Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
But when we got USA Today editor Joel Sucherman in the CIT hot seat we got him to nail down exactly when he allegedly saw the C-130 after the explosion. He told us "3 to 5 seconds"!

...

It is not logical to suggest such high profile "credible" alleged witnesses could mistake it as "shadowing" or coming in "3 to 5 seconds" later and "veering away" immediately after the explosion when the Tribby video, the pilot himself, and all the other witnesses completely contradict them.

And here you are lying about Sucherman yet again!

Sucherman did not say the C-130 came in "3 to 5 second later", he said that 3 to 5 seconds after the impact he noticed another plane, in the distance off to the west, at altitude.

Do you need me to produce a transcript of the interview that you yourself conducted where he told you this in person?

Your mistake has been pointed out to you many, many times. That you continue to make the same mistake time and time and time again to me is absolute proof that you are deliberately and intentionally distorting Joel Sucherman's account because you recognise the threat he represents as a SoC and impact witness.

...... continued:

"(.......)

Thus, all warfare is rooted in Darkness and is brought about by the mutual intolerance of the various nations, which in turn can be attributed to the lust for power of the leaders and the rulers. If the human will for evil thus calls forth fighting and destruction and a war begins, the nation that initiates the hostilities must bear the responsibility for the war of aggression as well as for the war of defence forced upon the other nation and its allies, regardless of the forms that the war may take. And so long as the attacked nation limits itself to the defence of its country, of its rights, the aggressor will continue to be in the wrong. But the moment the defender extends the hostilities to the territory of the aggressor in order to attack rather than to defend, both sides must share the responsibility for whatever takes place from the moment the border into enemy territory is crossed. (The same laws apply if the battles are fought at sea or in the air).
The victory or defeat of the warring parties can in no way be attributed to God. Never does He take part in the hostilities, neither on the side of the aggressor nor on the side of the defender. Only prayers for help to restore peace will be heard by God, but His many and persistent attempts to speak to the leaders as their "conscience" are in most cases rejected.
The victorious party defeats its adversary by virtue of numerical or strategic superiority or the like, or because of the people's common hatred of the enemy and the people's common will to win; but victory is never gained with the help of God.
Any person - civilian or military - who praises, defends and glorifies war in writing or in speech, instead of evoking aversion to this deed of Darkness and enlightening his fellow human beings on the degradation and brutishness of war, is himself placing a heavy burden of responsibility on his shoulders and must, having ended his earthly life, render a detailed account to God of the motivations for his actions.
Even though human beings wage war among themselves, and even though God does not hear their prayers for victory, He never loses sight of them, but seeks either directly or through the disincarnated Youngest to awaken remorse among the leaders, just as He tries in many ways to instil in them an awareness of the injustice and the abuse of power of which they are guilty, so as to bring about a pact of peace before one of the parties succumbs to the superior force; but in the vast majority of cases also these attempts are rejected by human beings.
(.......)"


Whether you believe in a spiritual world or not, is not of any importance here at all.

What is important, exclusively, is whether the messages here given above are attractive to you, or whether they repulse you!

Either way, that would say much about your person.

So lets hear, or not hear, your response please!



[edit on 3-9-2008 by djeminy]

Hi discombobulator

you wrote:

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
But when we got USA Today editor Joel Sucherman in the CIT hot seat we got him to nail down exactly when he allegedly saw the C-130 after the explosion. He told us "3 to 5 seconds"!

...

It is not logical to suggest such high profile "credible" alleged witnesses could mistake it as "shadowing" or coming in "3 to 5 seconds" later and "veering away" immediately after the explosion when the Tribby video, the pilot himself, and all the other witnesses completely contradict them.

And here you are lying about Sucherman yet again!

Sucherman did not say the C-130 came in "3 to 5 second later", he said that 3 to 5 seconds after the impact he noticed another plane, in the distance off to the west, at altitude.

Do you need me to produce a transcript of the interview that you yourself conducted where he told you this in person?

Your mistake has been pointed out to you many, many times. That you continue to make the same mistake time and time and time again to me is absolute proof that you are deliberately and intentionally distorting Joel Sucherman's account because you recognise the threat he represents as a SoC and impact witness.

Have just looked again at the interview and it looks as if in fact it,s you yourself who is the one doing the lying!

Sucherman doesn't mention anything about "altitude". In fact he 'couldn't say', when asked about this!

He is further saying that the plane 'veered off in a fairly steep trajectory' and 'peeling off moving quickly away from the scene'!

"Moving away from the scene" surely can only mean that the plane must have been close by, as alleged by Sucherman, and not "at a distance away" as falsely quoted by you!

Originally posted by djeminy
Have just looked again at the interview and it looks as if in fact it,s you yourself who is the one doing the lying!

Sucherman doesn't mention anything about "altitude". In fact he 'couldn't say', when asked about this!

Oh really?

"Just at that point i heard another sound of a plane off to the west, I looked up, I saw a plane kind of peeling off and it was much higher in the sky and it was silhouetted against the sky at that point so I couldn't really see what it was."

"After the plane passed in front, hit the wall, there was an explosion, then I heard sound of another plane and I looked up and saw it off to the west and saw that it was moving, and quickly away from the scene."

"It was much, much higher in the sky than the passenger jet was."

Thankyou, come again.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by discombobulator]

discombobulator,

Craig was obviously telling the truth.

You accused him of lying by using a dishonest reference ("... in the distance off to the west, at altitude.") to prove your point.

That makes you the lying and dishonest one.

End of story.

Originally posted by djeminy

discombobulator,

Craig was obviously telling the truth.

You accused him of lying by using a dishonest reference ("... in the distance off to the west, at altitude.") to prove your point.

That makes you the lying and dishonest one.

End of story.

Excuse me?

How is my reference dishonest even in the slightest?

Did you read the quotes I just posted?

By all means, take the head in the sand approach. It apparently works for you.

Edit: Yeah, I thought so. Another truther hit & run attack with no substance at all. I'm sure you'll be back to tell me that Mike Walter saw a cruise missile hit the Pentagon.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by discombobulator]

Dear Graic,

Thanks for all the energy you have put in this.

But why don't you go to the court and present your case?

Sorry, I just do not understand.

Originally posted by djeminy
He is further saying that the plane 'veered off in a fairly steep trajectory' and 'peeling off moving quickly away from the scene'!

"Moving away from the scene" surely can only mean that the plane must have been close by, as alleged by Sucherman, and not "at a distance away" as falsely quoted by you!

You nailed it.

He is clearly NOT describing the plane approaching.

He is describing it as "moving away" from the scene!

There is no disputing this.

If O'Brien was "moving away" from the scene "3 to 5 seconds" after the explosion the notion that he wouldn't be able to tell the explosion came from the Pentagon is ridiculous.

So who do you believe reheat/combobulator?

Sucherman/Wheelhouse or O'Brien?

You can't believe all of them.

Originally posted by Reheat


13:36:51 - Gopher 06 states the traffic is still descending and rolling out NE bound.
13:37:09 - Gopher 06 instructed to [bTURN RIGHT and follow the aircraft.
13:37:13 - Gopher 06 instructed to TURN RIGHT heading 080 in order to follow the aircraft.

Sorry but....

1. This does not prove he was south of Reagan.

2. This is NOT independent verifiable evidence.

3. This government provided image is NOT a "transcript".

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Dear Graic,

Thanks for all the energy you have put in this.

But why don't you go to the court and present your case?

Sorry, I just do not understand.

Because the scope of this world wide psychological black military operation is too massive for a couple of citizen investigators with no money to simply sue the president.

We aren't stupid.

We are calling for congressional inquiries, grand juries, whatever it takes to get ALL of the evidence out in the open.

Surely we would participate in whatever capacity possible.

Edit: Double post.

Cat stepped on keyboard.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by discombobulator]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

So who do you believe reheat/combobulator?

Sucherman/Wheelhouse or O'Brien?

You can't believe all of them.

My guess is, that no simple clear and honest answer will be forthcoming soon - or even later!

Think they will ignore your question.

So sad...... tragic, really!

Originally posted by discombobulator

Craig:

Ok ok.

I admit it now.

I went over the video again.

I concede I mislabeled the poles.

I publicly apologize to bob and stinkey.

discombobulator:

I have no interest in going through that again.

It takes a high mind, a big heart, an advanced spirit, to publicly apologize to you two odd fellows.

My hat off to Craig. Respect, man.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by djeminy]