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.

 

Pentagon attack alleged witness Stephen McGraw

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   
CL,


In your graphic you state:



"left hand gestures for 'before' and pointing back when talking about pole and taxi


He never points back when talking about the pole or taxi.

He gestures to the side and says:



It seems the plane was so low that it hit a light pole that was on the edge of the highway on the far side there.


He does not say behind him, he does not gesture behind him.

He says "on the far side" and gestures to the side.

You are reaching so incredibly hard that you are falling.




posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic LogicThis is the key to his path. L-R, above, both could describe a north path too. From behind means from the south.

I've had my say and don't want to get immersed in this again right now, but did he ever say he saw the plane to the left? I know he spoke about having the sense it was over him and that he then saw it on his right, but never, to my recall, on his left.

Sorry for appearing to be too lazy to re-watch the video (I am!) but I figure you or perhaps Craig would know this off the tops of your heads.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by Caustic LogicThis is the key to his path. L-R, above, both could describe a north path too. From behind means from the south.

I've had my say and don't want to get immersed in this again right now, but did he ever say he saw the plane to the left? I know he spoke about having the sense it was over him and that he then saw it on his right, but never, to my recall, on his left.

Sorry for appearing to be too lazy to re-watch the video (I am!) but I figure you or perhaps Craig would know this off the tops of your heads.


No he doesn't say this because he is quite clear in saying that he did not see the plane at all until after it passed over him.

But he also never says that the plane came from behind him and he makes a hand gesture from left to right when describing the plane's approach.

I find it ironic how you decided to call CL "right" about McGraw supporting the south approach without even bothering to review the video again and while every single one of CL's claims to support this have been proven false.

You actually came into this discussion seeming neutral and open and even set guidelines to be convinced (which were met) but went out in support of CL's debunked claim anyway contrary to the evidence.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
post by Craig Ranke CIT

We have merely provided enough evidence to prove a deception in general.


No, Craig, you never have. You avoid evidence at every turn. Let's review:

According to SkepticOverlord, on a thread at JREF about Ranke's forum being shut down, Craig Ranke was not helping himself or the cause:


To be fair, Craig was not "banned," his dedicated forum was close[d] and all his topics were moved to our general "9/11 Conspiracies" forum.

"After some attempts to get he and his group to adopt civility it became clear it would never happen... which is the reason for the forum closure."

"He has been banned at least twice (from my recollection). He's been allowed back, we'll see how it goes."


SkepticOverlord refers to this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This post shows what we know: Craig Ranke will not adhere to any standards of evidence whatsoever.

arabesque911.blogspot.com...


The CIT researchers frequently and falsely interpret criticism of their theory as a personal attack along with accusations of government sponsored “neutralization”. As the flyover theory is clearly unsupported by any credible evidence, the CIT theorists frequently rely on vicious, slanderous, and libelous ad hominem attacks and antagonism to those who dare to question their flyover theory. Any disagreement with the “smoking gun” evidence is derided with hostility on internet forums, while any criticism of the theory is largely interpreted as an “attack” or “spook operation”. Pentagon researchers in particular, are highlighted for accusations including “treason”, “supporting the official story”, “COINTELPRO”, and “brainwashed”. Similarly, any witnesses who contradict the north claim are called “propaganda”, “agents”, and in the case of a taxi cab driver, “the devil”. Aside from the weakly supported flyover hypothesis, whether intentional or not, the ridiculous antics and outrageous behavior of the CIT researchers are damaging and destructive to the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement.


Read the entire post.

Unsurprisingly, Craig Ranke replies to Arabesque's extensive critique with ad hominems, illustrating Arabesque's critique.

Personally, I find it surprising that Ranke should be allowed to make any claims he wants on this forum without adhering to the standards of evidence and rules of argument that are necessary and required of anyone in the real world, and anyone who has a sincere interest in the truth.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITcoughy has ONLY suggested that McGraw supports the south side approach because he believes in the impact which we both know is not enough.

Mate, I promised myself I'd bow out, but I have to clarify this because that's not an accurate assessment of my position.


coughy has ONLY suggested that McGraw supports the south side approach because he believes in the impact...

Correct. Beyond that, his description of when and where he saw the plane might be too vague to ever place it north or south.


...which we both know is not enough.

On its own, it is not enough to refute the north side evidence. A few more of them, however, and we might have to revisit that.

On its own, it is enough to classify McGraw as a south side witness. If you chose to label him an unreliable one or else deceived, that's fine, but he remains, by virtue of his impact claim, a south side witness.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Unsurprisingly, Craig Ranke replies to Arabesque's extensive critique with ad hominems, illustrating Arabesque's critique.




Oh really?

full response here

Quote the ad hominems or retract your fallacious claim.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine
On its own, it is enough to classify McGraw as a south side witness. If you chose to label him an unreliable one or else deceived, that's fine, but he remains, by virtue of his impact claim, a south side witness.


No it's not.

If it were it would mean the citgo witnesses are also south side witnesses when clearly this is not the case.

A witness has to actually see what it is you are citing them as witnessing.

Correct?



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITI find it ironic how you decided to call CL "right" about McGraw supporting the south approach without even bothering to review the video again and while every single one of CL's claims to support this have been proven false.

You're getting mixed up.

I don't need to review the video to know that McGraw claims the plane hit the building. And, as you've rightly pointed out elsewhere, this is my principle reason for agreeing with CL that McGraw is a south side witness.

You seem to want to believe that, by agreeing with CL on this point, I don't accept your north side evidence. I have gone to great lengths, however, to assure you that's not the case.

If I wanted to clarify exactly when and where McGraw saw the plane prior to impact, then yes, I would need to review it. But rather than doing that myself, I wondered whether you guys knew off the tops of your heads. However, regardless of what I might have found had I reviewed it myself, it wouldn't change the fact that he saw an impact.

So I'm not sure what your point is.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITA witness has to actually see what it is you are citing them as witnessing.
Correct?

Yes, and he saw an impact.

Look, McGraw is a south side witness by inference. He saw the impact. An impact is consistent with a south side flightpath. It is inconsistent with a north side flightpath.

He's a witness. He doesn't offer a refutation.

I've tried to seperate these terms out but you seem to want to continue to interchange them.

Maybe I should take my own advice and stop.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

So I'm not sure what your point is.


CL is not basing the notion that McGraw is a south side witness simply off the fact that McGraw believes there was an impact.

By agreeing with CL you are agreeing with his premise that we are deliberately covering up McGraw as a south side witness.

Since you gave him the thumbs up he has already used your approval as support that we are being deceptive in this regard since that is his premise of his blog.

Early in this dicussion you set conditions with which you would agree that McGraw is not a definitive north or south flight path witness.

They were met and then you reneged on your promise.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITA witness has to actually see what it is you are citing them as witnessing.
Correct?

Yes, and he saw an impact.

Look, McGraw is a south side witness by inference. He saw the impact. An impact is consistent with a south side flightpath. It is inconsistent with a north side flightpath.

He's a witness. He doesn't offer a refutation.

I've tried to seperate these terms out but you seem to want to continue to interchange them.

Maybe I should take my own advice and stop.


You can't accurately use "inferences" as definitive for witnessing something ESPECIALLY withing the context of discussing a psychological black operation of deception.

Plus the other "clues" and indicators such as the left to right hand gesture and NOT seeing the poles clipped indirectly support a north side path.

You can accurately say that McGraw's impact claim INDIRECTLY supports the south flight path.

But not directly.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITBy agreeing with CL you are agreeing with his premise that we are deliberately covering up McGraw as a south side witness.

No, I am not.

I arrived at my conclusion that McGraw is a south side witness independently of CL. The fact that we happen to agree means simply that we reached the same conclusion about the implication of McGraw's witness statement, not that we reached the same conclusion about the position you are taking in respect of his testimony, nor indeed about whether McGraw's testimony refutes the north side evidence.

Further, I have not accused you of covering anything up.

ETA: to address this:

They were met and then you reneged on your promise.

Craig, I realised I'd been hasty and had overlooked the importance of the impact testimony. That said, I don't believe I reneged or retracted my earlier concession, I simply qualified it. If I did, I apologise, but I'm not going to stand by a view if I believe I have made a mistake just for the sake of appearances.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by coughymachine]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITYou can accurately say that McGraw's impact claim INDIRECTLY supports the south flight path.

I agree.

Sorry for the brevity, Mods, but this discussion deserves an amicable settlement.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Unsurprisingly, Craig Ranke replies to Arabesque's extensive critique with ad hominems, illustrating Arabesque's critique.



Oh really?


Yes, really. After all, you wrote: "While I will agree that we respond harshly to these types of attacks....". You admitted it right in your post.


Quote the ad hominems or retract your fallacious claim.


There is nothing fallacious about the numerous ad hominems you have made here and elsewhere, resulting in you being banned and having your forum here removed. Craig, we understand your need to resort to evasions, as you are trying to do now, by evading the fact that you do not adhere to any standards of evidence whatsoever.

So, I'll make you a deal. I'll list your ad hominems if you promise to adhere to standards of evidence and support your claims that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon. Of course, you realize that you positing a hypothesis is not the same as claiming you have proof. You have NO "proof" that AA 77 "flew over" the Pentagon, and did not hit the Pentagon, correct?

OK, promise to everyone here that you will stop your evasions and support your claim that AA77 did NOT hit the Pentagon and flew over it instead, and then I will list the ad hominems that everyone has already read.

Deal, Craig Ranke?

Let's see.....



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITYou can accurately say that McGraw's impact claim INDIRECTLY supports the south flight path.

I agree.

Sorry for the brevity, Mods, but this discussion deserves an amicable settlement.


Ok good.

I have always admitted that there are a few people who INDIRECTLY support the south side path.

My claim in regards to the north side path is that it has been proven via direct confirmation and unanimous independent eyewitness accounts while not being directly refuted by anyone.

Clearly that still stands despite CL's lengthy, convoluted, deceptive, and completely inaccurate attempt to cast doubt on CIT's motives and methods.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Unsurprisingly, Craig Ranke replies to Arabesque's extensive critique with ad hominems, illustrating Arabesque's critique.



Oh really?


Yes, really. After all, you wrote: "While I will agree that we respond harshly to these types of attacks....". You admitted it right in your post.


That is not an ad hominem attack.




Quote the ad hominems or retract your fallacious claim.


There is nothing fallacious about the numerous ad hominems you have made here and elsewhere, resulting in you being banned and having your forum here removed. Craig, we understand your need to resort to evasions, as you are trying to do now, by evading the fact that you do not adhere to any standards of evidence whatsoever.


You claimed my response to Arabesque's hit-piece included ad hominems.

I claim you are lying.

Prove me wrong by quoting the ad hominems from my response located here.



So, I'll make you a deal. I'll list your ad hominems if you promise to adhere to standards of evidence and support your claims that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon. Of course, you realize that you positing a hypothesis is not the same as claiming you have proof. You have NO "proof" that AA 77 "flew over" the Pentagon, and did not hit the Pentagon, correct?


Incorrect.

The north side testimony is not a theory.

It is evidence.

And yes it is proof.



OK, promise to everyone here that you will stop your evasions and support your claim that AA77 did NOT hit the Pentagon and flew over it instead, and then I will list the ad hominems that everyone has already read.

Deal, Craig Ranke?

Let's see.....



Sure but again......you lied by claiming my response to Arabesque ironically included ad hominems.

The challenge is to list the ad hominems in that response.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Jeez, I need a shower after reading this thread. Can you guys manage to make you points without the petty personal crap?



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

My claim in regards to the north side path is that it has been proven via direct confirmation and unanimous independent eyewitness accounts while not being directly refuted by anyone.


No, nothing of the sort has been proven or demonstrated by anyone. You have presented a hypothesis that does not stand up to any standard of evidence. You have explicitly refused to deal with the all of the evidence that demonstrates that AA 77.

Once again, Craig, I will ask you to refute with specific evidence the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon you have deliberately evaded here:

"Arlington County After-Action Report on the Response to the September 11 Terrorist Attack on the Pentagon."

www.arlingtonva.us...

Continued evasion of the evidence against your hypothesis will be recorded.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Craig,

Your evasions is unacceptable. Please re-read CAREFUULY:

"So, I'll make you a deal. I'll list your ad hominems if you promise to adhere to standards of evidence and support your claims that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon. Of course, you realize that you positing a hypothesis is not the same as claiming you have proof. You have NO "proof" that AA 77 "flew over" the Pentagon, and did not hit the Pentagon, correct?"

You refuse to refute the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Please adhere to the standards of evidence and stop your evasions.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Jeez, I need a shower after reading this thread. Can you guys manage to make you points without the petty personal crap?


Making "points" is not the issue. Ranke refuses to support his claims and refute existing evidence.

Trolling is not allowed here but that is exactly what Ranke is doing.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join