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: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   




Dude you just linked to a truther website yet you claim you are a skeptic.
LOL ya that site you linked to sure does seem reliable.
LMAO!




posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBobert
Dude you just linked to a truther website yet you claim you are a skeptic.
LOL ya that site you linked to sure does seem reliable.
LMAO!


I guess you didn't notice that pretty much every single sentence was cited?

But, is this better for you? It's the actual 9/11 Commission Report. Are you going to call them liars now?


The C-130H pilot spotted it, identified it as a Boeing 757, attempted to follow it's path, and at 9:38, seconds after impact, reported to the control tower: "Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon sir."


govinfo.library.unt.edu...

For someone who is so sure of himself, it looks like you could use a little more research. Eh?



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   
LOL!
So why do you lie and say you are a skeptic when you are a truther?
Can you provide that link to Silverstein?

[edit on 14-6-2008 by TheBobert]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBobert
So why do you lie and say you are a skeptic when you are a truther?


Truther? Why does searching for the truth scare you so much?


Can you provide that link to Silverstein?


What link to Silverstein are you looking for? The only thing I mentioned about Silverstein was his agencie's report. I can't find it online. I've already said this, yet you keep harping away.

What do you want me to prove is false about a report I can't even find? If you can find it, I'd be happy to discuss it.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBobert
Dude


I am not "dude". I am a Professional Engineer. Civil to be exact with an emphasis on structural.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   
LOL I am sure you are!



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
reply to post by TheBobert
 


So you are a former member of CIT???? Former truther turned debunker??



Since Bobert's former personal association with me is being used as a method to cast doubt on me personally in this thread the following details are relevant and need to be addressed.

I have a great job working for a great company and have been there 6 years.

Our department is full of a bunch of awesome people who get along perfectly.

It's like a family as we constantly talk about our personal lives with each other because we are interested and we care about each other.

We party together after work and everything.

Bobert was hired to be part of our team and had personal issues with each and every member. Nobody could stand him and he is still a legend in our company as that guy that nobody could work with.

He was only with us for about a year and was eventually fired for harassing me about my views on 9/11.

My CIT partner Aldo was hired to take his place.

So it worked out really well for us as now Aldo and I work in the same office making it very convenient to stay in constant communication regarding our 9/11 research.

It's been well over a year since Bobert was fired but he still continues to harass me regarding 9/11 on a virtual daily basis.

He was even banned here once for signing up to post my personal contact information in hopes that others would harass me at work.

The board owners know this but are giving him a second chance since it's been over a year.

Bobert has even posted my work contact information on craigslist.

I'm not sure why he is so obsessed with me even though he thinks I am a kook.

It's just the way it is.

If Bobert's prior personal connection with me wasn't used against me I would not be discussing any of this but since of course it is I have no choice but to set the record straight.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Now in regards to the claim that I entered the investigation believing 9/11 was an inside job........I'll admit that it absolutely true.

Why would I bother dedicating all the time, money, and energy to investigate it if I didn't?

Investigators don't pursue suspects because they think they are innocent!

You HAVE to have a suspect to begin an investigation to try and find evidence to confirm or refute guilt.

That's how it always works.

We suspected foul play in regards to 9/11, got sick of theorizing online, and went there to find out what type of evidence we could turn up.

It's not our fault that the evidence proves 9/11 was an inside job.

Don't blame us for the fact that all the witnesses saw the plane on the north side because that is where it flew.

The north side evidence has nothing to do with CIT.

We simply uncovered it.





[edit on 14-6-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBobert
LOL I am sure you are!


I care not what you think of me. I have earned my right to the respect of my profession. Nothing you or anyone can say on some internet board will ever affect that. Good day to you. Like I said to jthomas, I am done with fools and trolls.

Edit: If you care: I'm willing to scan my PE license, my degree, my transcripts and anything else to prove who I say I am and send it to a mod to verify.

[edit on 6/14/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   
You dont need to do that because I dont believe a word you are saying.
You lie about being a skeptic when you are a truther.
Why would you lie about this?
I dont beleive a word you type just your pal Craig.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBobert
You dont need to do that because I dont believe a word you are saying.


You don't want me to do this because you know I'll prove who I say I am.


You lie about being a skeptic when you are a truther.


Skeptic, truther. Should these not be the same?


Why would you lie about this?


I have not lied about anything. Just because you are having difficulty focusing, doesn't mean I'm lying.


I dont beleive a word you type just your pal Craig.


I don't even know Craig. You are too funny. I can see how you got fired from your job.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
In regards to demanding "math" to represent the eyewitness testimony....that is plain old silly.

Math is perfectly precise.

Eyewitnesses are not.

No eyewitness can be relied on to accurately relay specific aeronautic details such as exact speed, exact bank angle, exact heading etc.

These are pertinent values required for these calculations that Reheat simply made up.

He is doing noting but fabricating values and creating a flight path that neither CIT nor any of the eyewitnesses asserted in order to proclaim "impossible"!

It is a text book straw man argument.

It is not impossible for a plane to fly on the north side of the citgo station.

This entire notion is absurd.

Faulty logic does not refute confirmed and corroborated evidence.

When you guys see the latest witness interviews we have your jaws will drop.

Reheat will look silly beyond belief.

They saw and describe the bank perfectly.

While we originally presented 4 north side witnesses in The PentaCon we are now up to 12!

EVERYONE saw the plane in the same place.

It will be impossible for the pseudoskeptics to continue to deny and remain intellectually honest.

You'll all see very soon.





[edit on 14-6-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Here is another inherent and fatal contradiction in Reheat's claims:


The entire basis for Reheat's argument completely relies on the eyewitness testimony that he is simultaneously trying to prove is completely bogus.

If the plane was in a drastically different place from where all the witnesses unanimously place it then how can you rely on the same eyewitnesses for degree of bank, heading, and speed? Clearly these details are much more difficult details to tell in comparison to general placement of the plane.

It's a clear contradiction showing a blatant confirmation bias on the part of the pseudoskeptics.

How can Reheat accept Terry Morin's "parallel" claim when he has to assert that Morin hallucinated the plane directly over him instead of across the street on the south side of Columbia Pike as shown in the NTSB data and required by the physical damage?

We acknowledge that no eyewitness is completely accurate.

Most will make mistakes, deduce, or embellish.

Investigators know that you determine what claims are accurate by the ones that become independently corroborated the most.

It's basic logic and standard common sense.




Reheat is basically requiring the witnesses to be perfectly accurate and 100% literally correct when discussing the difficult if not impossible to tell aeronautic details regarding the north side flight path but he is perfectly fine to accept that all are ridiculously incorrect in relation to the official story and the very easy to tell general placement of the plane in relation to the property they were standing!

It's a classic double standard wrapped up in a text book straw man.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Craig,
Nice job lying and manipulating your own "evidence"
You are geting caught quite a bit lately, eh?
z3.invisionfree.com...
forums.randi.org...
A little damge control needed in Aisle 3 of the CIT treefort.
It seems that Sean Boger may not have granted CIT permission to be recorded:
forums.randi.org...
Have you been able to furnish any EVIDENCE for that planted DNA at the pentagon Craig?
Math doenst lie and your extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
So far you have provided the extraordinary claims part but not the extraordinary evidence part.
Maybe you should have written this as fiction, it probably would have been a Best Seller.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by TheBobert]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
TheBobert has made no relevant points and I will not address him direct.

There are no issues with any of the evidence.

All of the witnesses stand by their north side claim and we most certainly do have permission to use Boger's account.

Out of 13 confirmed north side witness interviews only 2 declined to give us permission to record and use their testimony but Boger isn't one of them.

So feel free to call it 11 north side witnesses but we know what the other two told us and we will call for them to be subpoenaed when the time comes because their testimony corroborates everyone else proving the plane was on the north side.

Nobody places the plane on the south side because that is not where it flew and no fabricated calculations can change this fact.

It's not our fault and it's not the witnesses fault either.

It's simply what happened on 9/11.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
There certainly is issues with your evidence!
You have been caught manipulating your own evidence!
2 of your star witnesses have been called and 1 has told you to take their images and voice or video off of your website.
Another claims to not remember that you even recorded him!
2 calls to 2 of your witnesses and both result in shedding light on suspicious activity by the CIT.
I wonder what would happen if more of your "witnesses" were to be contacted?
You and Aldo both continue to say that your witnesses testimony can be subpoenaed.
You both continue to brag about trials and juries.
When are these going to begin?
When is your much promised Researchers Edition going to be released?
Did you find that evidence yet that the DNA was planted?
Did you find that evidence yet that flight 77 was remote piloted?



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   
If contributing to this thread, please address the topic.. not one another.

CIT's (latest) Theory Pulverized



 
 


This whole subject typically lacks civility and decorum because the whole process is consumed with labels such as "truther" and "skeptic" that trump any discussion that could prevail.

On ATS, we strive to be better.

If there are any issues with the postings of any member, please submit a complaint for the staff to deal with. "He started it" is not a viable excuse.

Thank you.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   
TheBobert is of course straight up lying about us "manipulating evidence" which is why he didn't even bother to cite how.

None of the witnesses have said that we misrepresented their testimony or that they did not see the plane on the north side.

One witness asked us to remove his picture from our website so we did.

He stands by his north side claim.

That is the only thing that TheBobert could possibly be referring to and how he could libelously translate that to us "manipulating evidence" I do not know.

A big part of the strength in what we claim is that it is verifiable with the witnesses.

They keep us honest.

The fact that a pseudoskeptic made an effort to contact 2 of them and they did NOT deny the north side claim speaks volumes.




top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join