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's (latest) Theory Pulverized

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by scotty18
Thanks for proving what I said.


I'll do you one better. I'll post all the name calling in this thread and see who is just actually doing it.


Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
9-11 Truth Club:



Originally posted by scotty18
the conspiracy kids



Originally posted by TheBobert
LOL!
Are you 12?



Originally posted by thedman
how come you and your band of conspiracy loons



Originally posted by scotty18
the conspiracy nuts


Now, I dare say. Just who is doing the name calling here? Are you people that blind? Or do you think others are?




posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   


We'd be happy to interview Allan Wallace and Mark Skipper but haven't been able to find them.


Well authors of new book FIREFIGHT were able to as was FIREHOUSE
magazine.

Could it be he doesn't want to be associated with nuts.......



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   
serously bro your wound rather tight.
You were asked to produce math yet you give a flippant answer telling him to go search the forums.
That is acting like a child.
I am sorry if I hurt your feelings.
Recenly Aldo cried and said basically how CIT had done all of the work and other truthers should bring the evidence to the authorities, pathetic.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   
I don't know who this Craig Ranke is, but it's quite apparent that he drives the debunkabots insane!

I'm impressed that he's got his own government hit team. Must be too close to the truth for comfort.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Oh yes!!!!
Any century now he outta be blowing the lid of this!!!!!



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 11:39 PM
link   
You know you guys should really read the forum rules, cause this happens with some of the people here TIME AND TIME AGAIN, as if the RULES here have no meaning. I am willing to listen to the de-bunkers, but make your case without the 'insults' because it makes you guys look really, really bad.

I personally think de-bunkers are good to have around, it helps for many to sharpen their cases and to prevent everything just going off the rails. That is fine, however when the de-bunking is *ALWAYS PERSONAL*, then something is WRONG.





[edit on 12-6-2008 by talisman]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by TheBobert
 


Didn't hurt my feelings. I have no vested interest in CIT other than seeing that Craig does indeed have his own little following around here.

It really shows your (universal you) tactics when you call out childish and then resort to name calling.



[edit on 6/13/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


I'm glad you interviewed who you said you did.

Now, with that out of the way can you provide math that indicates even one of your NoC non-paths are even plausible? After all, you’ve had two years to tackle this issue and haven’t. I wonder why?

Lets talk math. Not argumentative techniques, but math. Would you like me to include a link to an online calculator that you can use to refute the implausibility of your non-paths?



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Yes all three......I mean now two of them. Constitutes a real "team", a regular horde as it were? Now that we have shared insults, care to discuss the math arrived at using CITs own data and information? All that's been done here: using their information and tested their theory as they have presented it.

You're discussing everything other than the math because.......that's all you have. What’s shocking, even to me, is the degree to which truthers will tolerate this kind of nonsense (IMO). Are they defending the math? Of course not, they can’t. What are they doing? Changing the story. Again. You’re willing to follow leaders who make theories up on the fly, demand others prove those same theories are untrue (while never proving they are, in fact true) and when proven incorrect, they just make something else up? This is who you throw your towel in with?

So, in conclusion: we skeptics have used CITs own information and tested that information (never mind the nature of the information - that's not even an issue here) for plausability using the universal truth known as math.

This is something CIT should have done years ago if they were serious "researchers". Instead, they have relied on witnesses more than six years later and that was enough for them.

True to form for the truth club, they did not even test their own theory and have since demanded we do it for them.

So we did.


[edit on 13-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


In reference to the 9-11 truth club thing: that seriously "offends" you? Really?

I call the truth club a truth club because, there is no "movement". IMO, you have a very small, very niche group of people talking back and forth to each other.

Humor me. Go to the Pentacon forums. Count up all the posts made by CIT. Now count up the posts by everyone else. Compare. Again, who's talking to whom?

This idea that the so-called "movement" is anything other than an ultra fringe group is totally disingenuous, IMO. So, IMO, they are more of a club than any sort of movement.

The Civil Rights Movement was a movement. 9-11 so-called truth is no Civil Rights Movement. Seriously now – how many people showed up at Alex Jones’s latest “rally” at ground zero? About a dozen. How did that “9-11 Truth” conference go in Canada? Exactly. There is no “movement” here.

Of course, that’s my opinion, nothing more and we will probably never agree. I don’t use the term truth club as a middle finger to you or anyone else. I use it as a (sigh, again, IMO) much more accurate representation of their numbers. I remind you, as you call others out, it was you who attempted to make my screen name a punch line in three (four?) separate posts without actually knowing where I was coming from.

So, why encourage and engage in what you are claiming you want to stop? However, let me agree with you that the nastiness should stop. I have no beef with CIT as people. Truly, none. I take issue with CIT as an entity and the conclusions it draws. When I talk about CIT, I am going after CITs theories, not them. When I say CIT, I mean the group. The “body” it makes up, not Aldo or Graig.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 08:43 AM
link   
This will be my only warning, stick to the topic of this thread CIT's (latest) Theory Pulverized

All the name calling and petty insults stop now.

Sauron
Forum Moderator



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Of course, that’s my opinion, nothing more and we will probably never agree.


Never say never. As I've said numerous times, I'm probably more on the skeptic's side of things than the truther's. I don't believe it was an inside job other than a retaliation to our policies (which could be construed as us egging the radicals on) and/or let happen like Pearl Harbor was. I don't believe any of our agents had a direct hand in it. Logically, they would have used pansies.


I don’t use the term truth club as a middle finger to you or anyone else. I use it as a (sigh, again, IMO) much more accurate representation of their numbers.


Fair enough. I won't take offense to the term any more.


I remind you, as you call others out, it was you who attempted to make my screen name a punch line in three (four?) separate posts without actually knowing where I was coming from.


Also true. And you're right to call me out on it. I admit (and I admitted it in the thread) it was childish.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by thedman
 


We did interview Sean Boger.

He saw the plane bank on the north side of the citgo:

We'd be happy to interview Allan Wallace and Mark Skipper but haven't been able to find them.

If you know how to reach them let us know.

But we already know they were running for their lives as the plane approached and therefore missed the pull up and flyover.

Allan Wallace describes the plane as "white" which is corroborated by many others we spoke with.

See here:
"Flight 77" The White Plane


We need not remind Craig again that he has failed to produce one single witness on the farside of the Pentagon of seeing AA77 overfly the Pentagon and continue on. Not one. Zero. Craig knows full well why he won't touch the subject matter.

In addition to Craig's failure and outright refusal to interview any of the hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw and/or handled the wreckage from inside the Pentagon, CIT has effectively neutered itself.

Why Ranke, Marquis, and Balsmao want to ruin their credibility in the real world is the only mystery there is here.

More from Reheat:
forums.randi.org...



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 




Whilst at first I appear to support the point of this thread, the turn that is being referenced hasn't (to the best of my knowledge) ever been suggested to have occurred where the map in the link suggests a turn occurred.


Do you "get" the point that the plane must execute that turn (or one very close to that magnitude) for any of the non-flight paths to even be in the realm of possible? That’s the whole point.

CIT is in a total "Catch 22".

They have exactly two (2) choices:
1) Admit the math is correct (which it is) and thereby admit the physical impossibility of their claimed flight paths -or-
2) Begin to discredit their own witnesses as being 'mistaken' as to the planes' location and thereby discredit the theory they have insisted as being proven fact for two years. Their theory was originally based on nothing more than fantasy and more recently on these witnesses. These witnesses are the sum-total of CIT's 'evidence'. Either the universal language of math is wrong, or their witnesses are. It's that simple.

That's the point. They are wrong, either way. They, CIT, have boxed themselves into this situation. The entire no-plane/wrong-plane fraud is being exposed for exactly that. The tap dancing is indicative of having nothing else. Keep in mind, they have refused to even suggest a flight path for two years. Why? Because they knew full well that if anyone bothered to check the math, their theory(s) would be exposed as an impossible fraud. CIT is well aware their very own witnesses fatally contradict each other and has avoided suggesting a flight path because they just cant reconcile what their witnesses say/have said versus the physics involved.

After more than six years CIT has managed to produce just four witnesses, three of whom think the plane hit the Pentagon. Did you catch that? Three out of the four witnesses they are able to produce, don’t agree with CITs own conclusions!

We are talking actual science; which uses, you guessed it, math. CIT has avoided the math for years because they know when forced to operate within the universal truth of math all the argumentative techniques, personal character assassinations, innuendo, NWO nonsense, Maya presentations and Alex Jone's mighty bullhorn mean exactly squat.

And here we are.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Thanks for that, I missed that the first time and I wouldn't have mentioned it if I had known. My bad, my scincere apologies.

I'm not the kind of guy to re-hash old news, so to speak.

Thanks!



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


No problem. I'm not up on the CIT theories. I'd actually like to see some math also.

jthomas:

Actually, that's a good question. Why haven't they interviewed people from behind the building that would have seen a fly-over?

I actually have met people (usually building engineers) who claim to have seen the plane hit the building from their viewpoint. It's usually when I'm on a roof of a building and I notice there's a good view, I'll ask the engineer if they saw 9/11 happen. Some have said yes and they watched the plane fly into the building. So, I'm definately not a no-planer when it comes to the pentagon.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Craig began his "investigation" with the belief that 9-11 was an inside job.
This alone taints his entire "investigation".



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBobert
Craig began his "investigation" with the belief that 9-11 was an inside job.
This alone taints his entire "investigation".


The 9/11 Commission, FEMA, NIST, ASCE, Silverstein reports were "investigated" with the belief that "9/11 was not an inside job". Does this also taint their "investigations"?



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Please elaborate on how their investigations were tainted then .
Proof, evidence?
Do you agree with the CIT that DNA was planted at the Pentagon?
Please elaborate on Silverstein.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by TheBobert]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TheBobert
 



Hmm. You claim that CIT's investigation was tainted because they started with a theory.

Yet, you want me to prove that all the others weren't because they started with a theory?

The hypocrisy of you people is almost funny if it weren't for everything that has happened on and after 9/11.

Try and see things from both sides of the fence. It actually opens your eyes to the hypocrisy used by the likes of you.




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join