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 coughymachine
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
YOU need to provide testimony directly placing the plane on the south side of the citgo to effectively refute the north side testimony.
No, I don't. As much as it appears you would like me to, I'm not trying to prove a theory one way or the other - I'm simply stress-testing yours.
But I want to get back to basics here. My exchange with you in this thread started out with a simple purpose. I'm going to return to it. Here's the key point of my first post:
Originally posted by coughymachine
In my view, if you apply the same logic you have used when interpreting the north side witnesses (i.e. that they 'prove' the plane didn't cause the damage to the Pentagon) to Father Stephen McGraw's testimony, you have to conclude that he is either a south side witness - even though he didn't 'witness' it - or else is an outright liar.
I set out to ascertain whether McGraw was a south side witness or not. Clearly he is, based on your own logic, which says that the north side path and the impact are mutually exclusive.
Now, does this 'refute' the north side witnesses? That's a different question, and one I think we've been interchanging with the question of whether he's a south side witness or not.
On that basis, do you accept McGraw is a south side witness, even if you don't accept that his testimony refutes the north side path?
Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
He also states he saw the plane enter the Pentagon..... oh.. thats right... he is telling the truth about your fantasy flight path, but is lying about seeing the plane enter the Pentagon.
Cherry picking at it's finest.
Originally posted by coughymachine
Put more simply, can the plane McGraw says he saw hit the Pentagon have originated from the north side of the Citgo station?
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITOf course it could have since the north side evidence proves he was lying or deceived about the impact and he does not directly refute the north side evidence.
Originally posted by coughymachine
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITOf course it could have since the north side evidence proves he was lying or deceived about the impact and he does not directly refute the north side evidence.
Craig,
Let's recognise that refutation and witness statements are two different things here.
I am not arguing that McGraw's testimony alone offers a refutation of the north side theory. I am arguing that he is a south side witness by simple virtue of the fact that he saw a plane hit the Pentagon.
Now you may chose to refute McGraw by citing the north side evidence, but that doesn't change the fact the McGraw is a south side witness.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITBut this is not a scientific approach to the discussion of the evidence.
Originally posted by coughymachine
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITBut this is not a scientific approach to the discussion of the evidence.
Nor is citing the statements of witnesses who saw a plane hit the Pentagon to show that the statement of a witness who saw a plane hit the Pentagon is wrong.
Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
Craig, with the mountain of evidence that has been provided. I do believe the official report. There is a reason why the truthers (for the most part) have abandoned the Pentagon CT's. There is not any evidence to prove other wise.
As usual you ignore the physical evidence as planted, deceptions, whatever. You accuse elderly cab drivers as being in on it. You accuse a priest of lying. You accuse the private contractors doing construction work at the Pentagon as being in on it. Where does your fantasy end Craig? Where does it begin?
Your dream that the goverment planned a military deception is ....well pretty pathetic.
It may not be your job to answer the following questions, but they are questions that should be raised.
1. Who paid off the cab driver?
2. How would the government know this guy would not bump his gums?
3. Where did the plane go?
4. Where are the passengers?
5. What contractors were involved?
6. Who hid the abundance of air craft debris?
7. Who, post impact ran to the "debris warehouse" and planted it?
8. How were explosive devices installed during construction?
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Alright, trying to remain civil. So the stumbling point now is 'from behind. I made it up, eh? True, he never uses these words. But these are the gestures I mean:
[the video at the time stamps given. Is he saying it came in from behind, or not? I say so, Craig says no. Anyone else? Is this all just L-R, or is he also pointing back? How about his over-the head gestures? Did you miss those, Craig? That all just L-R as well, and done as literally overhead instead of ahead and above?
This is the key to his path. L-R, above, both could describe a north path too. From behind means from the south.
Do you, Craig, believe McGraw witnessed nothing? He says he SAW a plane pass over him low, L-R, I say from behind, go lower and impact. you can't trace back from nothing. I agree. How about from that? Can you trace back from what McGraw describes?
I want you to confirm either no bact-too front motion in his gestures, or that there's no particular value to the words and gestures he uses, and no way to accurately deduce back from what he saw. A little 'why' might help on that one.
Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
Your calling me a liar?
If you READ my post you will see that I clearly stated that you don't HAVE to answer my questions but i believe they are legitimate and should be adressed. I did not state that you had all the answers.
If the cab driver was not paid off.... please tell me how he is working for the government. (if that is what you are implying.)
I am not trolling Craig, I am pointing to facts that you ignore.
Originally posted by coughymachine
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITBut this is not a scientific approach to the discussion of the evidence.
Nor is citing the statements of witnesses who saw a plane hit the Pentagon to show that the statement of a witness who saw a plane hit the Pentagon is wrong.
I guess we've reached the end of this discussion. As far as I'm concerned, CL is right to refer to McGraw as a south side witness. I don't agree, however, that his testimony alone can be used to refute the north side evidence.
For the record, I remain agnostic on the flightpath.
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
I respect that position, and no this testimony itself does not prove anything. His 'from behind' aspect is still in doubt. Nonetheless, we have a second that this is a south path witness. This is not tedium, fellas and ladies. This is quite relevant to understanding the CIT approach - who else would care to examine and venture a guess as to what this eyewitness 'says?' Perhaps I'm flat wrong. Go ahead and look... Craig's already said his piece and then some, and I'm sayin' right in this spot. Let's hear from someone else.