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: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
s1.zetaboards.com...

post 50.

Go to 1:50 in the video. Hear him say "East sky".
Continue to 3:55 - watch till 4:12 - when you bring up DC. Its plain as day.

I wrote down the exchange as close to verbatim as I could.

Yes - it clearly shows you stearing the witness to the "north", and over "dc".

He is clearly describing the C130 FP, which is backed up by Radar data, that you claim to be fake, but have nothing at all to prove it with.



Please stop with the freak-out, woe-is-me, I'm-such-a-martyr responses.
It sounds like you are throwing a temper tantrum.




Oh - thats not the video I'm thinking of. In any case that is being covered well in other threads I think. The point is you repeatedly place Morin within the Annex walls,
and show a path straight over, which clearly has no relation to his description of events.


Again I point out - that you have made up this "scientific method of cooroboration", as
it relates to your handpicked eyewitness statments, out of thin air. You said yourself they are
"Claims". "Claims", Craig, are not evidence. "Claims" require proof to verify.

You have NO proof. Eyewitness "Claims" are not proof.

Let me say that again.

Eyewitness "Claims" are not proof.



It seems clear that you at CIT are working overtime to simply keep yourselves in the spotlight. This is evidenced by the large nubmer of threads
and posts seen by your contingent on this site, and others.

Take that and juxtapose it with the scarcity of interest on your home page, and the picture is clear.




posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   
You are still failing to back up your libelous claims because you are continuing to lie out of desperation.

Chaconas is 100% percent certain the plane came from east of the river.

This general claim proves a military deception and it is 100% clear that he made this claim without any prompting or leading whatsoever.

I'm sorry that this evidence upsets you and rightly so but your dishonest approach of blatantly lying about me personally and the evidence doesn't change the implications or the facts.




[edit on 22-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Chaconas is 100% percent certain the plane came from east of the river.



- Yes!! thank you Craig! He is 100% sure the plane came from East of the river! Just like the C130! Yay! Thanks for settling that point once and for all.

And agreeing that the plane wasn't a completely undocumented phantom plane flying in from the northeast to pull a switcheroo on everyone in plain sight.




Whew - and here I was worrying that you'de never come around..




[edit on 22-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by megaman1234
 


As I just proved to beachnut in the other thread......

It is impossible for the commercial jet that Steve witnessed to have been the C-130 even if we hypothetically suggest that the fraudulent flight path for it in the 84 RADES data is accurate.

The C-130 (as well as all other alleged radar blips) does NOT bank around the airport at all and clearly is not a "commercial airliner" as Steve claims.

Here is the approach and loop around the airport that Steve describes:


That is not even remotely reconcilable with the alleged C-130 path:


Steve saw the bank happen instantly around the airport yet the 84 RADES data doesn't have the C-130 banking for 9 miles.


Besides the fact that this is not what he described it would have been physically impossible for him to have seen it anyway.

I know "megaman".....denial and spin makes you feel warm and fuzzy compared to the serious implications of the evidence.

I really don't blame you as it's clear the psychological blockage from the facts you have runs very deep.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 04:06 AM
link   
don't forget guys, speaking of the conspiracy in which the physical damage 'is the crime' as craig says... after it's the only thing that killed people at the building... no matter how many witnesses say what, whatever one proves or another implies or contradicts or whatever logic/word games you wanna play... someone cut down those light poles and stashed them. someone smashed lloyd's windshield, probably knowing they were helping cover for mass murder. someone tore a chunk outta the generator, spun it aside, and started it on fire. someone tore out that fence, presumably before, damaged the vent wall, warped a lid in the shape of an engine, scuffed the vdot mast, clipped off parts of a tree in the shape of an engine, faked all the radar data, altered all the video, fabricated all the fdr data but for whatever reason turned the animation map to show almost the true heading, hurled a giant fireball against and into the building, set up mirrors or whatever to get everyone seeing the flyover to mistake it for a low impact, scatted light plane parts outside and heavy ones inside, blew over 50 columns inward, except three on the outside that accidentally blew out, left column 14, forgot to damage the foundation, forgot to leave tail marks, forgot to scratch lloyd's hood or lay the poles at the right angles, and a few other things.

Craig, all these things happened, all beneath and unrelated to the plane in your scenario, did they not? They would HAVE to be faked individually to achieve the right effect, correct?. You say you've got 'simple explanations' for all this? There's only one simple and logical explanation I've seen - big hurking plane. All you've offered is 'they could do that...' and that... and that theoretically, somehow... but you hate seeing it all put together with a reminder that all this had to be done by people or machine and by some plan, some before, some during or right after, in the open, and you have no direct evidence of anyone doing it. not one part. and you scream about arguments from incredulity... if this isn't worth incredulity, what is?

and what DID they do to warp everyone's optical perception of the plane's altitude? holograms? smoke and mirrors? or just plain smoke and a prayer?

Don't even bother answering that since I know you don't have an answer. This has all gotten really boring and I'm not even checking for a response. it is time for Caustic Logic to go home, at least from this debate here. Good luck getting everyone to see the perfect logic of your proven scenario but that's enough improv for me.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

None of the witnesses were the least bit misled and there is zero evidence that this is the case.



Interview

Watch that video from about 15:30 to 16:30. Sounds to me like you were proud of fooling them. No matter how you spin it, it's dishonest, 100%.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Not sure what you mean.

Nobody was fooled nor did I say that anyone was.

Why don't you quote me and clarify your point?



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Well, the term fooled was not used. But you did say the witnesses to the crash were deceived as this was a massive military deception.

Deceived: from dictionary.com:

—Synonyms 1. cozen, dupe, fool, gull, hoodwink, trick, defraud, outwit, entrap, ensnare, betray.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Yep.

They sure were deceived by the government and I sure have said this many many times since this is exactly what their testimony proves.

But Soloist is erroneously suggesting (as megaman did in the OP) that I have stated that I personally deceived the witnesses.

Clearly this is a flat out lie.

I highly recommend that everyone watches that full interview with me as we cover a lot of important points.

Thanks for posting it Soloist!



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Why don't you quote me and clarify your point?



15:50ish into the interview -

"They were deceived into believing the plane hit the building, so that's why they were willing to talk to us. In fact, they thought they were defending the government's story" ... (host laughs)

So, you let them believe it, and knew that, but didn't once let them in on what you were really up to. Otherwise, they wouldn't have talked to you and you wouldn't have your little "documentary".

That's deceptive and dishonest in my book. Like I said, spin it however you like, the outcome is the same to those of us that can see through the blabber.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

But Soloist is erroneously suggesting (as megaman did in the OP) that I have stated that I personally deceived the witnesses.

Clearly this is a flat out lie.




Oh, come on!

It's all there in the interview, you clearly have no problem saying the witnesses thought they were defending the governments story. And you didn't tell them otherwise because you knew they wouldn't talk to you.

Yes, that's deception.

You are the one caught in a lie.

I await YOUR retraction.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 



Hilarious.

I didn't know for sure what they were going to tell me before I talked to them!

Of course I know that it was a military deception now!

It was their testimony that proved it.

We deceived nobody and were 100% honest with the witnesses at all times.

megaman lied about this same thing in the OP and failed to back it up and now you are continuing the lie and failing to back it up.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Oh, come on!

It's all there in the interview, you clearly have no problem saying the witnesses thought they were defending the governments story. And you didn't tell them otherwise because you knew they wouldn't talk to you.

Yes, that's deception.

You are the one caught in a lie.

I await YOUR retraction.


You can't be this clueless.

I said that IF they already knew the implications of what they saw that they would have been too afraid to talk.

The point is that they clearly hadn't studied the physical damage and all the reports and so were not aware of the implications. They were not pushing a conspiracy even though they unwittingly proved one.

I am not a witness.....THEY are the witnesses. Why should I have told them what THEY saw? How does that make the least bit of sense?

However I did in fact inform them on camera at the END of the interviews that their testimony contradicts the official story.

Naturally they simply didn't believe me but clearly I was right. They stick to the north side claim to this day and said they would willing testify under oath.

The fact that they are so certain of the north side claim and still believed the official story is what proves they were deceived by the government.....not deceived by ME!

How can you not understand this?



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 08:35 PM
link   
You guys are accusing us of being "up to" something when all that we were "up to" was documenting the exact flight path of the plane according to the eyewitnesses.

If the witnesses all reported that the plane was on the south side, hit the light poles, and flew low and level above the ground into the building that is what we would have reported.

Of course we were aware that this is where the plane was SUPPOSED to have been.

But naturally we objectively waited for each of the witnesses to individually tell us where THEY saw the plane.

Guess what?

They all saw it in the same place.

Not where it was supposed to be.



But I really want to thank you again for posting that interview with me.

It's a great introduction for those who are unaware with the important evidence we present.

Watch interview here



[edit on 24-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

I said that IF they already knew the implications of what they saw that they would have been too afraid to talk.


You do NOT say this on the point of the interview I quoted above. You clearly seemed to be entertained by the fact that you pulled a fast one on these people. The phrase "afraid to talk" does not come out of your mouth in that segment.



The point is that they clearly hadn't studied the physical damage and all the reports and so were not aware of the implications. They were not pushing a conspiracy even though they unwittingly proved one.


Unwittingly, your word, do you really not get it? It's DISHONEST, it's the same as lying.




However I did in fact inform them on camera at the END of the interviews that their testimony contradicts the official story.

Naturally they simply didn't believe me but clearly I was right. They stick to the north side claim to this day and said they would willing testify under oath.

The fact that they are so certain of the north side claim and still believed the official story is what proves they were deceived by the government.....not deceived by ME!


Geez man, wow...

*shakes head*


I give up, you know what I mean, and I certainly hope you know the difference between right and wrong, and what you did was deceptive. Like I said, spin it all around, but there are plenty of people who can see through all the talk.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


This is so comical.

We never deceived anyone which is why you can't even state how we did.

All you could be suggesting is that it was deceptive that we didn't tell the witnesses in advance where the official story says the plane flew.

Think of how ridiculous that is.

It's clear that the witnesses believed in an impact. Everyone knows this and we have never covered up this fact.

It's their independent testimony about the placement of the plane that proves they were deceived in this regard.

Deceived by the government.

Not me.

You really need to slow down, step back from your computer, watch my interview again, watch The PentaCon again, and think real hard because you are seriously confused right now.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

This is so comical.


Yes, you make me lol irl.



We never deceived anyone which is why you can't even state how we did.


Did you tell them that you were doing a government conspiracy video BEFORE they agreed to do the interviews????

From what I gather from your interview, you believe they would not have talked to you if so.



All you could be suggesting is that it was deceptive that we didn't tell the witnesses in advance where the official story says the plane flew.


No, it was deceptive in not telling them your motives and intended purpose of the whole piece in advance. Get it now???



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Did you tell them that you were doing a government conspiracy video BEFORE they agreed to do the interviews????


We were not doing a government conspiracy video.

CIT and The PentaCon did not exist when I was doing the interviews.

We were documenting exactly where the eyewitnesses saw the plane and it just so happened to prove a government conspiracy so we created The PentaCon and formed CIT after the fact.






No, it was deceptive in not telling them your motives and intended purpose of the whole piece in advance. Get it now???



But we did tell them our motives.

Our motive was to document exactly what they saw.

We did exactly that.

The implications are not our fault.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
Did you tell them that you were doing a government conspiracy video BEFORE they agreed to do the interviews????

I've just been reading along up until this point but I have to cut in and ask, what does the movie title or movie type have to do with anything? Are you insinuating that the witnesses would give a different story if you told them your movie was called "The Cover-up" vs. if your movie was called "The Events of 9/11"? Watching the movie it seems that they are simply relating what they believe they saw.

You don't have to agree with the conclusions of CIT but it's really pointless to pick at the title of the movie or what the purpose of the movie is. The eye-witness accounts are valid or not. Which one is it? By arguing this point you're simply avoiding the main issue of the film. If you're wanting to argue that the conclusions are invalid you're getting further and further away from the issue with this approach.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

I've just been reading along up until this point but I have to cut in and ask, what does the movie title or movie type have to do with anything? Are you insinuating that the witnesses would give a different story if you told them your movie was called "The Cover-up" vs. if your movie was called "The Events of 9/11"? Watching the movie it seems that they are simply relating what they believe they saw.


I think it's the honest thing to do, is tell them what your true motive. C'mon, noone goes through all that trouble to make a pro-goverment movie! Do you think we would even be seeing this if it all lined up???

Yes, I think people might think a little more about what they saw....put it this way...

Someone asks you what you did last weekend vs. someone telling you that you may have seen someone wanted for a crime at that party you were at. Now, in that case wouldn't you think quite a bit harder about what you did and saw?





You don't have to agree with the conclusions of CIT but it's really pointless to pick at the title of the movie or what the purpose of the movie is. The eye-witness accounts are valid or not. Which one is it? By arguing this point you're simply avoiding the main issue of the film. If you're wanting to argue that the conclusions are invalid you're getting further and further away from the issue with this approach.


My point is that the conclusions were already pre-determined, and the people seemed to be played into something that might not have agreed to otherwise.

It's dishonest.

Period.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join