We certainly would if we had the resources.

But contrary to your libelous claims about our financial motives for doing this we don't have any money for litigation.

We are doing the best we can to seek out evidence ONLY BECAUSE the media and federal investigators have failed to provide evidence backing up their claims.

Sure enough the initial suspicions that inspired us to dig deeper have been confirmed every step of the way.

We will continue to put out information and put pressure on the media and authorities to acknowledge it but that is all that 2 independent citizen investigators with no resources can accomplish.

Thanks for your concern/suggestion.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by darkbluesky

 

Uh huh.

Brilliant idea.

We certainly would if we had the resources.

But contrary to your libelous claims about our financial motives for doing this we don't have any money for litigation.

First, Im sure you could find any number of fame seeking attorneys that would be more than happy to take a case like this pro bono if they had any faith whatsoever in the strength of your evidence. Therefore your claims of no resources in specious.

Second...That's your second accusation of libel tossed at me, and your third in total, in this short two page thread.

How, exactly, is my suggestion that your motivation is financial harmful to you or your organization?

How does it represent a loss of earnings (thats ironic), loss of safety, loss of
reputation (relating to your ability to earn)?

It's funny how often you start dropping the libel card when you don't like the line of questioning or direction of the discussion. What exactly is your motivation for claiming libel so often?

[edit on 11/14/2007 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by darkbluesky


First, Im sure you could find any number of fame seeking attorneys that would be more than happy to take a case like this pro bono if they had any faith whatsoever in the strength of your evidence. Therefore your claims of no resources in specious.

If you think litigation against the government is ever simple or something that lawyers are quick to offer "pro bono" services for in any circumstances then you are living in an alternate reality. But when we are talking about a crime of this nature that really can't be directly pegged to any of the organizations you listed it's even more difficult. Especially since the entities that it DOES implicate literally control the judicial and all branches of government.

We advocate a grand jury investigation into who the perpetrators are and would certainly participate in any way that we could be helpful.

Second...That's your second accusation of libel tossed at me, and your third in total, in this short two page thread.

How, exactly, is my suggestion that your motivation is financial harmful to you or your organization?

How does it represent a loss of earnings (thats ironic), loss of safety, loss of
reputation (relating to your ability to earn)?

It's funny how often you start dropping the libel card when you don't like the line of questioning or direction of the discussion. What exactly is your motivation for claiming libel so often?

Excuse me?

Your accusation was NOT a line of questioning at all.

Why are you lying about what you said?

You blatantly stated that I am investigating 9/11 for financial gain.

That claim is absolutely false and contradicts our publicized mission statement and characterizes me as a self-serving profiteer out to personally gain off the murder of 1,000's of innocent victims.

There is nothing whatsoever that specifically ties the word "libel" to earnings.

li·bel /ˈlaɪbəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lahy-buhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -beled, -bel·ing or (especially British) -belled, -bel·ling.
–noun
1. Law.
a. defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
b. the act or crime of publishing it.
c. a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.
2. anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.
–verb (used with object)
3. to publish a libel against.
4. to misrepresent damagingly.
5. to institute suit against by a libel, as in an admiralty court.

You are simply using deceptive language to further try to associate my claims to a financial motive.

Back up your libelous claim with evidence or be honest and publicly admit that you had no basis whatsoever to make that incorrect claim.