It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Ahem. Please, again, how is it proven? Because you ain't yet been able to illustrate it, just remind us it's already proven. So remind us again. Possibilities - all you've proven is that these guys opened their yaps and said some things.
Independent corroboration is proof.
People don't open their "yaps" and independently describe the same thing if it isn't true.
THIS is what I meant by side-stepping. Craig cannot prove his witnesses are telling the truth. He merely offers his opinion that there would be no motive for this. Period. Not even worth considering.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
This image alone is enough to completely debunk Terry Morin:
Morin's account here
Look at the picture and think about how fast that plane would have to decline in about 1 or 2 seconds from 50 feet over the Navy Annex to hit the light poles at the very bottom of the hill.
Edward describes seeing the jet for a couple of seconds and hearing the explosion a few seconds later which makes perfect sense.
Morin claims he heard it FIRST so you know he couldn't have seen it for much more than a second before it started declining in what would HAVE to be more than a "slight nose down attitude" to hit the poles.
Just analyzing Morin's ridiculous account and thinking about this while looking at that image is enough to prove the official story a farce.
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Thank you for explaining that again. "People don't open their "yaps" and independently describe the same thing if it isn't true." Ever. That's a pretty strong statement. Is there any way you can demonstrate how people have never lied in an organized way to mimic multiple-corroborated reality?
Problem is you are caught in this. You never thought about this option, and that's a problem for your proof. It's also suspicious in that it indicates you had a clear philosophy about what you weren't going to consider.
Now I'm not saying the north-of-Citgo witnesses - a handful or an armload - truly ARE complicit in a disinfo campaign, but can anyone besides Craig stand up and tell me this is impossible, or near enough that it should ever have been considered?
That is not an opinion it is FACT.
There is no motive.
If it's fact and not opinion, why is it coming only from you? Having a hard time reasoning your case? Just argue that you've already won, your case is proven, your opinins are facts, all else are lies that you need not waste a minute on. How handy.
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Alright here's what's wrong with your analysis.
1) Morin is not 'my main witness.' He's the one that sprung to mind talking to you.
2) The dive down that mighty slope, all shown to scale (except Morin):
-6 average lines up with what I'd found from other sources - including the irrelevant shadow. The curve is necessary for the damage path, and is only slightly sharper than other trends recorded in the FDR stuff.
3) The number of seconds from there to impact - quick math, 777.333 fps, about 2550 feet including descent = 3.3 seconds to impact from the east edge of the annex. He would have probably first seen it 4-5 seconds before impact.
4) "slight nose down attitude." As an eyewitness expert, do you still not recognize the limitations on reading anything into subjective words like 'slight?' Is the slope above not what some might reasonably describes as 'slight?'
5) And regarding Morin's account of flight path compared too Paik's:
"The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB)."
Paik's path, your composit, official path, Morin's literal account. I'll leave it open exactly what might be going on here.
I've weebled. Time for you to wobble.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I am not "caught" and this is not a problem. You are suggesting an outrageous, illogical, unneeded, and completely UNSUPPORTED wild speculative scenario based on zero evidence.
The notion that it's "possible" is irrelevant.
It's also possible that holograms were used or that all the citgo-witnesses are shape shifting aliens but there is ZERO reason to make absurd suggestions without evidence OR motive!
It is not a "problem" if I don't think of every ridiculous possibility in the universe. I am not "caught" if I choose to dismiss wild speculation over evidence and logic. This is how true critical thinking and scientific reasoning works.
You have asserted your unsupported speculation, it has been considered, and it has now been dismissed based on tangible evidence independently obtained via our investigation and standard logic relative to the context of the crime.
Now I'm not saying the north-of-Citgo witnesses - a handful or an armload - truly ARE complicit in a disinfo campaign, but can anyone besides Craig stand up and tell me this is impossible, or near enough that it should ever have been considered?
Your wild speculation has been considered as per your request just like the notion that they are shape-shifting aliens has been considered now that it came up in the discussion.
I'll wait until you provide evidence before taking this ridiculous notion seriously.
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Evidemce: circumstantial. They all describe a flight path that counters all evidence, which evidence must be faked. And it's a lotta damn evidence. Including all the reports of impact from even your witnesses - faked with the flyover pyrotechnics. I do not have the phone calls where Rummy told Lagasse what to say and Lagasse told Brooks, etc. I could not have solid evidence, only circumstantial. It's enough for me to wonder, and put this in the range of probabilities much nearer us than shape-shifters.
Motive: Here we are. Arguing. It's either fake evidence or fake witnesses to blam but this aspect of the Truth Movement's investigation has been sabotaged.
And you, sir, are clearly a willful participant in the sabotage. You have dismissed coordinated lying as a possibility becuase you wanted the testimony to work. There is zero physical evidence for a flyover, yet you decided one happened, and when some people said things that help support this unsupported case you take it 100% with no reservations and ran with it.
Words, dude. Words. This is your proof. Simple words from the murky minds of men. And now all else is proven a fabrication, including the holy words of others who dare to describe something you don't want to hear.
Oh it's not the only thread I got, just the one I'm trying to strangle you with right now. I',m still waiting for a convincing reason why coordinated misinformation is so incredibly unlikely. You're a logical guy, you shoud be able to explain it better than that. If they did their plane crash right, there are there are other reasons for them to promote a false theory later. FOR EXAMPLE to sow division in the movement. To practice the technique for future use. For twisted amusement. It's also possible that mistruth has crept in by some organic snowball effect. Lagasse says north for whatever reason, spends some tiime online... others read the posts, see your video, and decide to play along when you come-a-calling. Etc.
This is what I mean by 'murky minds.' It's a problem with withnesses, especially in high profile cases. And you refuse to acknolwedge this, readin these guys like you would a seismograph. Can such bad methodology really be an accident?
You, and the PentaCon phenomenon, and this thread, may be the evidence.