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 skeptics finally admit north side approach is possible after all!

page: 10
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by justamomma

I am not suggesting that they lied or simultaneously hallucinated the same thing.... what I am STATING is that the sun is a star that CANNOT come down to the earth and "dance" around without leaving behind, well, a void where the earth once was
Physical evidence trumps eye witness accounts to me personally.


Unless you are also stating that it is equally as impossible for a plane to fly on the north side of the citgo you have just proven your analogy completely irrelevant.




The eye witness accounts may have been given independently, but they all had ONE thing in common ... THE INTERVIEWER. Power of suggestion is, indeed, very powerful.


Ok now you are making an accusation against me personally which AGAIN has nothing to do with your irrelevant analogy.

You have no evidence for this accusation plus it is false.

We show how many of the witnesses told the same thing to the Center for Military History within the first weeks of the event and Sgt Lagasse told it to another interviewer via email back in 2003.

Your claim is hollow and you know it.

Anybody who watches the interviews will easily understand how the notion that I used some sort of hypnotic powers to get these Pentagon cops to state the opposite of reality is simply ridiculous.







Again, physical evidence trumps eye witness accounts in my book, particularly when all the witness accounts were given to the same person interviewing the witnesses. Not as independent as you would want us to believe


More hollow, baseless accusations.

You have NO evidence for this.

You are desperate and looking silly.




posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Not as independent nor very honest and forthcoming either. We are talking about a guy here who purposely hid his intentions from the people he "interviewed" and freely admits this while chuckling about the matter in an interview.



Wrong.

I said no such thing which is why you don't quote me.

Therefore YOU are the liar.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Wrong.


Oh REALLY?

Interview

Watch that video from about 15:30 to 16:30. Sounds to me like you were proud of fooling them. No matter how you spin it, it's dishonest, 100%.



I said no such thing which is why you don't quote me.

15:50ish into the interview -

"They were deceived into believing the plane hit the building, so that's why they were willing to talk to us. In fact, they thought they were defending the government's story" ... (host laughs)

So, you let them believe it, and knew that, but didn't once let them in on what you were really up to. Otherwise, they wouldn't have talked to you and you wouldn't have your little "documentary".

That's deceptive and dishonest in my book. Like I said, spin it however you like, the outcome is the same to those of us that can see through the blabber.



Therefore YOU are the liar.


You have been proven wrong.
You have been quoted.
You have been dishonest.
You should be ashamed.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craig, it is quite possible that YOU were the one flying that plane for all I know. Possibility really has nothing to do with it. There are so many possible things that could have happened, but that doesn't make it proof that any of those things happened.

Your ONLY proof for your theory is the accounts given by witnesses. That is IT. There isn't even a shred of physical evidence for your theory, although there is evidence for the flight path (the trail of destruction) and evidence that it crashed into the pentagon. You choose to ignore the evidence in favor of the witness accounts. Very much the same thing as the analogy I have brought up.

Using your logic, one should deny the evidence that the sun is a star fixed in the sky and cannot come close to earth without burning it up and instead believe the THOUSANDS of eye witness accounts.

You are a silly man who has yet to answer my question. Do you believe, despite the evidence that the sun is a star fixed in space, the eye witness accounts since there are well over 13?


Ok now you are making an accusation against me personally which AGAIN has nothing to do with your irrelevant analogy.


well, now you have me reevaluating my statement that you are an intelligent person. This analogy has extreme relevance since your theory is based on NOTHING MORE than eye witness accounts.

And there was no accusation there that wasn't true. You were the one, were you not, who took the time to go and gather these accounts from the witnesses? Or did you send other UNBIASED "investigators" to help gather them? I based my "accusation" on what YOU yourself said.


[edit on 2-10-2008 by justamomma]



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


I said that THE GOVERNMENT deceived them.

Not me!

My goal was to get their honest, candid answers regarding their exact placement of the plane.

That was EXACTLY what I told them I was trying to do up front and EXACTLY what I did.

I was 100% honest and your example proves it.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


I've already demonstrated why your analogy is completely irrelvant.

I'm sorry if you still don't understand this.

I can't help you anymore.

I though you had somewhere to go.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITI've already demonstrated why your analogy is completely (irrelevant).


(By the way, fixed the spelling of irrelevant for you which is why I put it in parentheses) Actually, you haven't and that is because you can't. You know this and that is why you won't answer my question, in fact. I'll ask again...

Based on the thousands of eye witness accounts, do you believe that the sun came down from the sky and "danced" for the people?


I'm sorry if you still don't understand this.

I can't help you anymore.


Well, of course you can't because you know that for you, this has just become a lost cause; although no doubt that you won't admit it and you will continue pushing your theory that is based on nothing more than eye witness account.... unless you have physical evidence that you haven't disclosed yet that corroborates your theory.


I though[t] you had somewhere to go.


huh? Well, even if I alluded to that (and I am aware that I said I would no longer post), this event that was seen by thousands entered my head and I was just DYING to hear that you believed the sun came down and "danced" for a crowd of ppl, so here I am... posting... yet still w/out a direct answer


Two theories.... both have eye witnesses and no supporting physical evidence... surely if you believed the corroborating testimony of 13 you will believe the corroborating testimony of thousands.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Soloist
 


I said that THE GOVERNMENT deceived them.

Not me!

My goal was to get their honest, candid answers regarding their exact placement of the plane.

That was EXACTLY what I told them I was trying to do up front and EXACTLY what I did.

I was 100% honest and your example proves it.



You version of 100% is quite off.

Did you tell them you were going to use them for a 9/11 conspiracy video? Yes or no?

Did you tell them you were going to use their interviews to claim they were deceived and that they didn't see what they claim they did?
Yes or no?

Because you said in that interview , "They were deceived into believing this plane hit the building, so that's why they were willing to talk to us. They don't believe there is a Government conspiracy, in fact they though they were defending the Government's story, they didn't understand what they are saying contradicts all the physical evidence, so that's why they were willing to talk to us"

Sorry, you can spin it any way you like it, but that is NOT honest.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Oh and Craig, darlin', it is one statement that you made to me that wouldn't escape my mind and actually brought the event (of 1917 in Portugal) to the forefront of my mind....

it was:


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT There is no way that 13 people all hallucinated the plane on the north side of the station.


Surely if there is NO WAY that 13 people all hallucinated the plane flying on the north side of the station, there has GOT TO BE NO WAY that as many as ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND people hallucinated the sun coming down from the sky to do a "dance" for the crowd.


You brought this one on yourself and my question that I have been asking, do you believe blah blah blah, deserves an answer.


[edit on 2-10-2008 by justamomma]



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   
The Miracle of The Sun is certainly a very interesting case, still a modern mystery. There is nothing to indicate any special atmospheric phenomena, nor can it be purely put down to the speculations of a superstitious and religeous people expecting some 'Holy' experience on the say so of three shephard children.

Given that the skeptical were also present as well as the credulous, we can only speculate that some remarkable phenomenon did occur that day, but certainly not discount rational scientific explaination. This is the witness testimony of a largely superstitious population, and to quote Arthur C. Clarke, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", and the same could be said of any phenomena, not just technology, outside of the ability of the witness to explain or rationalise.

What they saw, we may never actually find out, but what they experienced was a miraculous dancing sun.


The northside witnesses recognised what they saw, a plane flying on a path north of Citgo. There is no unexplainable phenomena to rationalise. They knew what a plane was, they knew where they were, they could see where the plane was. There is very little scope for superstitious or uninformed misinterpretation here.

That said, your analogy is not, well, analogous between events.

And still does not discount witness testimony from either event.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   


The northside witnesses recognised what they saw, a plane flying on a path north of Citgo. There is no unexplainable phenomena to rationalise. They knew what a plane was, they knew where they were, they could see where the plane was. There is very little scope for superstitious or uninformed misinterpretation here.


They also knew they saw the plane smash into the building.

But I guess we just toss that out, huh?



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   
CIT might. I don't.

I realise that CIT claims to have talked to people who saw a plane flying away, but I would need to see testimony on the same level as their NOC testimonies to rationally accept it as more than hearsay. Multiply corroborated.

And this still does not invalidate or refute the NOC evidence.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Here is where Craig really screwed up (at least for anyone who is going to be logical about all of this)... he did not get completely unbiased reporters to go and gather the testimony. He went himself. As it is, on camera, there is "leading" that is going on. Of course, he will say it is not, but to the unbiased eye, it IS leading. I also cannot account for what he said to the witnesses before filming their accounts. It would be completely trusting and therefore illogical of me to buy into these witness accounts as presented by Craig.


If he had something other than witness accounts to go on, then we might be in business, but he doesn't.. At the most he has assumptions (most of which are based on the witness accounts that we are receiving from him).

Here is a google search in which one can study the EXTREMELY influential power of suggestion (and suggestion can be just as powerful despite how subtle it may seem):



There is physical evidence that speaks volumes more to me than the witness accounts that we have received via Craig.


edited to add: I hope you all can click on the link I posted. I was able to, but in case you can't... it isn't rocket science to do a study on the power of suggestion


[edit on 2-10-2008 by justamomma]



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Guys,

The bottom line is...

ALL ... ALL ... ALL of his witnesses that were in a position to do so....


SAW THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON!!!

He can use the "deception" word all he wants. HIS witnesses SAW THE IMPACT...therefor PROVES the NOC FALSE.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Guys,

The bottom line is...

ALL ... ALL ... ALL of his witnesses that were in a position to do so....


SAW THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON!!!

He can use the "deception" word all he wants. HIS witnesses SAW THE IMPACT...therefor PROVES the NOC FALSE.



This is an appalling logical progression. That his witnesses SAW THE IMPACT, if you believe the witnesses, then you must accept that THEY SAW THE NOC FLIGHTPATH.

All it shows is that CIT has not produced enough evidence of a flyover.

It still does not invalidate the witness statements.

There is still no evidence that invalidates the witnesses statements.

If you really wish to invalidate the witness statements then you must do it in the terms of those original statements, that is to collect a dozen or so independant and impartial witness statements of a flight path south of Citgo. Alternately, go and interview the northern flightpath witnesses yourself and bring evidence that their testimony is tainted.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by almighty bob
This is an appalling logical progression. That his witnesses SAW THE IMPACT, if you believe the witnesses, then you must accept that THEY SAW THE NOC FLIGHTPATH.


No. You mean if you believe ONLY the witnesses the CIT would have you think are the only ones "credible" and not "automatically suspect". (their words, should anyone just blindly accept their agenda based reasoning for omitting witnesses?)



All it shows is that CIT has not produced enough evidence of a flyover.


They have produced NO evidence of a "flyover". None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.



It still does not invalidate the witness statements.
There is still no evidence that invalidates the witnesses statements.


I would say that the plane slamming into the Pentagon invalidates their spin on the witness statements and their "version" of events that day.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by almighty bob
This is an appalling logical progression. That his witnesses SAW THE IMPACT, if you believe the witnesses, then you must accept that THEY SAW THE NOC FLIGHTPATH.


No. You mean if you believe ONLY the witnesses the CIT would have you think are the only ones "credible" and not "automatically suspect". (their words, should anyone just blindly accept their agenda based reasoning for omitting witnesses?)


Could you then please present me with evidence to the contrary? Either statements from the witnesses stating that they have been misrepresented, or impartial testimony to a southside flightpath.

Evidence, not conjecture. There is nothing to indicate that any of these witnesses have a bias in their report of the observations, despite the potential for bias in their interviewers.

I can only go on the evidence presented, and your opinion is not evidence.


Originally posted by Soloist


All it shows is that CIT has not produced enough evidence of a flyover.


They have produced NO evidence of a "flyover". None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Fair enough, they have not produced evidence (beyond hearsay) to support their flyover theory. But...


Originally posted by Soloist


It still does not invalidate the witness statements.
There is still no evidence that invalidates the witnesses statements.




Originally posted by Soloist
I would say that the plane slamming into the Pentagon invalidates their spin on the witness statements and their "version" of events that day.



No, the witness statements invalidate the official story. As I have previously stated, the official information cannot be considered as untainted if independant evidence (the witness testimony) shows that the originator of that story (the Government) has reason to cover up the events.

Show the testimony to be tainted, and CIT are pretty much finished. Until then, all you are doing is attacking ther messenger and not the message.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by almighty bob

Could you then please present me with evidence to the contrary? Either statements from the witnesses stating that they have been misrepresented, or impartial testimony to a southside flightpath.


Once again, you seem to be talking about CIT's witnesses only, the ones they chose to include that fit their theory, not the ones the consider to be "automatically suspect".



I can only go on the evidence presented, and your opinion is not evidence.


WHAT evidence??????



No, the witness statements invalidate the official story.


Did you miss the part where the witnesses see the plane crashing into the building??? Nothing, nothing at all has changed this fact.




Show the testimony to be tainted, and CIT are pretty much finished. Until then, all you are doing is attacking ther messenger and not the message.


I already have, they chose to be dishonest, and admit to it. I have quoted the statements verbatim. There is no message, don't you get that? If not then don't bother, I certainly cannot, and I doubt anyone else will convince you otherwise.

So feel free to believe their "message".



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by almighty bob

Could you then please present me with evidence to the contrary? Either statements from the witnesses stating that they have been misrepresented, or impartial testimony to a southside flightpath.


Originally posted by Soloist
Once again, you seem to be talking about CIT's witnesses only, the ones they chose to include that fit their theory, not the ones the consider to be "automatically suspect".


Well, "automatically" classing any testimony suspect would be a particularly black spot for CIT. To what extent have testimonies been selected and vetted?

Soloist, off the top of your head, could you give a name, or names that I can have a look for to evaluate this? Otherwise I'll just trawl back.


Originally posted by Soloist


I can only go on the evidence presented, and your opinion is not evidence.


WHAT evidence??????


Eyewitness testimony is evidence.


Originally posted by Soloist


No, the witness statements invalidate the official story.


Did you miss the part where the witnesses see the plane crashing into the building??? Nothing, nothing at all has changed this fact.



Please, Soloist. You continually throw this up, and I will continue to give the same answer.

That the witnesses claim to have seen the flight crashing into the building only shows evidence against the CIT's theory of a flyover. It does not invalidate the witness statement to a north of Citgo flightpath.


Originally posted by Soloist


Show the testimony to be tainted, and CIT are pretty much finished. Until then, all you are doing is attacking ther messenger and not the message.


I already have, they chose to be dishonest, and admit to it. I have quoted the statements verbatim. There is no message, don't you get that? If not then don't bother, I certainly cannot, and I doubt anyone else will convince you otherwise.

So feel free to believe their "message".


Do you mean that they did not reveal their reasons for their line of questioning? All that this shows is that they performed a blind study. The witnesses had no view to the interviewers motives and so presented their testimony without any preconception as to why they were doing so. This is a sound scientific principle. Or are you referring to something else?

But one thing that continues puzzle me is, if there was a conspiracy, then why claim one flightpath and then actually fly another? This seems to be an unnecessary level of obsfucation. If they have a flight coming in, especially if it is just going to flyover, why not just have it coming in on the official path anyway?

I could see the reasoning if there was an actual impact, which evidence would show, in that the impact would be perpendicular to The Pentagon, and not at the more glancing angle of the official flightpath, but then why not just show the data to include the northside flightpath? I don't know if this has been covered and I missed it somewhere.

Regardless, the witness testimony still stands undisputed as unbiased testimony, and opposes the official story, leading to strong evidence of a coverup and conspiracy. I have already outlined how this testimony can best be refuted, and it is not by personal attack or conjecture.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by almighty bob

That the witnesses claim to have seen the flight crashing into the building only shows evidence against the CIT's theory of a flyover.


That's right.

There was no flyover, there is no evidence of one in 7 years, yet these threads continue.

Anything else, (NOC Claim) matters not, it only server to keep the illusion of confusion so CIT can keep going with their false claims. Sorry, but it's a fact, the plane ended up in the Pentagon, the witnesses say so, and all the physical evidence says so, all the poor people who died that tragic day would say so if they were only here.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join