C-130 video & photos disprove 84th RADES data while corroborating witnesses & pilot

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]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Boone 870

 

I don't give contact information for real people to anonymous pseudoskeptics.

Why don't you give the contact information to Adam Larson then?

You know his full name and you've both exchanged numbers in the past, yes?

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]

reply to post by djeminy

I bet the person who gave you a star feels a little silly about now.

By the way, you claimed that I had quoted Joel Sucherman when in fact I had not. I summarised what he had said.

However, you yourself quoted Joel Sucherman as saying "couldn't say" when asked about the altitude of the plane.

Are you sure that's what he said?

Craig Ranke: And what was it's altitude approximately?
Joel Sucherman: Hmm, wouldn't want to estimate, I just don't have a good... it was much, much higher in the sky than the passenger jet was.

Who is fabricating quotes now?

[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 Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Boone 870

These are the two questions I'll ask him: [Lt Col O'Brien]

.......

Simple enough?

Your 2 questions are awesome but I would add one more for ultimate certainty:

3. Were you north or south of Reagan National when you first saw the attack jet?

I would ask that question first as the answer would put a definite end to the controversy.

Oh, is that all it would take?

13:29:39 - Gopher 06 released from Andrews AFB.
13:33 - Gopher 06 shows up on RADAR.
13:33:45 - Dulles Approach advised TYSON [Reagan National TRACON] of fast moving primary target currently 10 [NM[ West of DCA [Reagan National VOR].
13:36:16 - Gopher 06 issued traffic, eleven o'clock, 5 miles northbound, fast moving, type and altitude unknown.
13:36:22 - Gopher 06 advises traffic in sight at 12 o'clock.

BINGO! ~4 minutes after the C-130 departed Andrews, Dulles RADAR has AA77 10 NM West of DCA. ~2:30 later, the traffic is at Gopher 06's 11 o'clock 5 nm North bound. 6 seconds later Gopher 06 indicates the traffic is visible at his 12 o'clock position. AA77 is in the western most segment of it's turn prior to turning back NE toward the Pentagon.

13:36:29 - Gopher 06 identifies the unknown aircraft as a B-757.

This sequence fits PERFECTLY with the 84th RADES data for BOTH the C-130 and AA77 to include timing! It will NOT FIT with CIT's delusional path or timing for either.

13:36:34 - Gopher 06 advises Reagan TRACON the traffic is at low altitude.

Again, this fits perfectly with the RADES data and WILL NOT in any way shape or form fit with CIT's delusion.

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.

Shortly afterward Gopher 06 advises the aircraft is down NW of Reagan Nat'l and then he advises it has struck the Pentagon. What follows is what we see in the Tribby video and the Looney Photographs. Gopher turns to fly perpendicular to the Pentagon and then departs to the NW.

i286.photobucket.com...
forums.randi.org...

Someone else can deal with the nonsense that will follow. I have other more important things to do today than to deal with FRAUDS.


[edit on 3-9-2008 by Reheat]

[edit on 3-9-2008 by Reheat]

[edit on 3-9-2008 by Reheat]

reply to post by Reheat

I think Craig is probably confused by the use of time directions.

After all, he did show in this thread on his own messageboard that he does not even understand time directions.

I quote Craig directly (and no, this isn't a joke):

But as usual Larson takes his wild obfuscation to the next level and applies this 2:00 claim to a HORIZONTAL clock as if Sucherman would have had a point of view from a satellite!

(Larson's weird surrealist horizontal clock in upper left corner with normal clock superimposed by me in middle)

Clocks are never horizontal and this is not how normal people interpret the analogy of direction from time!

"If you are intellectually honest"

[edit on 3-9-2008 by discombobulator]

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.

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.

I'm not here to debate with you Craig, I'm just going to point out where you don't tell the truth.

The last time I debated you at length was on the subject of Joel Sucherman and the light poles.

I put up with 10 pages of this from you:

Please stop wasting my time with this nonsense.

You and Stinkey are ridiculously wrong.

Everyone knows this.

... because I am right and you are wrong.

Pole one is BEHIND the vdot mast in every image liar.

So either admit you are a liar or a stubborn fool because you are WRONG.

I am not wrong.

Your stubbornness with this demonstrates how you are willing to say ANYTHING to cast doubt

This is fact and you are wrong.

Seriously man.

If you can't concede this you will have to go.

You are wrong.

You will concede or leave.

Do you get it yet?

Ok then you are banned.

You can come back when you admit it.

You have to admit you are wrong.

It's because you know you are wrong.

Pathetic.

So either admit you are a liar or a stubborn fool because you are WRONG.

You better do SOMETHING productive because so far you are batting zero.

You have proven yourself manipulative and deceptive.

You will be banned.

Why did it disappear?

Did aliens take it as I drove down the road?

No.

It's nothing but a perspective issue.

(all except for the last four lines were from separate posts)

Before you realised that you'd been caught and said:

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.

I have no interest in going through that again.

Edit: The entire sad exchange is here

[edit on 3-9-2008 by discombobulator]

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!

reply to post by discombobulator


Yeah so what?

Unlike you I admit when I am wrong.

What does any of that have to do with the topic?

NOTHING!

You are avoiding the topic because you know I am right and have provided the necessary independent verifiable evidence to back it up.

reheat will continue to huff and puff with authority but it does not refute the evidence.

O'Brien did not fly where the RADES data says he did.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by discombobulator

 

You are avoiding the topic because you know I am right and have provided the necessary independent verifiable evidence to back it up.

Oh, so you've found a witness that watched the plane pull up and fly over the Pentagon?

WHO IS IT, CRAIG?!

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]