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: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
If I remember from CITs video of their witnesses, they ask them straight out where they thought the aircraft flew from. It was an open-ended question with any number of answers. The fact they answered the way they did suggests one of two things:

* They are telling the truth

or

* The whole thing is a set-up (interestingly, no-one has yet suggested this particular idea about CIT when trying to flatten them).

Given that three of the witnesses I've seen interviewed in these videos are police officers, I find it unlikely they're lying. I'm sure a simple FOIA request could soon settle whether the three officers are or were indeed officers. If you wanted to really debunk, that would be the way to do it, but I suspect you're going to be out of luck on that count, which means they're telling the truth.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by mirageofdeceit]




posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


And they claim that the plane they saw on the NOC actually hit the Pentagon. Interesting.

Oh.. an no one states that anyone is lying.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Craig, it is also up to you to figure out a flight path that is possible. So far ALL of the potential paths have been shown impossible.

Thank you,

C.O.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 

The CIT witnesses saw 77 hit the Pentagon. CIT has no hard evidence, except they call their witness statements "hard evidence", but ignore the part where they saw the plane impact. The NoC path is impossible with the witness statement why have. They have misinterpreted the statements, and you can see this on their own videos. There is not anything on the videos but the misinterpretation by CIT.

This witness is pointing directly to the Pentagon when he thinks he plane had hit the tower close to where the plane has to be to hit the Pentagon at the impact point. If you take the NoC story, you are stuck with a plane that never flys over the pentagon based on initial conditions set by "hard evidence" CIT witnesses.

Just take Google Earth and plot it, you can find the house across the street and the tower, and the building Paik is standing next to, and see where he is pointing. The Pentagon. Now CIT is talking about a new witness who was in the Annex and saw the plane fly next to the Annex and watched the tail hit the Pentagon (he says he ?could barely see the tail" as it crashed into the Pentagon; barely see is seeing).



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


That is yet another completely false and unsupported blanket statement.

But once again.....a exact flight path hypothesis has no bearing on the evidence we present proving the plane came from east of the river and flew north of the citgo.

No true critical thinker who actually adheres to scientific reasoning would suggest that a hypothesis needs to be accepted in order for evidence in support of the theory to be deemed valid.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


Your paragraphs are still barely coherent and you aren't making any valid points.

Paik described, drew, and pointed to the north of the citgo.





He thought it was going to hit the last wing of the Navy Annex which corroborates Terry Morin's account of the plane directly over the Navy Annex and fatally contradicts the official flight path that requires the plane to be COMPLETELY on the south side of the street and even the south side of the VDOT.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


NO Craig.... It is your responsibility to show a flight path that is possible.

You showed "potential" flight paths and they were shown to be impossible.

Find one that works within the laws of physics and avionics, until then.... well you know.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious


NO Craig.... It is your responsibility to show a flight path that is possible.


No it is not but I already did anyway.

The evidence we present proves the plane came from east of the river and flew north of the citgo and this evidence is not reliant on any speculated exact flight path hypothesis.



You showed "potential" flight paths and they were shown to be impossible.


You are wrong which is why you are not sourcing your false claims.

None of the caluclations were considered in true context of what we hypothesized based on the evidence.

None of them remotely considered a relatively slow constant descending loop from east of the river.



Find one that works within the laws of physics and avionics, until then.... well you know.


We already have and your denial does not change this fact.

Here it is again for the record:


Steve Chaconas proves that a constant descending loop around the airport like that is entirely possible and Mike Walter and Sean Boger prove that the final bank over the navy annex is also quite possible.




Why do you refuse to accept scientifically verified evidence based on nothing but faith and out of context straw man arguments?



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Now could you please find pictures of other plane crashes that are consistent with the pentagon tragedy? I am pretty good with google, I can find the Pentagon pictures, but I cant find any pictures where over 99% of the mass of the plane was missing. Its been over 6 years now and there haven't been any posted on this site (certain of that) or any other (approaching certain). Thanks.


Lets see.....other airliners that crashed into buildings..hmmm........other than 9/11, cannot think of another instance in which an airliner crashed into an office building. 99% of flight 77 wasnt missing, it was buried inside the Pentagon. That the government hasnt posted the pics on the internet...kudos to them. The pictures of the burned bodies at the Pentagon used in Zippy the pin.s trials were bad enough.

There was that B25 that crashed into the Empire State Builiding in 1945. Seems to be about the closest thing I could think of.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Of course as usual you are 100% wrong.

That is yet another blatant unsupported lie about us that is continuously pushed primarily by jrefer/hardfire host Ron Weik.

We have approached media both alternative and mainstream.

We have approached authorities both federal and local.

We will continue to contact more and more agencies and media outlets and continue to put pressure on them until they listen.

Their inaction is expected and has no bearing on the validity of the evidence.




Craig,
It is very sad to see you copout by somehow blaming JREF in regards to who you have presented the info to!
GUESS WHAT CRAIG!
YOU and YOU ALONE are the one who claimed that you were going to bring your "smoking gun" evidence to the courts, law enforcement, and media.
YOU stated that in 2007 "trials would begin" due to the "evidence".
So dont try and copout now and blame it on JREF.
When you do this you sound really pathetic!
YOU ARE ONE WHO CLAIMED TO HAVE EVIDENCE!
AND recently you even claimed that there would be a video by CIT:



Perhaps one day we'll release a short with documentation of the agencies who fail to respond and therefore the ones who implicate THEMSELVES in obstruction of justice by their inaction.

s1.zetaboards.com...
NOW THAT IS A BOLD STATEMENT!
That is a very very dangerous thing to say if you CANNOT BACK IT UP!
Your "evidence" must be soooo smoking hot that "obstruction of justice" is taking place by groups of people.
Can you please elaborate on this?



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   
It seems that the overall case against CIT is building. Lately the focus is on trying to find a viable flight path that would fit the CIT witness statements. Craig claims over and over again that they do not need one. But - that’s just not true. You have created a flight path by default using your witness statements. You have them describing a flight path - that’s your whole point, that their flight path is different than the official story. If that alleged flight path is aerodynamically impossible - which seems to have been proven repeatedly - then you have a problem.

Also- I see someone pointed out the coaching given to the witness Steve C. Who begins in his own words to tell of a plane coming out of the east skies (which matched the radar data of the C130), but then is led by the interviewer into changing to the northeast. If this is not an example if leading the witness I’m not sure what is. Also - the curve he draws with his finger is the same shape as the C130 radar data - he just doesn’t have it going as far out. It’s not easy to judge the horizontal distance to a flying object. Much harder for sure, than to see if it ran into something.

Also - the newest witness on the annex. CIT has released a little video that shows the plane zipping briefly between two buildings. But that matched NONE of what he describes. This is not acceptable.

I think it boils down to the continued CIT belief in the veracity of these witness statements. They talk about the Scientific method of corroboration. Yes - the witness’s corroborate each other. Where they go wrong is thinking that eyewitness statements are scientific. They are not. Thus there is no "Scientific method" here at all.

*CIT admits they have ZERO training as investigators/interviewers.
*It has been pointed out the eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable.
*For an eyewitness testimony to have any validity whatsoever, it must be conducted under strict guidelines. There were none here at all.
*These statements used, were gather years after the incident.

Captain Obvious (I think?) posted a fantastic article awhile back showing the variety of statements given by witnesses to an air crash, Can you post that again please?

Here are some other examples that point out the problem with Eyewitness statements:

www.innocentproject.org...
"Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing."
"While eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or jury, 30 years of strong social science research has proven that eyewitness identification is often unreliable. Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully and retrieved methodically, or it can be contaminated. "

www.texasbar.com.../ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=6141
"The U.S. Supreme Court recognized in a familiar triumvirate of cases on the law of eyewitness identification,(3) all handed down on the same day in 1967, that eyewitness identification is unreliable"

www.lsulegacymag.com...
“Dr. Lane cited the Washington area sniper shootings as a good example of the effect of misinformation. After the first shooting one witness reported seeing a white van. In all of the following shootings, witnesses reported seeing the same white van, when in fact the vehicle was a dark blue sedan, he said.
“Memories are not like photographs,” Dr. Lane said. “They’re not perfect.””



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by megaman1234
It seems that the overall case against CIT is building. Lately the focus is on trying to find a viable flight path that would fit the CIT witness statements. Craig claims over and over again that they do not need one. But - that’s just not true. You have created a flight path by default using your witness statements. You have them describing a flight path - that’s your whole point, that their flight path is different than the official story. If that alleged flight path is aerodynamically impossible - which seems to have been proven repeatedly - then you have a problem.



Wrong.

They fabricated values as a straw man argument. There is nothing impossible about the flight path at the speed we hypothesize.



Also- I see someone pointed out the coaching given to the witness Steve C. Who begins in his own words to tell of a plane coming out of the east skies (which matched the radar data of the C130), but then is led by the interviewer into changing to the northeast. If this is not an example if leading the witness I’m not sure what is.


Wrong again.

You won't quote the conversation to back up your lie because you know it is not leading the witness.

You have been caught lying in the OP and you are lying now.

He had already said that the plane came from the east so we asked him to be more specific and he did.

East of the river at all destroys the official story anyway.



Also - the newest witness on the annex. CIT has released a little video that shows the plane zipping briefly between two buildings. But that matched NONE of what he describes. This is not acceptable.


Acceptable for what?

The animation does not depict anything but the north of citgo approach. It was not meant to depict Terry Morin's account.



I think it boils down to the continued CIT belief in the veracity of these witness statements. They talk about the Scientific method of corroboration. Yes - the witness’s corroborate each other. Where they go wrong is thinking that eyewitness statements are scientific. They are not. Thus there is no "Scientific method" here at all.


Eyewitness testimony is valid evidence in every court in the land.

Corroboration is a scientific process used to validate eyewitness statements.

The fact that you are trying to pretend like these factual statements are untrue demonstrates your confirmation bias and propensity to dismiss evidence based on nothing but faith in the government story.

Now stop lying about me like you did in the OP.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Steve Chaconas proves that a constant descending loop around the airport like that is entirely possible and Mike Walter and Sean Boger prove that the final bank over the navy annex is also quite possible.

Steve was 5 miles away, sorry he did not see 77 cross the river, 77 did not cross the river, that is impossible.

Walter saw 77 hit the Pentagon.

Boger saw 77 hit the Pentagon.

Steve was too far away to see a bank over the Annex, and the plane never went DIRECTLY over the annex!

The FDR, hard evidence shows no bank over 11 degree for the last 20 seconds. The .ing was a true track of 61.2 degrees the last reading on the FDR. The .ing only varied one or two degrees in the last 10 seconds, that make NoC impossible.

Paik, Morin, and Boger form a solid path through the light post 77 hit and impact at the Pentagon, all south of the Annex.

This is using your own court good witness testimony, case closed, NoC DOA.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   
You need to realize something here Craig.

I should be the target audience for you - I should be the type of person you are trying to persuade. Mr. Middle America. 3 kids, nice house, couple cars, democrat, etc. Like most people - I am very intrigued by conspiracy theories, hence why I am here. When something big like this happens, I think there is something inside most people that really wants there to be something "more" to it all. It can’t be so simple that a bunch of whackos can jack a couple planes and create such chaos. Can it?

Notice I didn’t post here until like 6 months ago. I took a long time reading and watching - and waiting for something to jump out to me . A “smoking gun” as you like to say . It just hasn’t happened.

A single guy on a boat – who six years later thinks he saw a plane in the distance, does not single handedly kill anything at all. Well – actually it does kill one thing.


It kills the reputation of those who latch onto it as proof to a hobbyist backyard internet theory.



And I am sorry Craig - but you and your friends have really struck a nerve. And I know that it is not just with me. Your claims are outlandish, and based on nothing substantive.

Sometimes the loudest debater isn’t the one who is right.
Sometimes the ball is really under the middle cup
And sometimes, the world is just the way it is, no matter how bad we want there to be more to it

Sorry Craig – there is nowhere to go with this. You really need to find another career path.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


Wrong.

They fabricated values as a straw man argument. There is nothing impossible about the flight path at the speed we hypothesize.



Craig and all. Please read the last several pages of this thread – as there is no need to retype it all. There are no fabricated values. There is no “straw man”.

forums.randi.org...




Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Wrong again.

You won't quote the conversation to back up your lie because you know it is not leading the witness.

You have been caught lying in the OP and you are lying now.

He had already said that the plane came from the east so we asked him to be more specific and he did.

East of the river at all destroys the official story anyway.



You claim that “He saw the plane come from the northeast, cross the river etc……”
Here is the exchange
Steve
“We kinda noticed that there was a plane coming out of the east side.”

Interviewer
“So it was coming from the DC area – it came over DC.”

Steve hesitates here and gets kinda turned around. Because DC is not to the east of him – is more to the north. Northeast – which is what the interviewer obviously wants him to say.

“Well yeah- it could have come over DC. it looks like it was coming out of the east, maybe the northeast.

Craig – can you not see this? Steve initially says NOTHING about Northeast or DC, not until the interviewer coaxes him in that direction. This is not valid information at this point. He is speaking of an event 6 years in the past, being led by an interviewer with an agenda. You did not ask him to explain - you put words in his mouth.



Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Acceptable for what?

The animation does not depict anything but the north of citgo approach. It was not meant to depict Terry Morin's account.



Wait a minute – so if that video is not supposed to be from Morins perspective – then what is it? In fact it was developed to demonstrate that it looked “parallel”. Do I really need to link to those discussions Craig? Come one.. Is this not a picture you have stood by?



Is this not a picture of CIT’s placement of Morin?
Does that video not show a plane flying right over here you have Morin placed? A blip between wings?
Does that have any relationship – AT ALL – to what he describes in his statement? NO!



Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Eyewitness testimony is valid evidence in every court in the land.

Corroboration is a scientific process used to validate eyewitness statements.

The fact that you are trying to pretend like these factual statements are untrue demonstrates your confirmation bias and propensity to dismiss evidence based on nothing but faith in the government story.

Now stop lying about me like you did in the OP.


Eyewitness testimony has been proven over and over again to be unreliable. It is NOT scientific evidence. You assertion of "scientific corroboration of witnesses" is incorrect - because of that fact. An experiment under controlled conditions can be corroborated yes. That is scientific. You need to consult a lawyer - or perhaps a police dept - and learn the difference. Once you do - then perhaps you'll understand why you are not getting anywhere with this.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by megaman1234
 


You are scared and rightly so.

At least you are admitting to posting here solely because of me but you are FAR from my target audience.

The claims you have made about me are libelous and false demonstrating you as a liar who will resort to pure deception to cloud the truth.

No Mr. Middle America would go to those lengths in a desperate effort to defend the government from evidence proving they lied.

And this is not my career nor do I want it to be.

I have dedicated thousands of hours and thousands of dollars and put my life on the line for no other reason but justice, anger for the fraudulent war on terror, and concern for the future.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by megaman1234


Craig and all. Please read the last several pages of this thread – as there is no need to retype it all. There are no fabricated values. There is no “straw man”.

forums.pseudoskeptic.org...


All of the values were completely made up and have nothing to do with the evidence we present.

Read this thread as a response: www.abovetopsecret.com...






You claim that “He saw the plane come from the northeast, cross the river etc……”
Here is the exchange
Steve
“We kinda noticed that there was a plane coming out of the east side.”

Interviewer
“So it was coming from the DC area – it came over DC.”


You are lying AGAIN.

You are paraphrasing out of context in order to create the impression of leading.

What kind of man with children blatantly lies on a conspiracy site to cover up evidence of government involvement in mass murder?

Outrageous.




Steve hesitates here and gets kinda turned around. Because DC is not to the east of him – is more to the north. Northeast – which is what the interviewer obviously wants him to say.

“Well yeah- it could have come over DC. it looks like it was coming out of the east, maybe the northeast.

Craig – can you not see this? Steve initially says NOTHING about Northeast or DC, not until the interviewer coaxes him in that direction. This is not valid information at this point. He is speaking of an event 6 years in the past, being led by an interviewer with an agenda. You did not ask him to explain - you put words in his mouth.


This is such BS.

You are paraphrasing completely out of context.

Those are not honest quotes.

He was not led one bit and we merely asked him to specify more about his initial claim but he was always 100% certain that the plane came from east of the river right from the start which is all that matters and you know it.

The serious implications of his testimony PROVING a military deception do not change one bit whether he thinks it came from exactly east or north east.

Coming from east of the river at all proves a military deception on 9/11 and Steve described this in detail all on his own without any prompting whatsoever.

Anyone who watches the interview will be able to tell that Steve's placement of the plane has nothing to with the questions we asked.

Here it is again for reference:








Wait a minute – so if that video is not supposed to be from Morins perspective – then what is it? In fact it was developed to demonstrate that it looked “parallel”. Do I really need to link to those discussions Craig? Come one.. Is this not a picture you have stood by?


It was a perspective from the citgo.

Morin was not at the citgo.



North of the citgo AND over the navy annex claims both also prove a military deception just like the east of the Potomac claim does.

I know this is hard to accept.

But lying about me doesn't change the evidence.



Is this not a picture of CIT’s placement of Morin?
Does that video not show a plane flying right over here you have Morin placed? A blip between wings?
Does that have any relationship – AT ALL – to what he describes in his statement? NO!


What picture?

What are you rambling on about?

The animation in The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version has nothing to do with Morin and was simply designed to show the plane on the north side of the citgo like ALL the witnesses independently report.

I'm sorry that you refuse to accept the evidence because of your faith in the government story but that does not give you the right to continue to lie about me.



Eyewitness testimony has been proven over and over again to be unreliable. It is NOT scientific evidence. You assertion of "scientific corroboration of witnesses" is incorrect - because of that fact. An experiment under controlled conditions can be corroborated yes. That is scientific. You need to consult a lawyer - or perhaps a police dept - and learn the difference. Once you do - then perhaps you'll understand why you are not getting anywhere with this.


You are in denial and I can't help you.

Corroboration most certainly is a scientific process by the very definition of the word.

The systematic validation of claims from independent sources most certainly is the scientific method.

I'm sorry this is difficult for you to accept in this context but true critical thinkers who have regard for evidence understand this to be a fact.








[edit on 21-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by megaman1234
 

... put my life on the line ...

Who is going to harm you? Paik? did you change his story or something and he is mad?

Morin? For messing up parallel?

Boger? For saying he did not see 77 hit, when he did?

Who has threatened you life? The military for making up stories and saying they faked stuff and made up stuff, when it is just you blaming them without evidence.

Did the FAA threaten you when you said they faked the RADAR data?

Did the NTSB threaten you when you said they faked stuff?

Why is your life on the line? You should switch to anti war stuff and stop making up false stories on 9/11.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by megaman1234
Sorry Craig – there is nowhere to go with this. You really need to find another career path.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Do I agree with Craig's positions? Do I agree with anyone's opinion here? That's really beside the point isn't it?

Are we simply here to find others to pat us on the back? Are we just looking for some sort of drinking club that consists of those that agree with us or do we want the truth? I don't agree with several things that Craig states but to say that he should shut up just because we might not agree with him is foolish IMO. If my ideas aren't good enough to stand up to an opposing view point then perhaps they're not good ideas after all.

ATS - Not just a place to hear yourself think. It's a place to exchange ideas. Instead of saying CIT is done, why not just tell everyone you disagree with to pack up and go home? Where do we draw the line? Wise up everyone. You can learn a lot by disproving those you disagree with. You might even find that some of your ideas are wrong and some of theirs are correct. I just hope that everyone here isn't developing closed minds that exclude everything but their opinions.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


Well said dbates.

But megaman is taking it a step further and has been shown to be blatantly lying about me personally, my claims, and the information we present in the OP and throughout this thread on numerous occasions.

After charging me with leading the witness when challenged to produce an example he did NOT quote me or the witness directly and instead took a couple of paraphrased quotes out of context.

It's deceptive, shameful, and frankly I doubt a thread with a title telling any other member that they should "go home" would be allowed.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join