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: 8
4
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Hmm... you wanted Math... I think my post in response to that (that curiously got ignored) is on Page 1 of this thread.




posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

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


Actually, you have run away from every rational question posed to you, Ranke. How many times over the last two years have you been asked to present the hundreds of eyewitness statements? How many times have you been asked to demonstrate that AA77 fly over and beyond the Pentagon? You know how many times you have run away screaming from having to answer those questions. When do you actually intend to deal with the evidence rather than insult everyone's intelligence here?

How along to you intend to continue being intellectually dishonest, Ranke? What do you hope to achieve by insulting the families of the victims of the AA77 crash into the Pentagon?



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Hmm... you wanted Math... I think my post in response to that (that curiously got ignored) is on Page 1 of this thread.


Amazing how that happens eh? But we now have umpteen pages of bickering and semantic games.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


And the answer to your math, from me, followed shortly.

I have not ignored you or anyone else. I am ignoring some of the mini-threads that have popped up within the main post because they have nothing to do with the content of my origonal post.

I case you have trouble finding my reply (no snit, honestly) the basic response I had for you is thus:

It doesn't matter where the plane "turns". That's totally irrelevant. What's important is this: if CITs witnesses are correct, and the plane flew over (not into) the Pentagon...............the airframe would have to be capable of executing maneuvers our current top of the line fighters can not.

When you apply the universal truth and language of math to the very best CIT "evidence" we are left with just two possibilities:

1) The math is wrong
2) CIT remains wrong on all counts: incorrect witnesses/incorrect theory/incorrect location(s)


So, we have the very best witnesses CIT can muster, numbering a grand total of four, three of whom disagree with CITs own conclusions, more than six years later, recounting physical positions of the aircraft that are a mathematical impossibility. It's not me saying it. It's not the mathematician saying it. It's not an argumentative technique. It's not he-said she said. No spin was applied concerning their witnesses: their words, out of their mouths as publicly presented by CIT themselves. The math says they are wrong and that’s bad news for CIT.

CIT is now claiming they didn’t mean what they said and it’s all a big misunderstanding. CIT presented and defended these witnesses as proving their case. Well, up until about 72 hours ago. If the gang who cant shoot (film in this case) straight can’t accurately represent their own witnesses – the ones they claim “prove” their theory – how on earth do you truthers take them seriously? This is a valid question, considering the circumstances!

CIT is now trying, IMO, to re-interpret what their witnesses said, throwing others under the bus and now trying to distance themselves from the truth of math. Look, there is dam good reason why CIT has NEVER attempted to address this issue. It’s curious that a two-man team as dedicated as CIT claims to be in their “investigation” would allow such an obvious avenue of research (into the validity of their own claims) go unaddressed is it not? How can the truth club look to CIT for leadership when glaring flaws in their conclusions are simply ignored until someone else does the obvious for them and the response is (yet again) a new permutation of the ever changing, ever evolving ‘theory’?

This is critical the theory isn’t evolving through careful, scientifically founded conclusions based on an ever widening body of knowledge. It’s evolving because CIT continues to get hammered with the facts and others continue to do the science (in this case math) they refuse to do. That’s not an investigative team after the truth. That’s a propaganda team interested in themselves.

I encourage you to find my previous post as it’s better written and more complete (in this very thread) when I addressed your concerns.


[edit on 16-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Checking back in: I see the predictions in the OP were (basically) right on the mark.

Thanks for the discussions of nuttery that have nothing to do with the math presented. Again, argumentative techniques only delude yourself and waste time. If you want to start a real gem of a thread concerning how sunflower seeds were used to topple the WTCs through excessive salt - please do so. But, do it elsewhere.

This thread is about CIT and the math applied to the no plane/wrong plane nonsense.

But thanks for the additions to the thread - it's very interesting so far and kudos to everyone who has chimed in.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


You realize we are talking about the Pentagon, right?

(To answer your question: show me another example of two 110 ton planes flying into skyscrapers at 500+ MPH. That's one of the oldest straw men used by the truth club. That is, it's never happened like this before and therefore, impossible. For example, If I claimed no hurricane has ever caused the kind of damage to central Florida that hurricane Andrew did because those specific set of variables never occurred before, does that mean we were all fooled and the damage was impossible? Of course not, but that’s the argument you’re using)



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
how on earth do you truthers take them seriously? This is a valid question, considering the circumstances!


Well this "truther" said way back on page two:


Originally posted by Griff
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.


But then, I got bombarded with off topic posts asking me if I thought it was an inside job, the DNA was planted etc., etc.

It was not the 'truthers' who steered this thread away from topic to begin with. And I can show you just where the thread got pulled off topic. Page 2 post 16. Well, disregarding the first page full of name calling by the skeptics that is.

You may want to scold your side of the fence too before you look hypocritical and applying favortism.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Griff, I am not arguing with you.

Perhaps a better way of saying what you objected to might be this: there are bad actors (calling names, etc) all around. There is no doubt about that. Anyone can see this bad behavior in this very thread.

I think, perhaps, the absolute, biggest failure of the truth club is their inability to separate their personal, political leanings from the pursuit of truth. There is no “official story”, quite literally. There are numerous studies, findings of fact, investigations, witness testimony (I could go on for pages, but you get my drift) etc, that form a preponderance of evidence. We skeptics are only invested in the truth. We, as skeptics, don't have a group-think concerning politics. I am not a "government guy". I think it undeniable that the truth club does indeed have a strong, strong political tone to it.

The simple fact is, the truth club has engaged in partisan politics under the wrappings of 9-11 “truth” for more than six years. They, the larger collection of people, engage in “us versus them” mentality because that's how they see the world. Truther web sites are positively overflowing with political ramblings and, frankly, a fair amount of hate speech that has absolutely nothing to do with evidence. But, that's the thing. To them it is evidence.

Truthers know in their heart of hearts that 9-11 was an inside job and those that dialog honestly will admit they really don't care what the evidence says because they know the “real” story. You're either an enlightened truther, or your a government spook of some kind.

We skeptics aren't thinking like that. We aren't a collective siege mentality. We are a collective of like minds that honestly evaluate the evidence and look for answers. Truthers decide on outcomes and look for evidence to support their pre-drawn conclusions.

This is exactly what has happened with CIT, IMO. The constant writhing under the glaring lights of criticism is because they aren't looking at the evidence and following it to it's conclusion(s). They decided what happened and have been looking for evidence of this forgone conclusion for years and years. The problem is, the evidence doesn't in any way support the notion(s) of CIT. But they keep saying it does in spite of the too-easy to highlight, massive contradictions in their own witnesses, the mathematical implausibility of their suggested flight paths, the thousands of first responders who cleaned up the aftermath, the flight data recorders, the FAA radar tapes, the phone calls from the actual plane in question, absolutely no evidence of a fly over from the Double Tree security tape, not a single witness who saw the plane fly over, the dead bodies of the passengers recovered inside the Pentagon and on and on and on the real evidence chain goes. However, CIT ignores this real evidence in favor of recounted witness testimony more than six years later. That's it. That's the sum total of the no plane/wrong plane nonsense.

That's not science. That's propaganda. The so-called truth movement is interested in neither 9-11 or the truth. Honest to goodness, I believe the so-called truth “movement” to be the biggest oxymoron ever.

The truth club has failed on an epic scale and continues to do so. From my perspective the only question is just how far the club is willing to go into la-la land. We've already “theories” that include holograms, mini nukes, space based weapons platforms, focused sun beams and lots and lots of G-men planting explosives, executing thousands of witnesses and doppler sound machines.

I can't wait to see what kookiness the next seven years brings. One thing is for sure: it will be comedy gold.

[edit on 16-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
I think it undeniable that the truth club does indeed have a strong, strong political tone to it.


Maybe some do. I don't. I VOTED FOR GWB.

If I was a political activist, do you think I would admit that?

Enough said. This "truther" is searching for the truth. And any evidence that I can find that contradicts my views, I am totally willing to accept.

Hence why I feel Flight 77 hit the pentagon. I have spoken to at least 3 building engineers who claim that they saw it. I believe them because I have stood where they say they were standing at the time and saw that they had a clear view of it..

I also know a woman who was on the parkway that day. Same thing. Claims she saw the plane hit. I believe her.

[edit on 6/16/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


I did see your response. Sorry if it seemed directed at you, but I meant it generally, that it seemed it was being ignored.

I'm intrigued as to where these turns came from. The drawing I'm thinking of didn't look like the one to which the OP refers.

One point I'd like to raise is that was the jet flying as fast as people think? The FDR suggests 350 kts...but was it really?



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Well, nevermind. I guess we're being off topic.

I guess back to bashing CIT then?

I'm done in this thread since joking around with each other is considered an ill mannered post?

Yet some are getting away with calling us loons and liars?

Question to the gungho mods:

Why is this allowed yet Seymour and I can't even joke with other?



Hey Craig - how come you and your band of conspiracy loons


[edit on 6/16/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 6/16/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 6/16/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


If you want to joke with members take to BTS, I warned this thread back on page two not to mention other Moderators reminders.

I hope you all understand and this is not directed to any members in particular, Off topic posts will be removed.

Also to point out what it says at the topic of every 911 thread.


This forum is dedicated to the discussion and speculation of cover-ups, scandals, and other conspiracies surrounding the events of 9/11/2001. Participants should be aware that this forum is under close staff scrutiny due to general rudeness by some. Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups. Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of focusing on conspiracy theory, cover-ups, and scandals.


So please stick to the topic, or do not post!



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


One of the best posts I have seen to date. I have been on vacation for a week and just read the 8 pages on this CIT pulverization.

Craig as usual attempted to use his limited debating skills to cover his flaws. And as usual dodges the reality of his theory.

CIT works with Pilots for 911 Truth and to date, the "pilots" there have not been able to come up with a flight plan by the now 12 witnesses that would be aeronautically plausible!

Why?



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


Well, I guess it depends on if you think the FDR was tampered with in some form? I'll be honest and tell you I don't recall the physical location of the lab that inspected the FDR post-mortem. I do know it's public record and all those involved in it's assessment are known.

So, I guess it boils down to:

(1) Yet another conspiracy with the FDR being tampered with
- OR –
(2) The plane was traveling at 350 KIAS +, with the throttles in the full forward position, etc as indicated by the FDR.

But here's the thing: for the sake of discussion, you can utterly eliminate the speed, heading, witnesses who saw the plane impact........everything before impact and CIT still can't figure out a way to make the aircraft wreckage IN the Pentagon go away.

Do you know what CIT claims - with a straight face - explains the obvious plane wreckage IN the building (bodies, engines, landing gear, structural pieces, fuel damage, etc) and the damage path leading to the building (light poles, damaged cars, witnesses from the Pentagon Fire Department who ran away from their truck because they thought the plane was going to hit the truck)?

It was all planted ahead of time and nobody noticed. The first-hand, as it happened eye witnesses were all mistaken......it's even been suggested they were duped because of a "psy op".

I wish I was kidding.

[edit on 17-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Self edited:
started a new topic...nothing like derailing your own thread!

[edit on 17-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join