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.

 

Craig Ranke vs Adam Larson (Caustic Logic) debate

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Bump for anyone who may have missed the debates.

I find it interesting how virtually every blog and thread CL has posted here since these debates focus on CIT and our research.




posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   
What I would like to know is why a guy like Larson is listened to anyway. What makes him someone to have his opinions held important? As soon as I heard him say that it was most likley that the entire Citgo crew were in on a conspiracy, that did it. No need to go on. The man is like one of these kids that gets on here at the end of a long thread and asks silly questions and has to be directed back to learn the basics.

I am sure that a better example could be found that could try and debunk the truth..this guy is so banal and so unasahmed about looking like a fool that it is almost cruel to debate him. It is like debating some second grader about a subject: Their logical thought systems are not fully formed, and neither apparently are Larsons.

Anyone who has the desperate need to believe the official fairy tale will of course believe anything but the obvious truth: The 9-11 attacks were an inside job, a set up, and evidence at the Pentagon was manipulated and staged, witnesses were staged, and the simple but complex plan involved distraction with the plane and then the setting of the explosives.

Craig is believeable, Larson is not. If anyone can believe in the Citgo people all lying or conspirators, then they will believe anything that the Bush cabal says. Makes one wonder why?!



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   
After going back and reading even more, I found a line by Larson that sums it all up perfectly:

He said " Craig, you just don't know how my logic works ".

If there is more than one way to be logical, please tell me what it is. Logical people will see things pretty much the same. They will see evidence and come to a conclusion based on odds and facts.

Reading Larsons words is a case study in denial and obfuscation and out ridiculous nonsense. He admits to believing in the most far flung and outrageous scenarios, yet asks to be seen as a man of logic!!

I guess what he means is that HIS logic is radically different than standard logic, but it is just as valid!! Amazing gaul....he has no substance, makes no correct determinations, and is either unable to correctly process data and odds, or has some motive for being so stubborn and willing to support the absolutely phony official story.

I feel sorry for people who think like he does...how in the world can he make heads or tails out of anything if even plain and simple facts can be turned around and seen totally in the wrong way. Unreal.



posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Bump for anyone who may have missed the debates.

I find it interesting how virtually every blog and thread CL has posted here since these debates focus on CIT and our research.


Are you just now noticing that? I'll take this bump as a bump of your reticence to address why you have these sharp banks in your flight path that no one reported, and that several people, including one of your witnesses, indicate the opposite of. Bank vs turn thread

Yes, I've amped it up recently to mark one year of info-battle. It's not a permanent state, and doesn't need to be. Recently I've found and shown: Yknow what, I can't even show the list without seeming to attack you again in 9/11 madness. It's getting to that point that to just list all your errors makes you look pretty dishonest

I note the banner here:

Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups. Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of focusing on conspiracy theory, cover-ups, and scandals.

It seems the policy at some other forums is protect CIT by banning its opponents. That's why I quit one of them first on my own terms. Now at ATS - I don't mean to get into mud-slinging ad hominem attacks, etc. but I've exposed enough deceptions that really the master pattern needs to be addressed. It's getting harde to not just summarize everything and start calling outright fraud.
But CIT claim to be exposing a COVER-UP. So should I just shut up? It's a serious question for any Moderator... I don't want to type up a well-thought out post with lots of points and graphics and have it removed as an attack on a truther from impure motives. Do my motives matter? Does it matter that I firmly believe the evidence happens to coincide with 'the official story' here? Or that I'm perhaps obsessed with attacking CIT?

And not to give in to provocation:


Originally posted by eyewitness86
What I would like to know is why a guy like Larson is listened to anyway. What makes him someone to have his opinions held important? As soon as I heard him say that it was most likley that the entire Citgo crew were in on a conspiracy, that did it. No need to go on. The man is like one of these kids that gets on here at the end of a long thread and asks silly questions and has to be directed back to learn the basics.

I am sure that a better example could be found that could try and debunk the truth..this guy is so banal and so unasahmed about looking like a fool that it is almost cruel to debate him. It is like debating some second grader about a subject: Their logical thought systems are not fully formed, and neither apparently are Larsons.


Eyewitness: I never said the whole crew was in on a conspiracy 100% for sure, but no light poles were planted, no vent structures, vent doors, fences, trailers, generators, etc. pre-damaged before the event. There were no fireballs hurled against the building as bombs bowed the columns and large plane debris was scattered inside. No eyewitnesses at the scene were coached to lie and say a plane hit, and there's no fakery in the world that could trick all of them at all angle into believing that unless it happened. There was no removal of Robert Turcios from the Citgo video and no altering of the radar data. The plane did not fly north of the station, it did not fly over it or veer away, it was not southeast of DC, it did not circle DC.

Yet three people and a manager at the Citgo said it flew north, necessitating most of the points above. Is that accident that they're all wrong? You tell me... brave DPS officers allowed to spill the beans on the whole thing, at the scene, on-camera, and this smoking gun allowed to go free and even viral on the net. Hmmmm...


Craig is believeable, Larson is not. If anyone can believe in the Citgo people all lying or conspirators, then they will believe anything that the Bush cabal says. Makes one wonder why?!

Keen observations, mate. You've exposed me as a nefarious OCT-supporting supicious-type person. Now tell me, who is "eyewitness 86" that I or anyone should believe? Do you have any grasp on the actual facts here, or just chanting?



posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
After going back and reading even more, I found a line by Larson that sums it all up perfectly:

He said " Craig, you just don't know how my logic works ".

If there is more than one way to be logical, please tell me what it is. Logical people will see things pretty much the same. They will see evidence and come to a conclusion based on odds and facts.

Reasonable people, yes, usually. Someone here isn't reasonable. So glad you're so certain who.

Craig: "You contradict your own logic if you suggest..."

Me: "Craig, you do not know how my logic runs."

Okay, maybe I should amend that. Either he does know my logic and was misrepresenting it or he doesn't understand it, because there was no contradiction there. The discussion was about my 'wacky disinfo theory.' He loves to keep bringing that up - and mischaracterizing it somewhat - because it helps distract from his own ... issues. Like that he NEVER ONCE thought of that as a few folks told him stuff that contradicts all other evidence and requires this bizarre fakery scenario.


Reading Larsons words is a case study in denial and obfuscation and out ridiculous nonsense. He admits to believing in the most far flung and outrageous scenarios, yet asks to be seen as a man of logic!!


Sure you're not confusing me with someone else? Outrageous scenarios? Can you please explain to me what you believe happened at the Pentagon? Vis a vis the things that were wrecked and ruptured and the plane parts and witness reports of low level impact, etc.


I guess what he means is that HIS logic is radically different than standard logic, but it is just as valid!! Amazing gaul....he has no substance, makes no correct determinations, and is either unable to correctly process data and odds, or has some motive for being so stubborn and willing to support the absolutely phony official story.


Man, ouch. Now here's the good part: illustrate these ... claims. Cite a few examples and show the world. We need proof, not your opinion, thx. BTW: as I see it you have officially stepped up and now owe me 3 or more examples of dishonesty/errors/lies, something to back up this ... talk - and also a quick rundown on what you think caused all the damaged things and dead people at the Pentagon. Live up or don't, whatever.

This whole logic debate is interesting. Of course there are as many different logic systems as there are people, and even more. Some people still believe the earth is flat and base their reasoning on that. We all seem to be - or say we are - logical and yet here we are, eh? This whole 'there's only one way' thing shows that your opponent is either mentally broken, or purposefully lying.

Even as I get miffed at this being asked about me, I realize it's how I frame CIT in my mind, for the same reason E86 has framed me similarly. Interesting. Is there no way out of this circle of logic vs. logic? No way to determine what happened?

Way too philosophical. Anyway, I'll check back tomorrow.



I feel sorry for people who think like he does...how in the world can he make heads or tails out of anything if even plain and simple facts can be turned around and seen totally in the wrong way. Unreal.


... no comment except IRONY ALERT! Tomorrow - specifics - let's go.

[edit on 17-2-2008 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Are you just now noticing that? I'll take this bump as a bump of your reticence to address why you have these sharp banks in your flight path that no one reported, and that several people, including one of your witnesses, indicate the opposite of. Bank vs turn thread



1. You are misrepresenting our claims as you certainly know that Sean Boger was the only witness we report who was in a position to see the bank and that he most certainly DOES report it.

2. Edward reports no bank because he was not in a position to see the bank just like he was not in a position to see the still being built Air Force Memorial that you had no qualms suggesting influenced his placement of the plane. The fact that you feel you have the right to publicly make wild speculative guesses about the subconscious thoughts of these witnesses to cast doubt on their testimony that scientifically proves 9/11 was an inside job is abominable.

You are following suit with this ridiculous "opposite bank" claim that came out of nowhere based on nothing said by Edward.

He did not say OR gesture such a thing in the least.

You simply took a completely irrelevant and random screen shot of him and made this erroneous claim.

I have no reason to reply in your convoluted, incoherent, rambling threads and blogs that offer nothing whatsoever to counter the fact that we have scientifically proven the plane came from east of the Potomac and flew north of the citgo.

Both of these pieces of evidence independently prove 9/11 was an inside job and are not reliant upon each other.

The ONLY thing you have offered to refute this is a wild speculative and accusatory conspiracy theory that all of the witnesses are deep cover disinfo operatives.

Let me know when you find some independently obtained and verified evidence.









[edit on 17-2-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


FYI, the flight data recorder data agrees well with the Citgo witnesses. See references for FLT77 FDR at www.pilotsfor911truth.org

However, the "corrected" FDR data shows that the aircraft was several hundred feet above the building. This data was released by the GOV. and ironically is in conflict with the official conspiracy. The data also suggests that it was tampered with as the altimeter setting was not re-adjusted as they passed back through FL180 (this would be SOP and necessary as above this altitude the setting is a standard 29.92").



posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   
To be perfectly accurate.....

While the NTSB animation does show the plane north of the citgo station....it does NOT match the full flight path we report from all the witnesses and is in fact even irreconcilable with Edward Paik's account.

Furthermore the NTSB animation also contradicts the data they released in the raw file.

To make things even more confusing.......although the raw file shows the plane on the proper heading south of the citgo.....descent angle and altitude are STILL irreconcilable with the physical damage and the security video showing a perfectly low and level approach.

This presentation shows you how the raw file is still irreconcilable with the physical damage:


Google Video Link



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craig, to be blunt, that's a pretty idiotic stance. I have no reason to reply in your incoherently terse and vague distraction threads to an issue that wasn't even raised in that thread. I've posted a reply to this in the right spot, at the bank thread. You know where it is if you want to continue setting things straight all 'scientific" like. Hip us to HOW it is people can see a plane but not the angle of its wings.

Or remain silent. That's a response too.

And quickly regarding that FDR analysis - that is a great modeling job Rob did that would be very useful if we even wanted to see what the plane was doing over S Courthouse Road and 12th st S, but has little bearing on the actual period before impact, a mile to the northeast and about 6-8 seconds later than that last data was recorded.

And for those who still don't know the apparent match between the NTSB animation and the NoC witnesses is coincidence (?) - the animation is based on the FDR recorded flight path, but the final map is rotated 20 degrees CCW for unsure reasons. And also moved, since data anded further from the Pentagon than the animation indicates.

No matter how you slice it, CIT/PFT analysis just doesn't add up.


[edit on 18-2-2008 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic


No matter how you slice it, CIT/PFT analysis just doesn't add up.





Except that you have failed to make a single point as to how.

You simply make excuses for all of the anomalies in the government story right down to calling all the information that contradicts it as planted disinfo!



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

And quickly regarding that FDR analysis - that is a great modeling job Rob did that would be very useful if we even wanted to see what the plane was doing over S Courthouse Road and 12th st S, but has little bearing on the actual period before impact, a mile to the northeast and about 6-8 seconds later than that last data was recorded.


Oh and apparently you forgot how you have been proven wrong about this too. There most certainly is recorded data beyond 6 to 8 seconds before alleged impact. You are admittedly not qualified to analyze the FDR so why do you keep making statetments that have been proven false?

Google Video Link



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Sorry, Rob Balsamo says X is not proof that X is true. It's not proof it's wrong either of course. Craig, how qualified are YOU to read FDR data? Neither of us is an expert, but we each have our opinions. You believe the PFT take, while I doubt it. Rob cites a DME value showing it further ahead, I'm sure it's there, recorded at 9:37:44 - John Farmer says this one final DME blip is almost 2 standard deviations from the norm of previous DME values. IE it's a glitch, not a connected point on a steady line. Can you discount this? Can I verify it? Theoretically we could dig in, but let's just say for now you have your take ad I have mine.

I believe the 9:37:45 data is from a point far from impact for these reasons:
1 - the positional data says it's 1/3 miles back, although there is some possibility of error in this...
2 - even the last DME point is a ways from the building, and it seems there's possibility of error with it as well.
3 - Most significant: The values are all wrong for the moment before impact, as you know, which actually indicated to me the DATA is for a DIFFERENT MOMENT.

You believe ... whatever Rob's video says, I'm not even sure you know what that is. You do this a lot - call me liar - as if it's your own finding - for disagreeing with Rob, but then show little ability to back up the charge.

Anyway, this discussion will probably only further develop this difference of opinions, and since the whole purpose of its revival is to distract from the very real questions I've posed about your own research, which you seem almost as confused about as you are about Rob's, I'm done with the FDR discussion.

What is 'a bank' in the common usage you've employed? Please define this term you use, if not at my scary thread then right here if you like.



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 


And Eyewitness, I notice no response to my challenges, but also no new attacks on me. Are you wise enough to know you stepped too far? [tough guy voice]Dat's what I THOT.[/tough guy voice]



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Farmer is not qualified to analyze the FDR either.

Rob is.

He has fully demonstrated how you and Farmer are wrong and you have failed to show otherwise so it's left with you being wrong.

I have no idea what your point is in your nonsensical bank thread that deceptively attributes claims to Edward he never made. In fact he specifically said in our first interview how he did not notice a wing tilt. Ask Russell Pickering if you don't believe me because he is the one who asked the question.

When I refer to bank I mean actual turn of the plane which is what Walter was describing and why his account is irreconcilable with the official flight path.

The fact is that Mike Walter would not have been able to see a slight wing tilt OR turn immediately before alleged impact in a fraction of a second with the plane a few feet above ground and the trees that he admitted blocked his view.

Furthermore the "graceful bank" that he describes is clearly the plane on the approach and not when it would have been at eye level directly in front of him for a fraction of a second before it disappeared behind the trees.



MIKE WALTER: I will never forget that day, trapped in traffic and then I rolled down the window and heard the sound of the jet overhead. I wasn’t surprised. I worked in the USA today building in Roslyn nearby and we were used to seeing a lot of choppers coming to the helipad at the Pentagon and a lot of commercial jets heading to Reagan which is nearby. But for some reason I looked up and saw the underbelly of the jet as it gracefully banked, then I watched in shock as the jet basically lined up the Pentagon in its sights and began to scream towards the mammoth structure. I watched as it continued to dip from the sky, diving towards the Pentagon. There are some trees that are adjacent to 27 the road I was stuck on, so the jet went out of sight momentarily. Then I picked it up as it struck very low into the Pentagon.


This is how he described it in person too. The plane was up in the air off in the distance on the approach when he allegedly noticed a "graceful bank" before he allegedly realized it was going to hit the building. I think he was simply embellishing this nonsense as if he would have been able to see the plane come out of it's reported loop which he would not.



Walter's confirmed alleged location:




Walters confirmed alleged POV:




Now....granted, I'll admit that the fact that he says he saw the underbelly would indicate he is describing the opposite bank that we report, however, this does not change the FACT that a bank like he describes is still irreconcilable with the official flight path either way.

Also......there are many contradictions we will be demonstrating in Walter's account which seriously implicate him as not telling the truth.

The fact that I referred to his account many months ago on jref as I was being badgered about the impossibility of the plane banking means nothing.

Frankly I didn't even consider how his "underbelly" claim would indicate an opposite bank nor do I care because his dubious account STILL contradicts the official flight path and FDR.

You really enjoy quote mining various forums from months ago and taking things out of context in order to twist claims for confusion.

You are awesome at that.




[edit on 18-2-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

[edit on 18-2-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
reply to post by eyewitness86
 


And Eyewitness, I notice no response to my challenges, but also no new attacks on me. Are you wise enough to know you stepped too far? [tough guy voice]Dat's what I THOT.[/tough guy voice]


Likely he wisely decided it's simply not worth his time or energy.

He merely expressed his personal impression of you after listening to our debate.

No doubt he represents the impression of hundreds who have listened to it.



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I have no idea what your point is in your nonsensical bank thread that deceptively attributes claims to Edward he never made. In fact he specifically said in our first interview how he did not notice a wing tilt. Ask Russell Pickering if you don't believe me because he is the one who asked the question.


Alright, fine, I'll respond here too. That is mildly interesting. Perhaps he recalled this detail after that interview, then included it when he talked to the camera later? Watch the video yourselves: He’s never ASKED about bank/tilt, and doesn’t TALK about it. His drawn lines are essentially straight.
– 11:42 describing the black wings he extends his arms, right hand high, relaxes the gesture then repeats it the same.
- 12:52 – striking a jesus pose, facing the OTHER way he somehow puts his LEFT hand higher to indicate the right wing. He even seems to think about it a moment first.

Coincidence? Yes, perhaps. But this also matches the type of bank described by many others and in the physical damage.

And which is more consistent with his not noticing any bank anyway? An extreme right bank or a mild left one?


When I refer to bank I mean actual turn of the plane which is what Walter was describing and why his account is irreconcilable with the official flight path.


Alright, that's what I was guessing. Can't see a plane's wing bank? That makes no sense... so it's an imprecise terminology problem. Bank ACTUALLY means wing 'tilt' as you call it. It usually means turn the way smoke usually means fire. And fire and smoke are two different things, right?

What proof do we have that Boger, Walter, anyone in that describes a 'bank' means it in the same way you do? As I see it the word alone could mean a turn or just an actual bank, and I'd need other clues like "it banked right, turning from northeast to east..." etc.


The fact is that Mike Walter would not have been able to see a slight wing tilt OR turn immediately before alleged impact in a fraction of a second with the plane a few feet above ground and the trees that he admitted blocked his view.

Furthermore the "graceful bank" that he describes is clearly the plane on the approach and not when it would have been at eye level directly in front of him for a fraction of a second before it disappeared behind the trees.


No but neither would it change in a fraction of a second from what he had seen earlier. Where does he say it stopped 'banking' and straightened out? How do we know it wasn't still doing that behind the trees? Did it level its wings, pull up and fly over behind the trees?


Now....granted, I'll admit that the fact that he says he saw the underbelly would indicate he is describing the opposite bank that we report, however, this does not change the FACT that a bank like he describes is still irreconcilable with the official flight path either way.


Sure, just like your repeating that nonsense that doesn't make it true. The official story has no appreciable turn, or bank as you call it, between the poles and the building, but it does have a bank, or a tilt as you call it. If walter meant bank, then a 'graceful' one showing him belly fits the official story fine. It may even have been turning 'gracefully,' but with a left-bank, and on the scale from the Annex to the Pentagon, about 20 plane-lengths, it might be negligible, a slight bow of a nearly straight line.

So for every instance you say Walter's report of a bank contradicts the official story I call bull. Until you get him to explain he MEANS a right turn, and that graceful means extreme, with left wing very high.


Also......there are many contradictions we will be demonstrating in Walter's account which seriously implicate him as not telling the truth.


Wow there's more? This guy must be REALLY suspicious, huh?


The fact that I referred to his account many months ago on jref as I was being badgered about the impossibility of the plane banking means nothing.

Frankly I didn't even consider how his "underbelly" claim would indicate an opposite bank nor do I care because his dubious account STILL contradicts the official flight path and FDR.

You really enjoy quote mining various forums from months ago and taking things out of context in order to twist claims for confusion.

You are awesome at that.


Thanks. I call it research. So why did both you and Aldo repeatedly emphasize his bank reports elsewhere too, including to me? JREFFers made you do it? his 'bank' report that only specifically implies a right-wing high 'tilt' and NOT specifically a turn-type bank - used to support your EXTREME right bank and turn - Talk about out-of-context...

And since we're keeping this in the vs. thread, I have a general Q for you. You mentioned Paik's earlier interview w/Pickering present. I hear Robert Turcios gave an earlier recorded interview before his video-taped one. Is this available for the public to hear? Do you have a copy you can share in the interests further verification of your scientific and open process?

[edit on 19-2-2008 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 19-2-2008 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Caustic Logic


No matter how you slice it, CIT/PFT analysis just doesn't add up.





Except that you have failed to make a single point as to how.

You simply make excuses for all of the anomalies in the government story right down to calling all the information that contradicts it as planted disinfo!


Oh I'm listing all the ways don't worry yer head about that. And no I don't call every 'contradiction' planted disinfo. Most of what I've exposed are massive 'errors' in reading legit evidence by so-called researchers.



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Alright, fine, I'll respond here too. That is mildly interesting. Perhaps he recalled this detail after that interview, then included it when he talked to the camera later? Watch the video yourselves: He’s never ASKED about bank/tilt, and doesn’t TALK about it. His drawn lines are essentially straight.
– 11:42 describing the black wings he extends his arms, right hand high, relaxes the gesture then repeats it the same.
- 12:52 – striking a jesus pose, facing the OTHER way he somehow puts his LEFT hand higher to indicate the right wing. He even seems to think about it a moment first.

Coincidence? Yes, perhaps. But this also matches the type of bank described by many others and in the physical damage.


There is no coincidence and he is not indicating a bank or wing tilt. Your imagination is running wild in pure desperation. He specifically says he did not see a wing tilt.



And which is more consistent with his not noticing any bank anyway? An extreme right bank or a mild left one?


Doesn't matter. He did not notice one.



Alright, that's what I was guessing. Can't see a plane's wing bank? That makes no sense...


When did I say it would be impossible to see a bank in general? Why are you putting words in my mouth? The fact that he didn't see it does not mean that it would have been impossible to see. Although it is clear that it certainly would be extremely difficult to see in a plane that is directly over the top of you for about 1 second plus I highly doubt it would be possible for him see the specific bank that we report in front of the Navy Annex at all.



What proof do we have that Boger, Walter, anyone in that describes a 'bank' means it in the same way you do? As I see it the word alone could mean a turn or just an actual bank, and I'd need other clues like "it banked right, turning from northeast to east..." etc.


We don't believe Walter due to many fatal contradictions in his account. Boger describes it perfectly. Please don't lump the two together as if we give them the same level of credence.




No but neither would it change in a fraction of a second from what he had seen earlier. Where does he say it stopped 'banking' and straightened out? How do we know it wasn't still doing that behind the trees? Did it level its wings, pull up and fly over behind the trees?


Because that is not what he describes and we know the plane was on the north side of the citgo but we also know that the bank or TURN he describes on the approach is irreconcilable with the FDR and that he would NOT have been able to see the "underbelly" in the split second that the plane would have been directly in front of him just above the cars. So if you accept his "graceful bank" description as valid you must accept that it contradicts the official story.



Sure, just like your repeating that nonsense that doesn't make it true. The official story has no appreciable turn, or bank as you call it, between the poles and the building, but it does have a bank, or a tilt as you call it.


But that would not allow him to see the "underbelly". Mike Walter describes a turn off in the distance on the approach. You can not change his account to fit the official story when it does not.



If walter meant bank, then a 'graceful' one showing him belly fits the official story fine.


No it does not. A mere wing tilt directly in front of him just above the cars for a fraction of a second would not show him the underbelly.

Walter meant turn off in the distance on the approach. This is clearly what he described. This clearly contradicts the official story. Are you sure you believe him?



It may even have been turning 'gracefully,' but with a left-bank, and on the scale from the Annex to the Pentagon, about 20 plane-lengths, it might be negligible, a slight bow of a nearly straight line.


You mean about 2 seconds? That's not much time to be "graceful" nor is it what he describes. Whatever dude. You are desperately reaching again.



So for every instance you say Walter's report of a bank contradicts the official story I call bull. Until you get him to explain he MEANS a right turn, and that graceful means extreme, with left wing very high.


Read his words. It is quite clear this is what he means.

The fact that you refuse his own words isn't my problem.



I will never forget that day, trapped in traffic and then I rolled down the window and heard the sound of the jet overhead. I wasn’t surprised. I worked in the USA today building in Roslyn nearby and we were used to seeing a lot of choppers coming to the helipad at the Pentagon and a lot of commercial jets heading to Reagan which is nearby. (so he saw the plane off in the distance but thought it was normal at first. Would he really have time to think all that in 2 seconds?) But for some reason I looked up and saw the underbelly of the jet as it gracefully banked, then I watched in shock as the jet basically lined up the Pentagon in its sights.....


He is clearly describing a plane off in the distance coming out of a turn and "lining up it's sights". How you can construe that to be a 2 second event with a slight tilt at the last moment I will never know.

We talked to him in person. You didn't.

He was describing a turn off in the distance exactly like he describes in the quote that you are ignoring and twisting to fit the official story.

His brain would not have ANY time to think the plane was normal traffic on the official flight path.





Wow there's more? This guy must be REALLY suspicious, huh?


Yep.



Thanks. I call it research. So why did both you and Aldo repeatedly emphasize his bank reports elsewhere too, including to me? JREFFers made you do it? his 'bank' report that only specifically implies a right-wing high 'tilt' and NOT specifically a turn-type bank - used to support your EXTREME right bank and turn - Talk about out-of-context...


That is not "research" that is obsession and deception. Stalking people on the internet and quote mining out of context to twist people's claims is pathetically shameful. Why don't you do research in regards to 9/11 instead of obsessing over CIT?

We cite Mike Walter's account as a contradiction to the official story. We are very open about the fact that we don't trust Mike Walter's account but that doesn't mean we aren't allowed to cite how he contradicts the official story and data. Some people say a bank at all is impossible and did not happen. It's perfectly in our right to use this well known supposedly official story account to point out contradictions.

Again.....I did not even think about the fact that his dubious account of seeing the "underbelly" indicates the opposite bank. But it does not matter because he STILL contradicts the official story with his long, drawn out, clearly embellished story of a plane banking/turning off in the distance before it "lined up its sights".



And since we're keeping this in the vs. thread, I have a general Q for you. You mentioned Paik's earlier interview w/Pickering present. I hear Robert Turcios gave an earlier recorded interview before his video-taped one. Is this available for the public to hear? Do you have a copy you can share in the interests further verification of your scientific and open process?


I have no idea where you heard that but it is not true.

Turcios did not give an earlier recorded interview before his video taped one.



[edit on 19-2-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

[edit on 19-2-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



The wisdom lies not in assuming that the official story is true: If anyone can look at all the combined ' inexplicable anomalies ' that are associated with just the Pentagon ' attack ' and still have any doubt about whether or not a huge passenger jet hit the Pentagon, then in my opinion that person does not have the requisite skills of critical thinking and the ability to discern odds very well, and is thus an unreliable commentator.

In addition to the witness statements, we also have NO jet parts displayed outside or inside the Pentagon. NO suitcases, no bodies of the passengers being collected ( no bodies were collected except for those that were in the Pentagon before the explosions. NO HOLES from the two massive engines, and no photos that show two engine parts. This goes on and on ad nauseum until no sound mind could possible swallow the fairy tale that is the official story.

I am not an expert on any one fascet of this event, but I know how to caluculate odds, and the odds are overwhelmingly, absolutely to the edge of the universe that the official lie could be true. No way. We are seeing a struggle between the shadow govt. assuming control of the Executive branch and challenging the remaining real patriots in high places who ALL know what happened that day.

Can anyone imagine that the really intelligent and aware intel people believe the official story? No way. They know that Towers do not turn to dust, showing all the effects of DEW in their destruction, and they know that there is no evidence that a passenger jet impacted the Pentagon..they know what happened. The Neocon/Israeli perps with Dick Cheney as the lead handler for monkey boy Bush and the plan's go to guy at the White House. Cheney stood down the defenses at the Pentagon as part of his chores that day.

The fact that the ' young officer' that Mineta speaks of has never been identified or questioned as to what was meant ( like we don't know atready) says it all. Cover up of a traitorous and despicable murde scheme to advance the goals of the Neocon cabal and their military/industrial/petrochemical money men who were part and parcel of all this.

Remember how many ' strange coincidences' were associated with EVERY aspect of this event. Nothing was normal and nothing was like ever before: No matter how the perps managed to deceive the people there into thinkiong that a jet had crashed at the Pentagon, with a fly by and a missle, a fly by and planted explosives, it was a game of distraction and sleight - of - plane. It had to look like a jet approached...and then miss the building and fly over and gone.


I am not certain about the ' smoke trail ' that was at ground level in the only 5 frames that were released, whether or not it was a missle or something else, but one thing is for certain and beyond question: No jet hit the Pentagon. It is ridiculous to assume that there was one based on the evidence.

I will let the guys who study this in depth deal with the particulars, but when Larson is willing to accept incredible odds, outrageous scenarios totally unsupported by any proof, just to keep the fires buring in the official incinerator of unfounded allegations, I see quite clearly where the odds lie: No proof exists that confirms the official story, and the screaming contradictions say a lot.

The ONLY reason that the perps are able to get away with this is because the public will swallow any fairy tale given them by the media, and most would not want to know the truth if it was right there in black and white in front of them; some people just cannot imagine such things being possible.

However, lack of imagination does not stop the perps from carrying out their audacious plans, openly and slapping the public in the face every time they ask us to believe in nonsense and unproven allegations. pity America; it is almost over, and we are to blame for being trusting of the system and it's players. We have been had. We are now in the grips of the NWO and the Bush cabal will be seen in history as far worse than any Benedict Arnold or Vidkund Quisling..the men in charge now are depraved and callous murderers and unless a revolution or a coup unseats, arrests, and tries this gang in power we are lost.

So, Mr. Larson, next time you make grand asusmptions that defy ALL logic, be honest enough to admit that the odds are so far from being with you that they are beyond your horizon and past the limits of believability. To believe the officla story is like believing a kid that has his hand caught in the cookie jar and stand there and says: " What cookie jar ?" Bold lies and insane imaginings may convince those unwilling to look beyond their noses, but no one else.



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86

I will let the guys who study this in depth deal with the particulars, but when Larson is willing to accept incredible odds, outrageous scenarios totally unsupported by any proof, just to keep the fires buring in the official incinerator of unfounded allegations, I see quite clearly where the odds lie: No proof exists that confirms the official story, and the screaming contradictions say a lot.

The ONLY reason that the perps are able to get away with this is because the public will swallow any fairy tale given them by the media, and most would not want to know the truth if it was right there in black and white in front of them; some people just cannot imagine such things being possible.


Nice post, this part sums it all up best for me.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join