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.

 

Howard Stern Show talks 9/11 truth (sort of)

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by bovarcher
 


Yeah yeah cool.

I edited it because I later realized that you were probably asking the question with honest intentions when this is simply not the case with jthomas who follows me all over the internet to badger me over and over with the same question.

Peace!




posted on May, 28 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Oh wow I assumed you had me on ignore Craig so maybe you didnt see my post but I guess you in fact did so AGAIN I will ask
WHEN WILL YOU BRING YOUR EVIDENCE OF PREPLANTED EXPLOSIVES TO THE PROPER AUTHORITIES?
You do have E V I D E N C E right Craig?
You seeem to get rather defensive and angry whenever anyone asks for evidence.
YOU ARE ONE making the claims SO IT IS YOU WHO HAVE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS WITH EVIDENCE!



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 


No Wiz.

That's my point.

The missile theory was bunk.

There was a plane.

We proved the NPT in Arlington FALSE.

They did not need to use any unknown or exotic weaponry of any kind in Arlington.

There is no comparison between the Pentagon and WTC attacks.


Craig,

Your response is likely to confuse many.

I never mentioned or believed in the 'missile theory' at the Pentagon.
Yes, there was a plane -- as a flyover. You've proven that. But no plane CRASHED at the Pentagon. And you agree with that, don't you? Therefore, in the eyes of the rest of the civilized world, you are a no-planer in the case of the 9-11 'attack' at Arlington. The NPT states first and foremost that no planes crashed on 9-11 at the Pentagon, Shanksville, or the WTC's.

The no plane theory can be restated as the 'no plane crashed anywhere on 9-11 hypothesis' if you wish. Also, at the Pentagon there are no signs whatsoever of exotic weaponry. I never suggested that anything other than a plain old bomb was used to produce the hole in the wall.

Naturally we will continue to disagree about the WTC's and even Shanksville perhaps. You say there are 'thousands of eyewitnesses'. I suspect that there are NONE who are not actors or calmly truthful. You say there are loads of photographic evidence of planes. I state there is NONE other than a select few horrible quality -- faked and staged --images and films which keep getting repeated over and over.

We will likely disagree 'forever' on this issue (of no planes at the WTC). But the point I insist on making, is that your claim that no plane crashed at the Pentagon and instead overflew it, makes you, in the eyes of the OT-ers a 'no planer' for that location. Your qualifying that there was a plane -- it was just a flyby instead of a 'hard landing'=crash -- doesn't make any difference to how popular opinion will perceive you. Sterns and Bababooey's will always think of you as some nut for not thinking that we were positively attacked -- with a crashing hijacked commercial airplane -- at the Pentagon on 9-11.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 5/29/2008 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Your qualifying that there was a plane -- it was just a flyby instead of a 'hard landing'=crash -- doesn't make any difference to how popular opinion will perceive you. Sterns and Bababooey's will always think of you as some nut for not thinking that we were positively attacked -- with a crashing hijacked commercial airplane -- at the Pentagon on 9-11.



NPT is a theory yet the north side claim is evidence.

We only claim what we have independent verifiable evidence to support.

We can prove that the plane flew on the north side of the citgo.

CGI/holograms/cartoons are impossible to prove.

THAT is the difference here and it is a huge one.

I am not theorizing Wiz.

When you reduce the argument to a theory that is all it will ever be.

We are merely reporting what all the witnesses saw and it happens to prove a military deception on 9/11.

If we want to be effective to the Sterns and Bababooeys of the world this is the kind of information we all need to be hyper-focusing on regardless of what theory you choose to believe.

When there is independent corroborated evidence to back up what claims we make the people who look into it WILL be convinced and we can demand action.

We did what we did in Arlington because we knew that theorizing about 9/11 online would get us nowhere and keep us spinning our wheels forever.

The witnesses we talked to can all be subpoenaed.

You can't subpoena a hologram.

Believe whatever you want but we could care less about any 9/11 theories and see them as a diversion.

We only care about hard evidence proving a deception and that is what we provide.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
NPT is a theory yet the north side claim is evidence.


Excuse me...but if a theory is a theory, isn't a claim, a claim?



We only claim what we have independent verifiable evidence to support.

We can prove that the plane flew on the north side of the citgo.


You can prove you have some people who are saying the plane flew on the north side of the Citgo. So far you have provided no PROOF the plane actually did what they said. Your witnesses, who's statements you are calling proof, could be wrong, or intentionally lying. If one of your witnesses has a picture...now that would be evidence and proof enough for me.



Believe whatever you want but we could care less about any 9/11 theories and see them as a diversion.

We only care about hard evidence proving a deception and that is what we provide.


That's great! I'm glad to hear it! Now go get some HARD EVIDENCE and present it to us. I haven't seen any from CIT so far. I've seen some intrigung theories based on testimony, and relying on government provided data which CIT and P4911T have both claimed has been manipulated, but I've seen no HARD EVIDENCE.

In the words of another regular poster..."I'm still waiting".



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Your qualifying that there was a plane -- it was just a flyby instead of a 'hard landing'=crash -- doesn't make any difference to how popular opinion will perceive you. Sterns and Bababooey's will always think of you as some nut for not thinking that we were positively attacked -- with a crashing hijacked commercial airplane -- at the Pentagon on 9-11.



NPT is a theory yet the north side claim is evidence.

We only claim what we have independent verifiable evidence to support.

We can prove that the plane flew on the north side of the citgo.


One of the results of Craig Ranke's so-called "verifiable" evidence is that:


"....any large aircraft traveling fast enough to stay airborne would need to pull a gazillion G's to do a turn like that."

forums.randi.org...



We are merely reporting what all the witnesses saw and it happens to prove a military deception on 9/11.


Just a few of the several hundred witnesses Craig Ranke refused to interview:

hdl.loc.gov...
hdl.loc.gov...
hdl.loc.gov...
hdl.loc.gov...


When there is independent corroborated evidence to back up what claims we make the people who look into it WILL be convinced and we can demand action.


As we ALL know, CIT members, Ranke and Marquis have not been able to back up their claims:

1. They refused to interview hundreds of key eyewitnesses. Aldo admitted it.

2. They want us to believe it is possible for a fast-moving 757 to do a hairpin turn over the footprint of the Pentagon!

3. CIT has NEVER, ever produced any eyewitness who claims to have seen AA77 fly beyond the Pentagon. Not one. Ever.

Only Craig Ranke know why he believes he can con you and the familiy members of the victims of AA77's crash into the Pentagon.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbluesky
 


First hand eyewitness testimony most certainly IS evidence that is admissible in any court in the land.

How many times do I have to explain this?

One eyewitness claim is evidence.

2 independently corroborated accounts become strong evidence.

3 independently corroborated accounts is often considered proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

We are up to 10 independent accounts confirming the north side claim while zero report the plane on the south side.

It's been validated to the point of redundancy.

All of these people can be subpoenaed.

It's impossible for them all to be simultaneously and drastically mistaken in the exact same way.

Corroboration is scientific validation.

I know it's hard to accept as the implications are astronomical but there is a lot more than this proving the official story false.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



Nice! Legitimate, legal, scientific evidence!

Why can't you find a single lawyer willing to take this case pro-bono?

Find a lawyer, and file an action in US 4th Circuit Federal Court - Virginia Eastern District. File actions for treason (obvious), terrorism (obvious), kidnapping (AA 77 passengers and crew), murder (same plus Pentagon personnel and employees), theft (AA77), destruction of property (AA77) destruction of government property (Pentagon), destruction of evidence(obvious), whatever.......

Name the following as defendants: George HW Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Cheney, the DOD, Arlington Fire Department, Arlington Police Department......I'm sure a lawyer could tell you what other legitimate charges you could bring, abnd who elss you could name as defendants.

You can't find one hungry lawyer that would take this on for the exposure? Even if it goes nowhere, it will bring even more attention to you cause.

I doubt you can find a lawyer to take this because anyone with the intelligence to get through law school and pass the bar, certainly realizes there is no case here.

You have some nifty theories and claims, and a nice way of making a few extra bucks to support your hobby, but no evidence any lawyer would dream of bringing to court.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
One eyewitness claim is evidence.



Not unless the witness has testified under oath, or submitted a legally executed and witnessed affadavit.



2 independently corroborated accounts become strong evidence.


It's strong only if it's deemed credible by the jury and court. I could swear under oath I saw a purple UFO crash into the pentagon, it would be evidence, but not strong eveidence.


3 independently corroborated accounts is often considered proof beyond a reasonable doubt.


If its credible.


We are up to 10 independent accounts confirming the north side claim while zero report the plane on the south side.

It's been validated to the point of redundancy.

All of these people can be subpoenaed.

It's impossible for them all to be simultaneously and drastically mistaken in the exact same way.



So bring the law suit. So far, it seems like CIT is only interested in threatening legal action against folks who criticise their theories, or question their techinques or motives.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbluesky
 


You have not refuted the evidence.

You are in denial.

This is not a boiling pit that lawyers are willing to jump into for free regardless of the evidence.

Most posters here are well aware of the psychological stranglehold on the public and the world regarding the enormous implications of 9/11 truth and your inane sarcastic badgering does nothing to diminish the legitimacy of the definitive evidence we present.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

This is not a boiling pit that lawyers are willing to jump into for free regardless of the evidence.


Have you tried to find one yet?

From an old thread:



Originally posted by Revelmonk
I can not wait to see it, you are going for the one..two..three knock out with this one.



Graig "We certainly are.

This testimony is so solid that we'll be taking it to the authorities.

But NOT before we make it available for the people first!"


This exchange can be found on page 2 of THIS thread.

From the same thread.....


Craig "I have reason to believe this testimony will be included in a grand jury this year."



Most posters here are well aware of the psychological stranglehold on the public and the world regarding the enormous implications of 9/11 truth


yeah, yeah....never ending war, erosion of personal freedoms, police state, military hegemony...yada yada.


and your inane sarcastic badgering does nothing to diminish the legitimacy of the definitive evidence we present.


Surely not in your opinion, but I'm not trying to change your mind. This thread has been viewed 3700 times so far, so I'm sure there are at least 2 or 3 people out there who haven't yet made up their minds regarding what really happend at the Pentagon on 9/11.

For the record, I don't pretend to know who was behind the Pentagon attack, or why, but IMO it was definitely attacked with an airplane. If your so sure it wasn't, bringing a legal action would give you a great deal more exposure than web forums and XM radio.

I'm trying really hard to figure out what makes you tick. If Michael Moore and the Loose Change guys couldn't arouse public suspicion to the level required to bring justice, what are you hoping to achieve?

OK, I'm done. Let the gov't disinfo agent accusations commence.




[edit on 5/29/2008 by darkbluesky]

[edit on 5/29/2008 by darkbluesky]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   


We are merely reporting what all the witnesses saw and it happens to prove a military deception on 9/11.


YES and they said THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON!
You are not "merely reporting" anything!
YOU HAD AN AGENDA GOING INTO THIS AND YOU KNOW IT!
Please do not cop-out now and say "merely reporting".



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Craig,

How come you can not come up with a flight path that is possible? Reheat at the JREF Forum has shown your theory impossible. He is actually writting a paper over the next couple weeks with mathimatical verification that will once and for all prove that an aircraft could not have done what you and your "witnesses" claim it has.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Craig,

Are you going to address the apparent disconnect between what you said last year when the "Smoking Gun" video came out, and your recent response to me regarding obtaining legal counsel to pursue the 9-11 / Pentagon abnormalities in court?

Last year you were going to take your findings to the authorities, and expected your evidence to be presented to a grand jury.

Now you say you cannot find a lawyer to help you due to the psychological manipulation of the public, or something like that.

So what gives?

Maybe General Stubblebine, or some of the Pilots/Engineers/Architects for 9/11 truth could help you out? Maybe some of these groups could connect with some of the Attorneys for 9/11 truth? Wait...I guess there aren't any attorneys for 9/11 truth. Can that be right?

Hey Attorneys!....A little help?



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky


Last year you were going to take your findings to the authorities, and expected your evidence to be presented to a grand jury.

Now you say you cannot find a lawyer to help you due to the psychological manipulation of the public, or something like that.



Really?

Where are the quotes?

You are misrepresenting my claims.

There is no disconnect.

We have continued our investigation and we will continue to approach authorities and media.

It's not our fault if they refuse to listen but rest assured we will not give up.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

First hand eyewitness testimony most certainly IS evidence that is admissible in any court in the land.

How many times do I have to explain this?

One eyewitness claim is evidence.

2 independently corroborated accounts become strong evidence.

3 independently corroborated accounts is often considered proof beyond a reasonable doubt.


No Craig, it's not. It's just witness testimony.

First of all there has to be a case. You have to prosecute or bring a case against named individuals on specific charge/s.

Then you have to demonstrate to a jury that these charges can be backed up and made to stick. At this point, the defense may bring 20 or 30 witnesses with an opposing version of what happened, and your 10 witnesses would be cross-examined so that the jury may evaluate whether their accounts could be relied on and if they count for anything in the real world. All your witnesses may be completely discredited as unreliable or mistaken, or the jury may decide that other testimony contradicting their version is more reliable and supported by other evidence (in this case the plane wreckage, the FDR, the recovered and identified bodies of the plane passengers and the few personal possessions returned to family members all confirming 77 crashed into The Pentagon that morning - for example).

So it's not up to you to declare what is 'beyond reasonable doubt.' It's for the jury to decide that, at the end of the trial process.

And first of all, you have to have a case. If there is evidence to incriminate specific individuals or a specific organization, then there may be a case. So bring it then.




We are up to 10 independent accounts confirming the north side claim while zero report the plane on the south side.

It's been validated to the point of redundancy.

All of these people can be subpoenaed.


See above: consider the existence opposing evidence and testimony of which you may be aware or at this moment unaware. Consider alternative explanations as to why these 10 witnesses claim they saw what they did. Consider even if you can't conceive of alternative explanations, some expert is going to demonstrate how and why they were mistaken and you're going to have to deal with that in detail. Said expert might even be right. Jury may accept that.


It's impossible for them all to be simultaneously and drastically mistaken in the exact same way.


No it's not. It's happened before, many times. People can be mistaken, and under professional cross-examination may be proved to be so. A jury will decide which testimony to accept and which to reject based on the balance of evidence. If you contend that 77 was not flown into The Pentagon on 9/11 for example, you will be required to demonstrate in court what happened to it and where it is, and to explain how all the identified wreckage got there and who placed it there and why. If you do not prove this to the jury, your case is not going to succeed, as the counter-evidence will be seen as strong and conclusive.


Corroboration is scientific validation.


No, it's corroboration only. It may be contradicted by stronger opposing evidence - see above.


I know it's hard to accept as the implications are astronomical but there is a lot more than this proving the official story false.


Then present it, and bring your case. Against whom, specifically? And are you going to demonstrate in court where F77 is, where the passengers and crew are, and prove it to the jury to the point they will accept it? Otherwise, you have no chance.

None.










posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by bovarcher
 


You keep talking about "stronger evidence" that contradicts what we present yet there is none.

Realize that you have ZERO independent verifiable evidence that the plane was on the south side of the citgo station yet we now have the north side claim corroborated 12 times over.

Stay tuned for a whole new wave of testimony coming soon.


[edit on 11-6-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by bovarcher
 


You keep talking about "stronger evidence" that contradicts what we present yet there is none.

Realize that you have ZERO independent verifiable evidence that the plane was on the south side of the citgo station yet we now have the north side claim corroborated 12 times over.

Stay tuned for a whole new wave of testimony coming soon.


[edit on 11-6-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]


OK maybe so. I merely caution that opposing evidence to your claims may well exist, and you should be prepared for it. There is the aircraft debris, and all the grisly remains, and the identified passenger luggage mostly returned to the relatives. There may be opposing witness testimony of which you are currently unaware. It seems several hundred people saw 77 flying low over Arlington, and many claim to have seen the actual impact. You're going to have to deal with all this, explain it and fit it into your theory.

At the end of the day, in most such cases there are usually a few unresolved contradictions but as you know a jury decides on balance of evidence in a civil case and on 'beyond reasonable doubt' in a criminal case. Either way your theory is going to need a lot more than multiple witness testimony to make it stick. It neeeds to explain the plane, and prove what happened to it, where it went and how the passengers and crew were found dead in the building by rescue workers. Otherwise the witness testimony is of little value.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by bovarcher
 


The fact is that this evidence you speak of in support of the official story has not been presented and therefore it is illogical to simply assume it exists in light of the fact that so much evidence to the contrary HAS been presented.

I know this was a military deception.

I know that the planted liars deliberately stay as ambiguous as possible regarding things like the exact flight path so as not to implicate themselves.

This is why every witness we speak with tells the truth and places the plane where it was....on the north side.

It is unanimous.

There are more of them because this is where the plane flew.

If we get legitimate congressional hearings into 9/11 where the suspect is the government and only independent verifiable evidence is accepted the operation will be exposed.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Admittedly, I haven't looked into Craig's theory all that much. I will say that I think that it is very good that people are not just willing to believe claims and analysis when it comes to 9-11. Demands for hard evidence is crucial, and I applaud all of you for pointing this out.

Unless its the governments side of the story, right guys. I mean, its illegitimate for Craig to withhold his evidence and proves that his theory is bunk, but its just find for our government to do exactly that.

Is it a matter of credibility? Do you think that for some reason Craig has reason not to be trusted (which I don't know maybe that is the case), but the government has high credibility? The government has lied and covered things up time and time again, and even has a motive for causing 9-11, but you will let them slide. I'll say it again, debunking someone like Craig will save no lives, debunking the government could save millions.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join