It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:15 PM
Just something to keep in mind please.

Courtesy Is Mandatory
To engage in stimulating, topical discussion we must minimize the disruption caused by off-topic digressions, and insults or other forms of personal commentary are always off-topic.

The Evolution of Online Civility and Decorum

[edit on 25/4/2008 by Sauron]

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 04:07 AM
For the sake of logic, just tell me where the plane was, one second before arriving at or above the Pentagon wall.

I am not as much interested in what happened after that, anymore.

I want to know if the North of Citgo flightpath is a viable and logic conclusion after CIT brought forth their interviewed witnesses, and their, supporting to the NoC flightpath, parts of interviews of publicized witnesses from the past.

Lets try to stop the immature bickering-ad-infinitum for the moment, and try to concentrate on the facts offered by CIT.

I have studied the Citgo video for months now, and I can't visualize the position of sergeant Lagasse, compared to his car, while pumping gas.

1. Was he holding the gas-handle, or did he left it in to automatically stop when full?
2. Was he standing between the pump-housing and the car?
3. Or was he sitting in the passenger seat, talking on the radio?
4. Did he turn his body and/or head to the North when the plane passed?

All this occurring, when the famous "flash" from the parked police car was to be observed at 4:44 in the Citgo video.

The parked police car sped away directly after or at the flash occurrence.
Also all inhabitants of the Citgo building itself, ran off to the entrance/exit to the east side, directly after the flash occurred.

To my opinion, there is a glass window in the building's North wall, where the man behind the cash register in the left bottom video window (obscured by the FBI) turned his head to when we see the flash, and directly after that he runs off to the East entrance, while we see him pass first through the other, right bottom video window of the other cashiers boot.

If we can get an unobstructed Citgo video, clearly indicating the head movements of all visitors and cashiers in the Citgo building when the flash occurred at 4:44, we can lay this endless controversy to rest, at last.

I predict you will not obtain via FOIA requests a de-blurred version, because of the ridiculous reason given by the FBI (= government) for some Citgo inhabitants privacy concerns.
This in itself already indicates a cover-up.
And spare us the usual Justice-for-All arguments, we really are getting fed up with all that jurisdictional ant-fornicating, flourishing in the USA.

This is THE MOST IMPORTANT video evidence of the Pentagon attack, especially regarding the fact that we have been shown just three up till now :
1. the 2 parking boot videos
2. the Citgo video
3. the Double Tree hotel video.

When we clearly can see the reactions of all people around the 4:44 moment in the Citgo video, we will be sure where the plane flew.

Body language is undeniable proof.

And I personally strongly expect sergeant Lagasse's eyewitness account of a NoC flightpath taped by CIT be fully proved, by the body language of all visible people in an un-obscured Citgo video.

You realize of course, that if a North of Citgo flightpath is to be 100% proved, we will be heading to impeachment procedures for more than one individual.

That's why it will be near to impossible to obtain that un-obscured video during these peoples watch.

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 04:24 AM
reply to post by LaBTop

Hey, I'm done bickering. It's like wrestling with a jellyfish. It's pointless. If it was north of the Citgo, all that fakery happened and if you believe that... well I won't argue with you over it.

the Citgo video - IF it's evidence - shows robert turcios (the only person who could be him) under the canopy and running inside after impact, NOT running over to see the plane pass north. so this puts a ? after the reliability of th north path testimony. The shadow of a large object also passes behind him right before this - consistent for size, location, speed, altitude w/Flight 77 or whatever you wanna call it. The flash happens after the first light from impact fireball, visible on the darkened east entrance inner wall. It cannot represent the plane represented by the shadow as that was gone by the time of the flash.

My opinion, quick for now - shadow is the plane - east entrance light effects are impact fireball - north canopy flash is possible coincidental - sunlight from another vehicle bouncing to the cop car we see it at... but possibly a clue of something - flyover AFTER impact? if we disregard the shadow that puts it on the damage path?. So there's a contradiction inherent if this is so... customer reaction is likely to look east to the explosion point - I don't know the layout of the store, what they'd see, etc. No likely flight path clues there...

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 10:46 AM
You don't have to rely on Robert Turcios and William Lagasse.

ALL witnesses who were in a position to tell put the plane on the north side of CITGO and/or Columbia Pike!

Paik, Morin, Brooks, Boger, & Stephens ALSO corroborate Lagasse and Turcios!

How much independent confirmation do you need to question what the government tells you?

If the plane was on the south side ONE of them or SOMEBODY would be able to explain this.

If the plane was on the south side SOMEBODY would have seen the pole spear the windshield of the taxicab or the cab screech to a sideways stop on the road with a light pole sticking out over the hood.

As LabTop points out the implications of this evidence are clear so to suggest that the government controlled, provided, and manipulated security video that was released within days of the first north side claim announcement is valid evidence to prove their innocence demonstrates a clear confirmation bias and a pure desire to accept what the government tells you over independent evidence that proves their story false.

It's all really quite simple.

This is why certain people work over time to convolute and spin the information as a means to confuse people and defend their faith in the government story.

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 10:51 AM
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

When are you guys showing the flight path that is possible?

When are you showing the math to back it up.

Sorry... physics trump witnesses 6 years after the fact.

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 11:17 AM
reply to post by CaptainObvious

Straw man arguments do not refute confirmed and corroborated evidence.

Anyone can make up values and claim the math that THEY made up yields "impossible" results.

The official flight path is impossible.

There is nothing "impossible" about this bank:

Even reheat admits it.

He is just turning back to the eyewitnesses (that he considers to be simultaneously hallucinating the same flight path to begin with) as proof that this didn't happen!

But the fact is that even Mike Walter supports this bank:

I know evidence is a hard thing to deal with when it contradicts your faith.

We all know that you are willing to dismiss independent verifiable evidence in favor of faulty logic and government controlled data.

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 11:32 AM
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

you mean the Reheat that posted this yesterday?

The FACT is that your North of Citgo and subsequent non theory of a flyover is a PROVEN falsehood formulated by CIT to support your InSiDe JoB delusions. You HAVE NOT and CAN NOT prove your imaginary theory ????? is even aerodynamically possible as your witnesses said they saw it. If it is not aerodynamically possible as the witnesses described it DID NOT HAPPEN.

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 11:42 AM
reply to post by CaptainObvious

I didn't say that he hasn't kept up his false and irrelevant rhetoric so you guys can continue to feel warm and fuzzy despite the fact that the evidence proves your unyielding faith in the government story false.

The fact is that there is nothing "impossible" about the bank and Reheat's own calculations (which are simplistic, out of context, and false) prove it.

He simply suggests that the witnesses did not describe this.

So he is back to relying on the same witnesses that he suggests are all simultaneously wrong in the exact same way.

This is why he keeps adding "as your witnesses said they saw it".

[edit on 27-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 11:51 AM
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Then I assume you have the math that supports this flight path? Something we can get verified from someone other than Rob "C-Minus in Math" Balsomo?



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 11:59 AM
reply to post by CaptainObvious

Perhaps you misunderstood.

There is nothing impossible about Reheat's own calculations.

He is simply turning back to the eyewitnesses to suggest the bank was not that prominent.

Of course this is extremely comical and rather contradictory since he thinks the eyewitnesses all simultaneously hallucinated the plane in a completely different place.

How he thinks he can rely on witnesses that allegedly hallucinated the plane wildly off course as a reliable means to determine the exact wing tilt and/or speed is beyond me.

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:12 PM
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Perhaps you are not understanding. Have you verified that his flight path is possible?

You like to throw the word "hallucinate" around. This is a sort of strawman tactic. No one is saying anyone was hallucinating. People question the validity of a witness statement or statements 6 years after the fact.

Thats all.

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:26 PM
reply to post by CaptainObvious

Reheat already verified the flight path is "possible" for me. He simply refuses to admit it and ironically turns back to the eyewitnesses.

Call it hallucinate or call it drastically and wildly mistaken in the exact same way but the fact remains that Reheat is relying on these same witnesses that you are all accusing of this for pertinent and difficult to tell values such as speed, heading, and exact wing tilt.

A general placement of the plane would be much easier to tell and the fact that they all report this general detail the same proves the north side claim correct.

new topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in