Response to Arabesque's latest personal attack hit-piece against CIT

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:31 AM
link   




The North side claim has been addressed. See both of my reviews. The fact that no one saw a flyover is EVIDENCE it did not happen. The eyewitness statements of an impact is EVIDENCE it did not happen. The statements of your witnesses that the plane hit the Pentagon is EVIDENCE it did not happen. I believe your physical evidence analysis/assumption/premise is wrong. Read Jim Hoffman's careful research. Calling it a "deception", or that witnesses were "fooled" is hand-waving, it is not evidence or a legitimate argument.

You have not provided RELIABLE evidence to prove the North claim. I've already explained this in my reviews. I'm not explaining it again here. If you talked to enough people you could find witnesses who forgot the flight path. The plane flew at 500 mph. Witnesses only saw it for seconds. If all of your witness say the plane hit the Pentagon (and there are many), you are either calling them liars, or mass hypnotized. You spoke to them yourself.

The faulty logic is that four CONTRADICTORY years old witness statements prove a NORTH path or flyover when they said it hit the building. Eyewitnesses CANNOT be controlled. Nobody reported a flyover. The video evidence does not show a flyover. The massive I-395 highway and CLEAR sky would have provided MANY witnesses. A witness had a camera and would have been in PERFECT position to record it. Instead he aimed his camera at the C-130.

[edit on 28-11-2007 by Arabesque]




posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:45 AM
link   
Surely you will agree that "a NORTH path or flyover" contradicts the Official Report.

Likewise: "Eyewitnesses CANNOT be controlled".

How about release all the evidence out from under the guise of National Security and do a real investigation??



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


“Debating” CIT Style

CIT is infamous for their “take no prisoners” debating style best explained by Aldo Marquis, “I hate to say it, but unless anyone here can provide any new information and not their OPINION to effectively refute any of the evidence we have obtained, they should politely keep their comments to themselves, sit their [sic] quietly, and LEARN… This is not a debate club. This is war. Either you believe 911 was an inside job or you don't.” Craig Ranke explains similarly, “I am not here for debate. Sure I can debate with the best of them and I may come off as heavy handed or even arrogant… but… I have done the work and came back with proof.” When challenged about peer review of his flyover theory Ranke replied, “Peer reviewed! Sure! We want the entire world to review it.”



Arabesque is now attempting to further frame the debate by taking random statements out of context to create a personal impression of me. Clearly this has nothing to do with the evidence and is entirely a personal attack. In fact by choosing to analyze my "debate style" at all he is deliberately taking attention away from the evidence and focusing it on me personally. Naturally this approach has no bearing on the facts, truth, evidence, or what happened on 9/11.


It is not a "personal attack" to quote your own words or understand your "debating" tactics. That is an ABSURD straw-man. In fact, this is clearly important information for people who decide to engage CIT in an "argument", and their version of "debate".

It has everything to do with the evidence, because it shows that you are not interested in "debating" whether or not it is legitimate. You have made up your mind, and no argument can satisfy you despite the obvious flaws in your evidence.

"Naturally this approach has no bearing on the facts, truth, evidence, or what happened on 9/11."

This is a straw-man. It has everything to do with 9/11, if you are presenting "evidence" about 9/11 that "allegedly" is a smoking gun, and you refuse to debate it honestly. It is helpful to understand the way in which you frame debates through the use of ridicule, ad-hominem attacks, and accusations without evidence. All of THESE have no bearing on 9/11, and are PRECISELY what you largely use to "debate" your "evidence" and INTIMIDATE logical critiques of your argument. The fact that you use these tactics which have nothing to do with 9/11 shows the level of your dishonesty.

You have no qualms about engaging in this behavior, but when someone points it out, it "has no bearing on the facts of 9/11". This is an example of your BLATANT hypocrisy, of which you are obviously blind to.

Not only do you hold double standards of evidence, you hold double standards for yourself.

[edit on 28-11-2007 by Arabesque]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 03:12 AM
link   




"What "evidence" was "dismissed"? Arabesque does not say because he is lying to deceive the reader with baseless claims."

You have decided your evidence is a "smoking gun", and everyone who has ever debated you on this forum knows that your mind will not be changed. "Controlled by the perps" is your favorite line.

"By exchanging words that have completely different meanings Arabesque is once again misrepresenting our claims with lies to erroneously frame us as having contradicted ourselves. "

In fact, I have shown that you are the liar, as should be clear by reading my review. I have not distorted your meaning at all. You can pretend that I have, but that is your wild imagination at work. Maybe you can even fool yourself with your lame distortions.

By saying that your witnesses were "fooled" into seeing a plane hitting a building, you are saying they hallucinated. You can replace that word with "deception" if you wish, it makes no difference. You have lied by claiming that I have lied. The words are virtually identical in effect.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 03:27 AM
link   
deleted

[edit on 28-11-2007 by Arabesque]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 03:29 AM
link   




"Arabesque is deceptively interchanging the flyover theory with the north side evidence as if they are one in the same."

Straw-man. Of course they are different, and I did not intend to imply otherwise.

"Simply dismissing theory does not make the evidence go away as much as Arabesque would like it to."

Well, I've already addressed that, so you are going in circles, and using circular logic no less to do it. Simply dismissing my arguments doesn't make them go away.

"This is a total mischaracterization of our claims. Nobody knows what people really saw"

First of all, I quoted your own words above so that you wouldn't accuse me of distorting them as you always do. You said: "we have never claimed that we have a witness that claims they saw ‘the’ plane fly over.” This is the same as saying "nobody claims it happened". I didn't say it DIDN'T happen. Straw-man.

Second of all. Do you even listen to yourself? "Nobody knows what people really saw"? I guess this means you are giving up on the North side argument? Well we already know the answer to that one.

3. Straw-man. I am saying that everyone who LEGITIMATELY claims to have seen it happen was hallucinating. To counter this, Craig is forced to "cast doubt" on everyone who claims this, because this obviously counters his theory. In order to do so, he essentially has to DENY all of the evidence, while providing NONE of a witness saying the plane flew over the Pentagon.

Your misleading distortions are not getting us anywhere I'm afraid.

This is why I usually don't debate CIT. It gets boring after a while.

[edit on 28-11-2007 by Arabesque]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arabesque
So you're telling me that they decided to make the plane fly on the NORTH side of the CITGO, but then they decided to fake the damage on the SOUTH side? Now why would they do something that dumb if they decided they were going to stage the damage? Why stage it at all if they decided to fly the plane on the NORTH side?


Did it ever occur to you that maybe something went wrong with the original plan so they had to switch to plan B or C i.e. fly the plane north of CITGO?

You're attacking Craig for downplaying witness testimonies for south side, but you seem to be doing the same thing for north side witnesses that are on tape? Amazing.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by sowada_s
Surely you will agree that "a NORTH path or flyover" contradicts the Official Report.

Likewise: "Eyewitnesses CANNOT be controlled".

How about release all the evidence out from under the guise of National Security and do a real investigation??


The North path and flyover have not been proven by a long shot.

The purpose of hiding evidence is to foster "conspiracy theories" instead of bringing attention to "conspiracy facts" by process of elimination. The government is smart enough to understand that human curiosity focuses on what is NOT known instead of of what IS known.

How about getting a real investigation by proving the official story false with convincing evidence like Thermate at ground zero, destruction of evidence, cover-up of evidence, the fraudulent NIST and 9/11 commission reports, Building 7, WTC demolitions, Insider Trading, Pre-war Planning, PNAC, NORAD STAND DOWN, War Games, Patriot Act, Anthrax attacks, Norman Mineta, Able Danger control of the 9/11 patsies, etc. etc. etc. That is real evidence, and there is boatloads of real and credible evidence.

[edit on 28-11-2007 by Arabesque]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueOrFalse

Originally posted by Arabesque
So you're telling me that they decided to make the plane fly on the NORTH side of the CITGO, but then they decided to fake the damage on the SOUTH side? Now why would they do something that dumb if they decided they were going to stage the damage? Why stage it at all if they decided to fly the plane on the NORTH side?


Did it ever occur to you that maybe something went wrong with the original plan so they had to switch to plan B or C i.e. fly the plane north of CITGO?

You're attacking Craig for downplaying witness testimonies for south side, but you seem to be doing the same thing for north side witnesses that are on tape? Amazing.


Something went wrong with the plan? Maybe that's why you would stick to a simple one, say like flying a plane by remote control into a building. There is no reason to make a more complicated plan, when a simple one will work fine and not result in you getting caught in the act by hundreds of potential witnesses and cameras. See my review for a view from the I-395, 15 seconds after the attack. The smoke has not even reached the top of the video camera. Someone would have caught the attack on tape or witnessed it. The simple plan is the best plan because it has less chances of being screwed up. This is basic common sense, and in fact, what in my opinion the actual evidence shows.

Your comment doesn't make much sense to me to be honest. I don't see a reason why they would "switch" the plan other than by mistake. Granted that's possible, but again it makes my point even more obvious doesn't it?

There is probably no reason why they would be crazy enough to attempt in the first place if the odds of screwing it up are so huge and multiple. If you have to do 100 things when you can do 1 thing to accomplish the same... the flyover theory means you have to do 100 things--fake parts, witnesses, damage, poles, taxi cab damage, radar, debris outside, generator damage... this is a LOT to fake when a simple remote controlled plane does exactly the same thing that you want people to believe happened.

As for the argument "well that's what the evidence doesn't show", well that's where I disagree. There is such a thing as "ambiguous evidence" and "clear evidence".

100 eyewitness statements of an impact is CLEAR evidence. Light poles on the ground are CLEAR evidence. Damage to a reinforced building structure is AMBIGUOUS. No one knows what it is going to look like. And when evidence is distorted or omitted, then this is not a scientific conclusion.
911research.wtc7.net...

I have yet to see anyone prove that the light poles were knocked down or moved by anything other than a commercial airliner.

[edit on 28-11-2007 by Arabesque]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueOrFalse
 



well, its possible that its just me, but i find it most interesting that of all of the people there that morning, only a small handful were available for interview to say that it flew north of the citgo while on tape. sorry, but i find that odd.

would cit be willing to disclose how many people they interviewed that saw it fly closer to the official story flightpath while on tape?

gotta tell you though that what im MOST interested to know is if CIT was able to interview any demo people that looked at the photographic evidence and were able to do a bomb damage assessment that concluded it was a missile/bomb vs a plane. id love to read their assessment and if possible ask some questions of them.

cuz while the plane seems to have vaporized (which ill totally admit seems odd to me) i still dont see what i would expect to see had it been a bomb. and what a bomb it would have had to be.



reply to post by Arabesque
 


just to be fair, i have to also say, and i dont think this is going to come as a shock to anyone, i dont see the proof of many of the things you listed either. in particular anything that indicates explosives were used. other than of course that the buildings fell when they probably shouldnt have.

but thats just me and my own opinions.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arabesque
How about getting a real investigation by proving the official story false with convincing evidence like Thermate at ground zero, destruction of evidence, cover-up of evidence, the fraudulent NIST and 9/11 commission reports, Building 7, WTC demolitions, Insider Trading, Pre-war Planning, PNAC, etc. etc. etc.


Well, we know this for years. And what happened? Nothing, because they are always one step ahead and they always come up with some "good" explanation for all of that.

Recent coordinated attacks against Craig and CIT and continuous efforts to misrepresent and downplay CIT's findings, CNN's recent white plane story and the latest article which says Hani Hanjour may not have been flight 77 pilot are indications that someone is very very nervous because of their research.

[edit on 28/11/07 by TrueOrFalse]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT




Please review: NEW POLICY regarding U2Us (PRIVATE messages)

[edit on 28-11-2007 by SkepticOverlord]


Oh give me a break.

All I quoted was the single sentence reason given for disbanding our forum.


I suppose it should have been paraphrased to stay within the "rules".

Abovetopsecret.com has all of the sudden decided that they don't want to host the ground breaking research of CIT because they don't want to be seen as supportive of my tone.

That's it.

I find it odd since my tone was the same when they invited me to have the forum as well as the entire time I had the forum.

No biggie though.

We prefer not to be so heavily associated with a conspiracy theory/UFO site either so it's an amicable split.

We are reluctant citizen investigative reporters who uncover evidence and do what we do because the country (and entire world) is in peril.

We aren't in this for kicks folks.

We don't find 9/11 interesting or cool or "fascinating" as Caustic Logic has said and you better believe we are mad about what we are uncovering and not afraid to express it.

It is certainly well within the rights of ATS to not be seen as supportive of that and I respect it.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Abovetopsecret.com has all of the sudden decided that they don't want to host the ground breaking research of CIT because they don't want to be seen as supportive of my tone.


As I'm sure you're aware, as you certainly received dozens of U2U's alerting you to moved threads, everything you posted to ATS is still available in the 9/11 forum, just not a dedicated CIT Pentacon forum. No restrictions have been placed, in any way, on what topics you can or cannot post.

Why would you seek to distort the reality of what happened?



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Why would you seek to distort the reality of what happened?


I wasn't trying to distort it.

I was clearly referring to the disbanding of our dedicated forum.

If "host" isn't the exactly correct word let me rephrase.......

Abovetopsecret.com has all of the sudden decided that they don't want to feature the ground breaking research of CIT because they don't want to be seen as supportive of my tone.


Again.....it is certainly your choice and I respect that it is your decision.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   
What really sticks with me is the fact that the C-130 that saw Flt. 77 hit the Pentagon is the same aircraft that first saw the Flt. 93 crash site near Shanksville. That aircraft took off from an undisclosed location near DC after the FAA ordered a full ground stop and just happened to be headed to Minnesota on a flight path that allowed it to witness the two most controversial crashes of hijacked 9/11 aircraft. C-130s have a variety of capabilites, electronics and munitions, that would have made that aircraft intrinsic to any conspiracy to stage events on 9/11. Yet, no one seems to pay much attention to it at all.

And the Anthrax Attacks. Does anybody really think OBL was behind them?



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
What really sticks with me is the fact that the C-130 that saw Flt. 77 hit the Pentagon


I am very glad you said this because clearing this up is KEY to exposing how the operation was carried out and EXACTLY what we are focusing on for our next presentation.

The impression that the C-130 pilot, Steve O'Brien, claims he literally SAW the plane hit the Pentagon has been deliberately and erroneously promoted by the media and perpetrators.

The C-130 played an important role in this operation but we believe the pilot is nothing more than an innocent dupe.

The impression has been deliberately created that he "saw" the plane hit the Pentagon but not only has he NOT ever claimed such a thing......he specifically told us that after he turned around to follow the aircraft as per the request from Air Traffic Control.....it was too late and that he was so high up and far away from the building at the time that he did not even know the smoke was coming from the Pentagon at first!


Yet there are still a very few dubious published witness accounts talking about a "2nd plane" or "jet" that literally "shadowed" AA77 and veered away over the building immediately after the explosion.

Keith Wheelhouse is the only one to specifically call this ambiguous/mysterious alleged "2nd" plane a C-130.

Since virtually nobody we have interviewed saw a 2nd plane or jet at all and the pilot himself tells a completely different story we are quite certain that there is no truth to this account. Our recent interview with Wheelhouse reveals other fatal contradictions and a rather interesting demeanor from this anomalous witness.

It boils down to this.....confusion sown from the fact that a real yet mysterious C-130 and a real yet mysterious white E4B were seen in the airspace close to the time of the attack were blended with planted accounts of an ambiguous 2nd plane or jet that veered away from the building immediately after the explosion.

It's all simply meant as cover for the flyover.

With the recent release of the RADES data that is in complete contradiction with where the C-130 pilot says he flew and with 2 new extremely important interviews that we have obtained we feel we now have enough data to blow this wide open.

The perps have thrown O'Brien under the bus with the RADES data (as well as the NTSB data). They WANT you to think he was directly involved.

Don't fall for it.










[edit on 28-11-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   
This thread gives a complex breakdown of all the details, quotes, and data that have helped to determine the TRUE flight path of the C-130 proving the NTSB & RADES data fraudulent.

I'll bump it.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
We prefer not to be so heavily associated with a conspiracy theory/UFO site either so it's an amicable split.


Then why would you post here with your own name? Maybe because this was the only consipracy related site that was even willling to give you a chance.

Feel free to take all of your propaganda somewhere else.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by COOL HAND
 


I post with my own name because I am a legitimate researcher who is presenting legitimate evidence, not "propaganda".

I agreed to help ATS launch their "Conspiracy Master" program reluctantly simply as a means to help get the word out regarding the important data we present.

I have never been comfortable with the title or the fact that everything in regards to our evidence was hidden away in the side forum and not allowed to be discussed in the more visible general forum.

This change works out for the best.

Thanks for your concern.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


No one bought it over there.... I doubt the snake oil will get many sales here either.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum