CIT's (latest) Theory Pulverized

Originally posted by Griff

I know this off topic but: THE STRUCTURAL DOCUMENTATION OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER!!!!!!!

Got it now?

OT indeed.

This isn't the case for the Pentagon, I believe, so why go there?

Why not compartmentalize, and take each of the 4 cases to either bolster or lessen the OCT? (humoring you there )

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


uhmm... 2 points

1. show me any, ANY, evidence, written, photo, video, that shows a "straight down and as fast" collapse of a steel and concrete high rise by fire.

2. all steel and concrete high rises in the history of buildings being brought down in the manner of the 3 buildings of the WTC, were from controlled demolitions. and there are hundreds of video clips throughout the world that show this exact thing happening

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
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.

I don't know why it's allowed on here. As I've called for once, and I'll call for again:

Can we have a 9/11 forum where if you post, you have to back it up? I mean, for a forum that is suppossedly the most watched forum, there sure is a lot of vitriol let go IMO.

Edit: Im not saying I'm innocent in the vitriol myself.

[edit on 6/14/2008 by Griff]

if you say, "the color of the sky is pink"
and i say, "of course not, the color is blue"

would you then say to me?, " back up what your saying with evidence before you even post"

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Hardly, the C-130 never came down to low altitude.

So to think that it was confused with the 757 doesn't pass the smell test.

There are many witnesses to the C-130. Plus, the pilot said he was 1.5 to 2 miles behind Flight 77 and had him in his sites. That seems like a low altitude to me. No?

Since no one will take a "truther" site as true....ahem...bobart.

Here's a "debunker" site that says 11 people witnessed it.

It has been seen by at least 11 witnesses and it was later confirmed by the Pentagon and the 9/11 commission that this plane was present. It flew over the Pentagon and to the north-west about 30 seconds after the crash. It came from Andrews AFB and was on it's way to Minnesota, to the north-west. A C-130 is much slower than an airliner, but because it was the only plane in the neighborhood, it was sent to check on the inbound flight 77.

www.pehi.eu...

How about the 9/11 commission?

Finally, The 9/11 Commission Report states that on September 11, air traffic controllers at Washington's Reagan National Airport instructed a C-130H cargo plane that had just taken off from the airport to try to follow the plane that had been spotted on radar as heading toward Washington. According to the report, "The C-130H pilot spotted it, identified it as a Boeing 757, attempted to follow its path, and at 9:39, seconds after impact, reported to the control tower: ‘looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.'"

usinfo.state.gov...

Sounds like it came down to low altitude to me.

[edit on 6/15/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by jimmyx
if you say, "the color of the sky is pink"
and i say, "of course not, the color is blue"

would you then say to me?, " back up what your saying with evidence before you even post"

How about a picture of the blue sky?

Originally posted by Griff

Sounds like it came down to low altitude to me.

Does it?

Where does it say that they descended down to < 200' ?

All it says is that they followed 77. Nobody is disputing that.

But to think that the witnesses would confuse the 2 doesn't follow any logical course of thinking, IMHO.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by Griff

A question Seymour:

What do think of the C-130 that was trailing Flight 77? Do you think this may be the cause of some confusion?

Hardly, the C-130 never came down to low altitude.

So to think that it was confused with the 757 doesn't pass the smell test.

Butz,

It's clear you don't understand our claims in this regard.

We KNOW the C-130 didn't come in until later and was at a higher altitude in fact the pilot himself claims he was so far away that he could not even tell the explosion was coming from the Pentagon at first! We are the ones who proved this.

We never said it was meant to fool live witnesses into thinking it was "flight 77"!

What sense would that make?

What we are saying is they deliberately blended REPORTS of the real C-130 later to make it SEEM like it flew away from the building IMMEDIATELY after the explosion even though this is not true. They did this as ambiguous cover for the flyover after the fact.

Why do you suppose Keith Wheelhouse was reported saying this:


Do you believe him?

If not what are the implications of him saying this and the news reports that were published in the Daily Press days after the event of him saying this?

Please continue this discussion in the appropriate thread:

The 2nd Plane Cover Story

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
But to think that the witnesses would confuse the 2 doesn't follow any logical course of thinking, IMHO.

Really? A lot of people witnessed this plane. And you're saying it's completely impossible that this plane could have been confused with Flight 77?

BTW, I'm actually agreeing with the "skeptics" on this thread. Funny how you all are arguing with me no matter what I say just because of my views about other things. Really shows how biased people are.

www.veoh.com...

[edit on 6/15/2008 by Griff]

LOL Griff that is really mature that you took my handle and rearranged it to insult me.
I did stuff like that when I was 12.
You call yourself a structural engineer?
Suuuuuuure

reply to post by Griff


Even Craig says that it would be foolish to think that the C-130 could be confused with the live witnesses to think it was 77.

So who's doing the argueing again? If I recall it right, the post that you responded to in the first place wasn't directed at you. So it seems like you're following me around.

Pot, meet kettle.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Craig, don't take this personally, but those that you are loosely associated with have threatened others with violence - Mark Roberts for 1. Maybe that was Rob, I don't remember exactly. But I'm also sure that I've read things about Aldo that's along the same lines.

So I won't be making any visits to your other thread. If you can't make your points rationally and answer simple questions like the math that reheat has done for you...... then you're not worth my time.

Originally posted by TheBobert
LOL Griff that is really mature that you took my handle and rearranged it to insult me.
I did stuff like that when I was 12.
You call yourself a structural engineer?
Suuuuuuure

Actually, I mispelled it. It had nothing to do with trying to insult you. Maybe some thicker skin would work?

I'm not the only one that calls myself a civil engineer (nowhere have I called myself a structural engineer in this thread..I said I'm a civil engineer with emphasis on structures). My boss does. The District of Columbia also does. Oh, and my degree also does.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Even Craig says that it would be foolish to think that the C-130 could be confused with the live witnesses to think it was 77.

So, you guys take Craig's word for it when it suits your need, but call him biased in everything else? Again. Telling.

Originally posted by Griff

So, you guys take Craig's word for it when it suits your need, but call him biased in everything else? Again. Telling.

No, what that means is that even Craig can't come to the point of trying to push what you were asking. Rather than admitting that your question wasn't very smart, now that you know this, you continue to argue pointlessly.

Funny that you can't see that. Very telling indeed

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
No, what that means is that even Craig can't come to the point of trying to push what you were asking. Rather than admitting that your question wasn't very smart, now that you know this, you continue to argue pointlessly.

Funny that you can't see that. Very telling indeed

What I can't see is how a plane following a plane can't be brought into the mix of confusion.

But, as far as I'm aware, the C-130 was asked to follow Flight 77's flight path. Obviously not to the pentagon but to follow it. Why can't people get confused? I thought the whole premise of the "skeptics" was "fog of war" to dispell anything brought up. Why can't this apply here?

reply to post by Griff


However that is not even what I said.

Butz is simply twisting my words perhaps for deliberate confusion or perhaps because he is genuinely confused but either way he has conveniently chosen to skirt the issue apparently based on some completely irrelevant false claims about other people.




It is important though so you should saunter on over there and let me know if you have any questions about the 2nd plane cover story.

But relevant to this thread.....what is it that you agree with the "skeptics" on?

You don't really think it's impossible to fly a plane north of the citgo do you?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
No, what that means is that even Craig can't come to the point of trying to push what you were asking. Rather than admitting that your question wasn't very smart, now that you know this, you continue to argue pointlessly.

Funny that you can't see that. Very telling indeed

What I can't see is how a plane following a plane can't be brought into the mix of confusion.

But, as far as I'm aware, the C-130 was asked to follow Flight 77's flight path. Obviously not to the pentagon but to follow it. Why can't people get confused? I thought the whole premise of the "skeptics" was "fog of war" to dispell anything brought up. Why can't this apply here?

Rather than admitting that your question wasn't very smart, now that you know this, you continue to argue pointlessly.

Funny that you can't see that. Very telling indeed

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Craig, don't take this personally, but those that you are loosely associated with have threatened others with violence - Mark Roberts for 1. Maybe that was Rob, I don't remember exactly. But I'm also sure that I've read things about Aldo that's along the same lines.

Then why would you engage me at all?

Not that your baseless accusations are true but I fail to see why you would use this as a reason to engage me regarding one topic and not another.

Sounds like an excuse to me.

So I won't be making any visits to your other thread. If you can't make your points rationally and answer simple questions like the math that reheat has done for you...... then you're not worth my time.

I have been nothing but rational and I have already made my point loud and clear.

The question was answered in my first post of this thread.

Reheat's calculations have nothing to do with what the witnesses saw.

Anyone can make up calculations with impossible results and falsely attribute them to others.

But this does not refute evidence.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Anyone can make up calculations

And yet, we see nothing from y'all.

Good bye

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

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

As yet, you've presented nothing credible.

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

There are no witnesses you have presented who saw it overfly the Pentagon and beyond it. None. Zero

The north side evidence has nothing to do with CIT.

Because CIT has no evidence.

We simply uncovered it.

When you were asked for it, you refused to present any, Ranke. Why are you so afraid to present the eyewitness statements?