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.

 

CIT is done, it is time for them to go home.

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I have seen thread after thread after thread where the CIT group has been utterly and completely blasted with facts and figures and evidence, and have responded with nothing of any substance. I must admit - when I first saw their theory, it seemed interesting. But looking at it for any length of time reveals very clearly that it lacks any depth at all. So in short - I'd like for people to post what one CIT point or claim was so ridiculous, that it cemented for you the idea that they cannot be taken seriously in any way. I am sure there are many examples of shaky reasoning, poor manners, and boring repetitive denials.

1) Honestly for me – it was that silly little tagline: “We ain’t playin’”. Which made it plainly obvious that they really have no desire to be taken seriously by anyone over 23 years old.

2) My other big bone came back when we were talking about – was it McGraw? Anyway – he was a priest, who in a horribly shameful attempt to discredit; Craig tried to make out as a child molester by association 3 degrees removed. It was a disgusting display; no research organization of any repute would stoop to such a level. If there was any validity to their claims, they would not have to resort to such tactics.

3) The fantastic post by the captain, on the validity of eyewitness statements. It shreds the CIT idea of “Utter scientific proof by way of a handful of witnesses” to pieces. Of course, published papers by respected members of the scientific community mean nothing to groups like CIT.

4) I encourage everyone to read the current thread on the CIT flightpath. Notice the utter lack of meaningful responses from Mr Craig Ranke. They seem to think that by repeating the same line over and over again makes it true.

I could go on and on here, but here is one more I thought was pretty funny – it was posted by another CIT guy on another forum – and explains how they got their witnesses.
“They wouldn't be "laughed at" or "ripped to shreds". They were there filming what they thought was a documentary on 9/11, one that focused on the attack and on a side note putting to rest the theories about missiles and global hawks. They didn't know the interview was about the details of the approach. They weren't there to give EXACT, PIN-POINT COMPUTER ACCURATE details. They just gave their story and answer the questions we asked. Part of telling their story was pointing to where they saw the plane. They did this without knowing the implications or realizing that is what we wanted.”

In short they had to LIE to their witnesses to get them to say what they wanted. Think about that for a second. They knew if they told them what they were doing, their prized witnesses likely would have had nothing to do with them – so they had to make up a story to get them on camera. It makes you think what other LIES they had to tell them to lead them to their claims. It completely invalidates ALL of their interviews, which is all they have anyway. Seriously, if they admit they lied to their heroic witnesses, doesn’t that pretty much kill whatever integrity they had? How can anyone trust what they have to say?

They are not to be trusted, and are interested in only shameless self-promotion.



I have seen many threads asking the questions like “what finally made you not believe the official story”, so let’s do it to these guys now.




posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   
While I disagree with them and their methods 100%, they do have to be given credit for doing more than sitting around and doing nothing but talk. They have done a lot more than most people have done. They have gone on trips and found people, interviewed them. While none of it makes them correct, I think the effort should be noted. And despite m thinking they are completely wrong in every way, I think their arguments have been fruitful for many of us in making people think or research harder and think about issues that otherwise would not have been considered before.

Without them pushing these issues, I probably wouldn't have learned as much as I have.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by megaman1234
I have seen thread after thread after thread where the CIT group has been utterly and completely blasted with facts and figures and evidence, and have responded with nothing of any substance. .


Thats funny, i have not seen any official reports or physical evidence that supports the official story.

I have done a lot of research and more facts and evidence question the official story then support it.

People who still beleive the official story need to wake up from the fantasy world they live in and face reallity.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Thats funny, i have not seen any official reports or physical evidence that supports the official story.


Then you clearly haven't done any research into the subject. Google "nist 911", that should get you started.

As to the OP. Yes, CIT needs to "go home". Their whole theory is ridiculous and impossible, and they know it.

What made me stop believing them? I'd say it was when they claimed that the eyewitness statements made by 4 people contradict every other eyewitness or piece of evidence. (Even those same witnesses other claims) They then have the audacity to claim that these statements are proven correct simply because these people agree...but somehow the same reasoning doesn't apply to other statements made by the witnesses (like the plane hitting the pentacon)

CIT's game is over...I think the info posted in the other thread only made it more clear. The flyover flight path reported by their eyewitnesses is physically impossible, time to go back to square one, CIT.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   


You have a list of evidence and facts to support 9/11 truth's allegations? Are you keeping it a secret?

You do understand, such a list would earn a Pulitzer Prize faster than breaking Watergate. Alas, it has been over 6 years. No facts, no evidence and no list of the facts and evidence. I have heard only talk of "ample evidence" and that false statement is for the need of a new investigation. Why a new investigation are all the investigations so far too complex?

Please post the list that supports CIT, or a link. Their own witnesses do not support CIT's conclusions.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by megaman1234
 


A worthy opening post Megaman. I have no time right now for a full post, but several problems I've written on in great detail can be found colllected here:
CIT masterlist

I think the first two posts here are good bookends from the crtics. Yes, they have gathered first-hand new and valuable evidence. Some of it IMO is mistaken and in coordinated-seeming way that's highly suspicious, and this they believe wholeheartedly. The rest of what they gathered supports the 'official story' and they have massively abused that evidence (for example McGraw).

They've helped with overcoming the 'missile meme' by demonstrating again there WAS a big plane and no missile/drone, but in the only 'Truthy' way they could - it flew over as mind-boggling fakery that cannot and has not been explained unfolded beneath. Some will put out blind FAITH that CIT's conclusions are the only ones that fit. For others, just looking at CIT's evidence alone with a critical eye will be all they need to realize the 'official story' is the only one that fits the largest portion of available evidence.

It's a bit ironic really.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
For others, just looking at CIT's evidence alone with a critical eye will be all they need to realize the 'official story' is the only one that fits the largest portion of available evidence.


Emphasis mine. Shouldn't the official story encompass all the available evidence and not just a large portion of it? Not that I myself am a CITer. I think I just coined a new name.


[edit on 4/7/2008 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   




There is no such thing as an investigation where everything adds up perfectly. People remember things wrong, people make mistakes, people make assumptions. It's impossible. So the goal is to look at al of the evidence and determine what really happened. Doing so means finding out which evidence is incorrect. Not to derail the subject but Mineta is a perfect example. We can conclude his timing is wrong because we have the evidence of everyone else in the room who all agree with each other except for him, as well as all the security logs and phone logs. Everything adds up and agrees except him. thus we can determine that he is simply incorrect about his time. The CIT guys are trying to do the opposite. They are trying to take only the anomolies and using it to dismiss everything else. And they are using the weakest forms of evidence to dismiss the strongest forms of evidence and replace it with conjecture.

One thing we can count on in any and every such event is that there will be incorrect eyewitnesses testimony, and that is why accident investigators avoid even using it at all if possible.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Appreciate the replies so far. I don't spend a terrible amount of time here, but comming in from the outside and considering myself a pretty level headed, normal, middle class guy; these posts by the CIT group have annoyed me more than any of the other random posters I see.

The stubburn refusal to admit that ANYTHING outside of thier own 7 witnesses or so has any credibility whatsoever is absolutely mind-boggling!

All I see over and over again is that it is some scientific law that 7 people who say the same thing means its right, no matter what. Period end of story.

Its not scientific.

Its not law.

Its not proof.

Its nothing.

At this point I have no respect for them. They are using a national tragedy for no other reason than to stroke thier own ego's while in "debate" on conspiracy forums.


Its fun for a little while to speculate sure, thats why we are here right? I enjoy reading theories and stuff. Looking at mars pictures or whatever... But at some point responsible people need to move on, understanding that the words they use to make thier arguments are increasingly hurtful towards the true victims. There is no honor is what these guys are doing.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by megaman1234
The stubburn refusal to admit that ANYTHING outside of thier own 7 witnesses or so has any credibility whatsoever is absolutely mind-boggling!

All I see over and over again is that it is some scientific law that 7 people who say the same thing means its right, no matter what. Period end of story.


....ONLY if what the witnesses say agrees with CIT's theory.

Remember, all of the witnesses also agree that the plane hit the Pentagon, but CIT doesn't consider that claim valid.

Blatant Cognitive Bias.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by megaman1234
I have seen thread after thread after thread where the CIT group has been utterly and completely blasted with facts and figures and evidence, and have responded with nothing of any substance. I must admit - when I first saw their theory, it seemed interesting. But looking at it for any length of time reveals very clearly that it lacks any depth at all. So in short - I'd like for people to post what one CIT point or claim was so ridiculous, that it cemented for you the idea that they cannot be taken seriously in any way. I am sure there are many examples of shaky reasoning, poor manners, and boring repetitive denials.


I guess I should reply since apparently the mods have chosen to allow this baseless and completely false personal attack thread.

I'd like to first say that NO valid examples of your request have been provided by anyone but especially you as you have even lied about my claims.



1) Honestly for me – it was that silly little tagline: “We ain’t playin’”. Which made it plainly obvious that they really have no desire to be taken seriously by anyone over 23 years old.


Would you prefer for us to play? The fact that this is your number one issue with me speaks volumes and is rather hypocritical since you are accusing me of NOT talking this seriously and doing it for ego purposes.



2) My other big bone came back when we were talking about – was it McGraw? Anyway – he was a priest, who in a horribly shameful attempt to discredit; Craig tried to make out as a child molester by association 3 degrees removed. It was a disgusting display; no research organization of any repute would stoop to such a level. If there was any validity to their claims, they would not have to resort to such tactics.


This is a flat out lie as I made no such claim 3 degrees moved or otherwise.

The least you could have done is pulled up my quote before making such a fallacious accusation.

I'll bump the thread to prove it and I expect a full retraction if you have a shred of integrity.



3) The fantastic post by the captain, on the validity of eyewitness statements. It shreds the CIT idea of “Utter scientific proof by way of a handful of witnesses” to pieces. Of course, published papers by respected members of the scientific community mean nothing to groups like CIT.


This vague out of context statement means nothing. Particularly since the specific article you are referring to has NOTHING to do with the unanimously corroborated evidence we present. It was in regards to eyewitness accounts that DIFFER not when they corroborate. Are you suggesting that this "published paper" proves that all corroborated eyewitness testimony is false?

If not you have no point.



4) I encourage everyone to read the current thread on the CIT flightpath. Notice the utter lack of meaningful responses from Mr Craig Ranke. They seem to think that by repeating the same line over and over again makes it true.


Go to that thread and cite the responses that "lack meaning".

You are making yet another baseless and hollow claim.

The fact is that they are FABRICATING the values.

You can't say you prove something with math when you actually made up the numbers.

It is a completely false claim that requires one to dismiss real evidence based on pure speculation from individuals with a clear confirmation bias.




I could go on and on here, but here is one more I thought was pretty funny – it was posted by another CIT guy on another forum – and explains how they got their witnesses.
“They wouldn't be "laughed at" or "ripped to shreds". They were there filming what they thought was a documentary on 9/11, one that focused on the attack and on a side note putting to rest the theories about missiles and global hawks. They didn't know the interview was about the details of the approach. They weren't there to give EXACT, PIN-POINT COMPUTER ACCURATE details. They just gave their story and answer the questions we asked. Part of telling their story was pointing to where they saw the plane. They did this without knowing the implications or realizing that is what we wanted.”


Source this quote please.

And point out the "lie".

We were 100% truthful. We did NOT believe in global hawk and missile theories when we started the investigation and fully wanted to put an end to that disinfo. Our goal was to find out and report what people really saw and the TRUE location of the flight path.

Turns out we did a pretty good job of it don't you think?



In short they had to LIE to their witnesses to get them to say what they wanted. Think about that for a second. They knew if they told them what they were doing, their prized witnesses likely would have had nothing to do with them – so they had to make up a story to get them on camera. It makes you think what other LIES they had to tell them to lead them to their claims. It completely invalidates ALL of their interviews, which is all they have anyway. Seriously, if they admit they lied to their heroic witnesses, doesn’t that pretty much kill whatever integrity they had? How can anyone trust what they have to say?

They are not to be trusted, and are interested in only shameless self-promotion.


You have not shown a lie and therefore YOU are the one lying about our motives and mindset in this blatant personal attack thread that should not be allowed according to the rules of this forum.

Hopefully the mods have simply been too busy to lock it.




I have seen many threads asking the questions like “what finally made you not believe the official story”, so let’s do it to these guys now.


Huh?

Lots and lots of things made us suspect the 9/11 official story is a lie only to have this notion ultimately scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt on multiple fronts with corroborated verifiable evidence that we have independently obtained on our own.

Why does that matter?



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Putting CIT to one side for a moment, there are some things in the official story that are key to that story, and they flat-out don't stand on their own. CITs research is simply secondary to that; "supporting evidence" if you will.

Take for example an aircraft, travelling at 500 MPH, hitting not 1, not 2, but 5 light poles, undamaged. WT.......???????
Impossible.

I've posted numerous photos showing the damage sustained to aircraft in simple TAXIING maneuvers, at very low speeds (10 kts or less). At 500 MPH I envisage wings being destroyed and the aircraft crashing far short of the Pentagon.

Did you know the wings of an aircraft are also the fuel tanks? Puncture a hole in it, and it leaks. Make a huge hole in it, and not only does it leak, but it likely will become uncontrollable and crash.

A 757 certainly isn't an F-15 that can fly with a missing wing and half a tail, which brings me nicely to my next point: where is the debris from these impacts? We only have perfect fallen light poles, no aircraft parts to go with it. Why not???

If this very large and obvious part of the official story doesn't stand up to scrutiny, then we can sure as hell forget the smaller details adding up as they're less likely to get noticed in the first place.

Whilst people are debating where individual blocks from the building fell (not that it isn't important), they're not discussing the finer points of a aircraft hitting otherwise immovable objects at great speed and missing the largest, most obvious lie of it all.

It naturally progresses from there: if it couldn't hit the light poles, how could it fly so low to the ground as alleged? If it couldn't do that, then how did it crash into the Pentagon in the way it was alleged (remember the Pentagon video?). After that, if the video is false, the story doesn't add up then you're left with one thing: did it hit at all? If the rest is bogus, then likely that part is, too, so it is then likely that it over-flew, if it was there at all (cue CITs witnesses).

Don't stop thinking for yourselves people. If this part doesn't add-up, then why should Flight 93, or the WTC be any different? If you're going to lie on that, why not about Flight 93, or the WTC? Instead of having a can of worms waiting to be opened that is the Pentagon, they would have been better to have "shot it down" or for it to have crashed, Flight 93-style. It would leave far fewer loose ends, and less chance for the lie to be exposed.

[edit on 7-4-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I guess I should reply since apparently the mods have chosen to allow this baseless and completely false personal attack thread.


While there are a few inappropriate comments focused on personalities rather than issues, on the whole, this is a valid thread that asks important questions about core issues related to a sub-set of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Questioning your hypothesis and the methodology by which you arrived at your conclusions is not a personal attack so long as the discussion is focused in such a way.


WARNING TO ALL PARTICIPANTS


Please be mindful of the warning and link at the top of every page of every thread in this forum. We will not tolerate members who focus their conspiracy theory debate energies on personalities rather than facts and issues. New commentary within this thread that does not follow our clearly-stated and often-stated guidelines will be subject to immediate warnings and/or posting-bans, depending on the severity.



REMINDER TO ALL THEORISTS


Conspiracy theories can be a provocative subject matter that can inspire passionate contributions from "all sides" of the debate. Please remain mindful of this and understand that examination of your theories and conclusions is an important part of the path to truth and understanding, and not necessarily an attack on your person.





Please continue with the every-day social graces you'd use as a guest in someone's home.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   
I believe that the vast amount of evidence we all have seen that proves an inside job far outweighs the petty and insignifigant side steps that the detractors always seem to rely on. The lightpoles being supposedly hit by a giant airliner and not affecting it one bit is just the first of amny questions that the naysayers cannot and will not answer...or they do so with nonsense and not sound logic. There is NO WAY that all of the hundreds of ' anomalies' we see can be shoved under the rug and ignored.

The people who still believe the official story are either unable to face reality or have some interest in seeing the lies perpetrated longer. There is no possible way that the official story can be true..none. So instead of bashing the people who are out there actually investigating the event, the official story folks should realize that they are caught between a rock and a hard place: Until ALL of the ' inexplicable anomalies ' are answered sensibly, the fact can be assumed that we are right and the official story is wrong.

Keep up the great work CIT and ignore the nonsense...we can see what is obvious.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 




Sigh - how do you all find time to post repeatedly day and night.? Holy smokes! - you guys are dedicated - thats for sure...


Not much time - but that quote was from someone named Aldo - it is here:

s1.zetaboards.com...

I am sorry - but your friend clearly states that you all mislead your witnesses as to the intent of the filming.


Thanks for bumping that thread. You are right - I didn't remember quite right. However - the point still applies. A reputable organization would not try to bring up stories of weird sexual stuff practiced by a person completely out of the realm of discussion, in an attempt to smear a witness. If your facts were truly so convincing - that would never be neccesary. I seem to remember the moderator essentially aggreeing with me - and posting some warnings about doing it in the future. To me , and I'm sure many others, all it does is show an immaturity, and lack of decency, in a vain attempt to stay in the spotlight.

I enjoyed you stating the "Scientific method of corroboration". Please cite this from a respected source. Or did you make it up because it sounds cool?

I'm sorry Criag - but that whitepaper strikes to the heart of your arguement. It examines the validity of eyewitness statements sir. You only have what, 7, witnesses? I'm sorry, but please go to any statistician with that, and find out if that represents a valid sample size. Considering the many many other witness statements out there - you will find that it does not.



I have a simple question for you, can you give me an honest answer?

How many others did you interview, besides your 7? Do you have any documentation of these others? How did you find them?

You may have perfectly resonable answers to these questions - I hope so. A true "investigative organization" would keep records of such, and would publically hold them up for scrutiny.


Additionally - I would encourage ALL readers, guests, and members alike, to find all current threads concering the pentagon flyover, CIT, Craig Ranke, or pentagon evidence, and read them all carefully. I believe the posts by CIT representatives, and the lack of any substance whatsoever, will speak cleark for themselves.

I echo my title above.

CIT is finished, and needs to go home.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by nicepants
Then you clearly haven't done any research into the subject.


I have done lots of research.

Lets look at few facts that people the beleive the official story cannot show.

1. Photos or videos of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

2. Official reports that match the parts found to any of the 9/11 planes.

3. Explanation for the molten steel in all the basements of the WTC buidings and the debris field.

Almost 7 years and still no real facts and evidence to support the official story.



[edit on 8-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by megaman1234


I am sorry - but your friend clearly states that you all mislead your witnesses as to the intent of the filming.


That is an absolute lie.

Why are you continuing to blatantly lie when the quote says no such thing?

He does NOT claim for a second that we "mislead" anyone.

We told the absolute truth.

We went to put an end to the theorizing and find out what really happened.

Clearly it worked.



Thanks for bumping that thread. You are right - I didn't remember quite right. However - the point still applies. A reputable organization would not try to bring up stories of weird sexual stuff practiced by a person completely out of the realm of discussion, in an attempt to smear a witness. If your facts were truly so convincing - that would never be neccesary. I seem to remember the moderator essentially aggreeing with me - and posting some warnings about doing it in the future. To me , and I'm sure many others, all it does is show an immaturity, and lack of decency, in a vain attempt to stay in the spotlight.


You lied about my claim and you are defending your lie right now instead of retracting.

The least you could have done is look for my quote before creating a thread based on lies.

That EXACT point and post was directly sanctioned by the owner of this board Mark Springer.
see his response here

Why do you have such a problem with what the owners of this board have deemed perfectly appropriate?

Sounds like ATS isn't the right place for you.

It's perfectly appropriate to discuss a direct link to an organization that is well known to be associated with the "Washington Elite" and had members who were charged with espionage and treason when discussing a crime of espionage and treason with the suspect being the "Washington Elite".

To suggest otherwise is foolish and disingenuous.

I have now proven how you lied about your false "child molestation" claim just as you lied about our motives for the investigation and our completely true statements of intent to the witnesses.


Stop lying in a desperate attempt to libel me personally.




I enjoyed you stating the "Scientific method of corroboration". Please cite this from a respected source. Or did you make it up because it sounds cool?


Huh?

It is a fact.

Corroboration is a scientific process.

Do you really deny this?

Do you even know what "scientific process" means?




I'm sorry Criag - but that whitepaper strikes to the heart of your arguement. It examines the validity of eyewitness statements sir. You only have what, 7, witnesses? I'm sorry, but please go to any statistician with that, and find out if that represents a valid sample size. Considering the many many other witness statements out there - you will find that it does not.


7 witnesses who unanimously corroborate each other.

NOBODY supports the south side claim.




I have a simple question for you, can you give me an honest answer?

How many others did you interview, besides your 7? Do you have any documentation of these others? How did you find them?


We have already presented way more than 7. Go to our website and read and watch. We have spoken with many more and attempted to reach many more than that.

We will release info as we see fit and I have no obligation to answer questions to someone who is willing to lie to personally attack me.





Additionally - I would encourage ALL readers, guests, and members alike, to find all current threads concering the pentagon flyover, CIT, Craig Ranke, or pentagon evidence, and read them all carefully. I believe the posts by CIT representatives, and the lack of any substance whatsoever, will speak cleark for themselves.



Please do! Most members here have a far different opinion of me as is made clear here by logical and reasonable ATS member The Wizard In The Woods:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is for all you ATS newcomers.

Listen to everything Craig Ranke CIT has to say. Because his insights are intelligent and well-researched. His only mistake is that he’s waay too polite! Click on his name and check out his threads.

9-11 is a serious subject and deserves serious study. We need to learn to recognize who the crackpots are to be ignored. Wackjob “eyewitness” testimony relating to 9-11 is ubiquitous — as it always is during highly publicized events. We should have compassion for people with personal problems but we don’t have to believe them.

There was no AA77 (or UA175, AA11 or UA93). The reports of planes being hijacked on 9-11 were ALL fake. Well, actually the ‘reports’ being fed to the MSM from the ‘tippy-top’ of our federal government were real — but the airplanes weren’t.

And now back to the AA77 discussion…

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



[edit on 8-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   
I support Craig and CIT. If only more of us cared enough about our country to do the difficult and unthankful work CIT has done.

You are a patriot Craig and I am glad you are there!



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 10:32 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   
I'm back! haha - I don't ever remember who posted what in here - but I have another form of proof that CIT is done - or maybe never started. I just happened over to thier webside - and checked out the member stats. Not very many people there CIT?!

Notice the posts count.

Out of 785 total posts, 566 of those are from Craig, dominick, aldo, or some mirage guy. Seems to me - that nobody really gives a darn about these guys - except for themselves.

Craig - is that why you continually create topic, after topic, after topic, and on and on and on? In a poor attempt to get attention? Craig - out of those 785, you yourself posted 363 of them. Jeesh man. Don't you need to get a job? I took a little time and looked at some other forum that was linked from here - JREF I think. Now thats a website. Those guys over there are slaughtering you! Its quite impressive.

I predict CIT group - that in 10 years, you will not look back at this point in your life with pride. Kind of like how mature adults don't look back at the time in high school when they made fun of everyone else, and were mean to thier parents, with pride either.

I will let the specific arguements with your thoeries continue in their proper forums - maybe I'll pop in there too. Because you are not proving anything to anyone with your scientific witness corroboration nonsense.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join