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: 12
16
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Soloist


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


We told them we are were making a video focusing on the exact location of the plane according to eyewitnesses.


So the answer is no.



Obviously we did not know what they would tell us before we talked to them or that they would prove a conspiracy nor is that our fault.


But yet you still said "they wouldn't have talked to us" if they would have known...

Are you trying to say you would have put out some amateur doc proving there was NO conspiracy otherwise?? Why even go there in the first place? Are you interested in US history, or perhaps aviation?

Or did you not go there with an agenda? Because you've already admitted to omitting other people due to them being "automatically suspect".

Smells like agenda to me.



We told them we would honestly represent exactly what they told us and we did.


But some of them "exactly told you" they saw the plane hit the building, yet you claim they didn't. The is NOT honest representation. You claim they "perceive" the impact, while throwing out *ALL* other evidence and attempt to discount anything else.

But, funny enough, you don't seem to get that it could be where the witnesses "perceive" the plane to be flying could be wrong.

No, you make this FAR reaching conclusion instead.



Please THINK before you type/accuse because you are WRONG.


This is hilarious coming from you.
Here's some thinking for ya ...
Everyone else is wrong, yes yes, all the evidence is wrong, yup, all the witnesses were wrong , sure thing dude!




posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist


But yet you still said "they wouldn't have talked to us" if they would have known...


Finish the sentence because this exposes YOUR deception....

I said:

"They wouldn't have talked to this if they already knew the implications of what they saw."

This has nothing to do with our objective which was to determine where the witnesses report the plane. We TOLD them this was what were doing and this was 100% honest.



Are you trying to say you would have put out some amateur doc proving there was NO conspiracy otherwise?? Why even go there in the first place? Are you interested in US history, or perhaps aviation?


Or did you not go there with an agenda? Because you've already admitted to omitting other people due to them being "automatically suspect".

Smells like agenda to me.


It was an investigation. Our intent was to report honestly and we did. Actually, we did NOT initially intend to make a documentary at all.

We investigated government involvement in 9/11 based on a suspicion and our suspicions were verified.

It's not our fault.





But some of them "exactly told you" they saw the plane hit the building, yet you claim they didn't. The is NOT honest representation.


Ummm we reported that this is what they said.

That IS perfectly honest.

It's not our fault their unanimous placement of the plane proves they were deceived about the alleged impact.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by pinch
Did you "honestly represent" Sean Boger's claim that he saw the aircraft hit the building? Or did you twist it into a "deduction" that the plane hit?


Yes we did. Haven't you listened to the interview? We didn't twist anything.
So he saw the plane approach from the north side of the Citgo, banking, and then hit the building between the 2nd and 3rd floor? Listen to the interview, logic and Boger's own words about the surveillance video and guess about the 2nd/3rd floor impact show he had to deduce it. Do you believe he stood there and watched it enter the building, Pinch? While almost everyone else, including the fireman below him were running for cover? Is that what you believe? North side of Citgo approach negates an impact. You can't have both Bill.


Did you "honestly represent" Lagasse's claim that he saw the aircraft hit the building? Or did you twist it into a "deduction" that the plane hit?


Same thing Pinch. He saw it approach on the north side of the gas station, then he later admitted he didn't see what the plane did because the fireball prevented it. He still stands by his claim of the plane being on the north side and would be willing to testify. If it flew on the north side of the Citgo it can't hit the light poles, building, show up low and level on video etc. You've heard it a million times, Pinch. Why do you ignore this and don't bother to explain how it is possible?


Did you "honestly represent" Brooks' claim that he saw the aircraft hit the building? Or did you twist it into a "deduction" that the plane hit?


We spoke with him after. He said our movie was an "eye opener" and "anything is possible" when it comes to him being fooled. He still stands by his claim of the plane being on the north side and would be willing to testify.


Did you "honestly represent" Mike Walter's claim that he saw the aircraft hit the building? Or did you twist it into a "deduction" that the plane hit?


We haven't released a presentation on Mike Walter yet. We will let you know when we do.



Go back to the abov ewitnesses and get statements from them that you presented their testimony fairly. Do it. if you don't, you are more of a liar and a fraud than you aspire to here because they wouldn't say any such thing.


Why don't you? Anyone else? Please report it. Because Pinch will move the goal posts again and insist we manipulated those interviews too if we did it.
I told you. We spoke with Brooks and Lagasse and they said we represented them fairly. That should be an indicator of what you are going to encounter with the witnesses.



No doubt why it's hard to find "flyover" witnesses beause they would HAVE to know unless they thought it was a "2nd plane" like Roosevelt Roberts.


Bull. Its because there aren't any because there wasn't any. try that out on da Judge:

Judge: How many witnesses of the flyover do you have?
CIT: None.
Judge: What? None? Why?
CIT: They are all scared.
Judge: So you have no witnesses, none at all, none whatsoever of the fly-over, and the reason you don't have any is that you claim they are scared, but you don't have anyone who has said they're scared.
CIT: That's about it. But we are Scientific Citizen Investigators, so there.


Pinch, come on. Grow up a little.

Roosevelt is a flyover witness. There is nothing indicating otherwise.

[edit on 3-10-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by justamomma
YOu are not that dense, are you?

? I don't know. Take my mass and divide it by my volume and see how dense I am. I don't know what that has to do with this thread.



You understand perfectly well how I am using it relates to Craig's theory and if not, then I guess I wouldn't be surprised.

You're using a sundance to prove that 13 witnesses did not see the plane fly North of Citgo? How? It seemed strangely off topic to me.

Please prove how these 13 witnesses were all wrong and that the plane did not fly on a path North of Citgo. Try and stay on topic while doing so, without resorting to antiquity.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I said:
"They wouldn't have talked to this if they already knew the implications of what they saw."


Actually, ONCE AGAIN, you said :

"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"

After the host asked you if they are willing to come forward.



This has nothing to do with our objective which was to determine where the witnesses report the plane. We TOLD them this was what were doing and this was 100% honest.


But then you only use those witnesses that fit your theory and discard others, and you conclude that your witnesses we're "deceived" into believing the impact.

Sorry, but you're WAY off on the 100% honesty statement.




It was an investigation. Our intent was to report honestly and we did.


See above statement.



We investigated government involvement in 9/11 based on a suspicion and our suspicions were verified.


Well that seems to clash with the whole "our objective which was to determine where the witnesses report the plane" line.



It's not our fault their unanimous placement of the plane proves they were deceived about the alleged impact.


Yet the plane placement is not unanimous, only among the people you choose to provide. Remember the "automatically suspect" versions???

What's unanimous is that everyone in position to see the impact, saw the jet impact the Pentagon.

It's also unanimous that none of these witnesses saw the plane "fly over" the Pentagon.

But yah, why let those things get in the way, eh?



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by almighty bob
As I Also said on the previous page, he did not tell the interviewees the reason for the interview. It was a single blind study. A solid scientific technique, the interviewees had no predisposed opinion on the interview other than their own beliefs and experiences. Admittedly, a double-blind technique would have been far better, having interviewers who also were unaware of the reason for the interview, but this is not a significant shortcoming.


LOL! He is not a scientist

I never assumed that he was.

Originally posted by Soloist
, this was not about science, this is the opposite of science. CIT went in to this with a pre-determined "theory" and set out to find ways to fit things into it and omit things that disproved the theory.


Do you think all science is 'discovery of penicillin' style accident while fumbling with tubes and sandwiches? Most of the time, the scientist will have a predetermined theory (why did you quote theory? That is what they had, a theory) and then set up and conduct an experiment or study to test that theory. This is what they have done. Come up with a theory, tested the theory and found evidence to support that theory.

What this investigation was, albeit in a rather loose and uncontrolled sense, was a study. Scientific rules of application still apply. You don't have to be a scientist.


Originally posted by Soloist
Is it "scientific" to throw out testimony or accuse witnesses of being "automatically suspect", or because a woman has a "jewish last name, but wears a cross" because they don't fit in with your theory? Is it? Really?

Does that sounds like "solid scientific techniques"? Seriously, can you honestly defend that behaviour? If so, why? Is it bias? What is it?


That is not good practice, no, and can potentially taint the entire study. What testimony did they throw out? Is it still available to read? Discarding of data can be done, but tecnically shouldn't all data and information should be presented and explained as to why the data should be thought of as erroneous.

This is a serious flaw in the CIT science, but you seem to have "misunderstood" (and I quote misunderstood advisedly) CIT statements on occasions to fit your own dogma too. This does not for reliable argument make.

But, regarding the discarding of data or the accusation of classing it as "automatically suspect", do you have anything to say about this Craig?



Originally posted by Soloist
Does that sounds like "solid scientific techniques"? Seriously, can you honestly defend that behaviour? If so, why? Is it bias? What is it?

They have been doing this the entire time. They don't listen to logic or reason, especially given the mountain of evidence against their "flyover theory"


Originally posted by Soloist


He did not deceive them. At least he did not admit to deceiving them. The best way to check this is to interview them yourself for their thoughts on it all in a way that you, personally, can be sure is not compromised and then present the evidence.


He knew they wouldn't be willing to talk to them if he told them the truth. He ADMITS this. "That's why they were willing to talk to us" - implies that they would NOT be willing to talk to them otherwise.



Technically, he only assumed they wouldn't be willing to talk to him if he outlined the reason for the interview. Regardless, this is still a valid single-blind technique and does not compromise the data collected.

So you think that, if CIT had given the reason for the interview then the witnesses would have given greater detail? A different account? "Actually, although the plane flew over me, and I was northside, I think the plane was southside"... This is kind of the point of single and double blind studies.


Originally posted by Soloist
Or, you might not have a different outcome either, but at least it will be 100% honest.
...
These guys are not honest, they are simply promoting their agenda.


Yes, but as I see it, their agenda is to promote awareness of the fact that (they believe) their country is under the control of thieves and murderers.

Except for the claims that they discarded data, and I would like to hear what Craig has to say regarding that, there is nothing to say that they have acted dishonestly. There is certainly nothing to say that they have lied.

And still nothing to refute or invalidate the testimonies of the witnesses who claim that the flight that allegegly impacted The Pentagon flew north of Citgo.

Edited to fix quote-nesting issue.


[edit on 3-10-2008 by almighty bob]

[edit on 3-10-2008 by almighty bob]



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
You're using a sundance to prove that 13 witnesses did not see the plane fly North of Citgo? How? It seemed strangely off topic to me.




Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by justamomma

(oh, and let's not also forget that there have been times in history, particularly during traumatic times that there have been misconceptions from multiple witnesses... even masses ~ meaning more than 13 witnesses)



Oh yeah?

"Misconceptions" from "masses" who all corroborate each other?

Prove it.



Actually he asked for proof, and he got it. Of course he had to change the criteria after the fact, no big surprise.

So there you go, the "off topic" mystery solved!



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   
I believe I pretty much established why the event analogy with the Dancing Sun phenomenon was not entirely relevant here: pid5065174

There are marked differences to take into consideration.

Mod edit: Fixed link

[edit on 10/3/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by almighty bob
What this investigation was, albeit in a rather loose and uncontrolled sense, was a study. Scientific rules of application still apply. You don't have to be a scientist.


Oh come off it now, we're talking about allegations of MASS MURDER! Do you not get that? Do you think it's really ok to omit people's testimony and ignore all physical evidence that does not agree with their "theory"?????

Does that sound like something a true scientist would do????

Is that really the quest for the "truth"????



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by almighty bob
I believe I pretty much established why the event analogy with the Dancing Sun phenomenon was not entirely relevant here: [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread395713/pg10#pid5065174]

There are marked differences to take into consideration.




And that's called moving the goalposts. He set the criteria, and she gave a perfectly good example that fits and makes sense. Rather than admit she was right about the occurrence's relevance, people tried to change the criteria.

Too late.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by almighty bob
 


bob,

Crime investigations are not entirely equivalent to scientific studies.

An investigator into any crime has to assume that there has been a certain level of subterfuge/deception performed by the perpetrator.

Criminals are professional liars by nature, and they are professionals at covering up the evidence or planting false evidence to throw the investigators off track.

You must see how arbitrary scientific studies simply do not have to deal with this.

Crime investigators begin on hunch, a suspicion, with a suspect or potential suspects in mind, and then they move forward collecting data to confirm or refute their suspicions all the while being aware that they could have been thrown off track, set up, and certainly lied to all along the way.

We entered this investigation based on simple observations that called the official story into question. Things like anomalous damage to the building, lack of plane debris, conflicting accounts, and certainly all the other myriad of questions surrounding all other aspects of the 9/11 attack.

That means our suspect was the government and the crime in question is a world wide psychological black operation of mass murder.

The evidence must be looked at in that context if it is to be looked at fairly.

It can't fairly be looked at as a regular scientific study where none of these inherently dubious factors come into play.

So, as we moved forward and found more and more evidence CONFIRMING our suspicions contradicting the official story and implicating those in control of the U.S. military, as investigators we are forced to even more heavily consider subterfuge, evidence tampering, and deliberate lies by operatives as more and more of a possibility or even a certainty when considering the crime in question.

The chances of this increased exponentially with each witness who pointed to the north side.

Particularly now that we have scientific analysis from professionals proving the official story impossible as well as direct evidence of evidence tampering, cover-up, and of course an all around lack of disclosure.

Hell the collapse of WTC 7 alone is enough to implicate a mass deception that involved many lying operatives/assets/mercenaries.

Bottom line, as a result of the body of evidence that currently exists, it would be foolish to not treat ALL previously published witnesses who have been used to sell the official story as suspects.

Does this mean they are all guilty? Of course not!

But we must suspect them all as being involved just as anyone associated with the murder victim are initially considered suspects in any normal murder case.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by almighty bob
 


Furthermore bob,

You can not accept the north side approach and impact claims at the same time.

They are mutually exclusive.

The witnesses didn't know this but WE all know this.

So you, as an observer, MUST choose between the two.

Therefore if you accept the north side approach as valid you have no choice but to accept a flyover.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist


Actually, ONCE AGAIN, you said :

"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"

After the host asked you if they are willing to come forward.



Yep.

Why are you having such a problem understanding what I meant?

Clearly they were not aware that the plane on the north side proves a deception.

Obviously we were not aware of what they would tell us before we interviewed them.

We had no agenda other than to find out and report the truth about what they saw and we did exactly that.

If they pointed to the south side we would have reported it.

They didn't and even though they have seen our movie.....they STILL stand by their north side claim and all have admitted that we represented their testimony fairly.

So until you can get one of the witnesses to say we were dishonest to them or have manipulated their testimony you have no point whatsoever in this regard.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
If they pointed to the south side we would have reported it.



Yet you have disregarded others by calling them "automatically suspect". You deny all the other physical evidence, claiming pre-planted bombs in the building with NO PROOF!

You have twisted these peoples words to fit your conspiracy theory, by stating they must have been deceived and did not witness what they claim to have witnessed.

You have been called on this many many times, yet still continue your charade.

What you doing is not investigating, not by most peoples definition anyhow.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Yet you have disregarded others by calling them "automatically suspect". You deny all the other physical evidence, claiming pre-planted bombs in the building with NO PROOF!


Nonsense.

Within the context of this investigation ALL previously published witnesses are suspects INCLUDING the previously published witnesses who ended up proving the north side approach.

It was a scientific process of analyzing and confirming accounts first hand that gave us the evidence to make determinations.

If they had pointed south, the evidence in favor of the official story would have started to rule out our suspicions.

But they pointed north.

This confirmed our suspicions and further implicated others as being involved.



You have twisted these peoples words to fit your conspiracy theory, by stating they must have been deceived and did not witness what they claim to have witnessed.



No we did not twist their words.

We accurately and fairly reported their words and all of the witnesses agree.

This is why you can not provide a single statement from any of them suggesting otherwise and therefore have no evidence to back up your false accusation against us.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITWithin the context of this investigation ALL previously published witnesses are suspects INCLUDING the previously published witnesses who ended up proving the north side approach.


How did they "prove" the north side approach? There testimony can not be proof of their testimony. You state that you believe they were deceived concerning one part of their testimony, so unless you have some other evidence that backs up their claims of seeing it on the north side, you have no proof of anything. If they could be deceived in one part, they could be deceived in all parts of their testimony.

That leaves us with the physical evidence which points to...... hmm.. the part of the testimony you say they *were* deceived on. The PROOF is actually against you on this one, darlin'.

The burden is on you to prove otherwise.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


Circular logic but even this logical fallacy fails because you can not say that their belief in an impact proves they were "deceived" regarding the north side.

If they weren't deceived regarding the alleged impact they wouldn't have unanimously placed the plane on the north side.

It simply isn't logical to suggest they were unanimously "mistaken" in regards to the north side which is an extremely simple claim and would be a ridiculously drastic mistake for ANY of them to make let alone all of them.

You have no valid explanation whatsoever for this but for some reason it doesn't seem to matter to you.

While deception is a perfectly logical explanation for why they all believed in an impact.

Especially when you consider the massive body of other evidence throwing the official story into question on many levels.

Darlin'.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT It simply isn't logical to suggest they were unanimously "mistaken"


So then you believe that the sun came down from the sky and "danced" for a crowd of people, right?






[edit on 3-10-2008 by justamomma]



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by almighty bob
What this investigation was, albeit in a rather loose and uncontrolled sense, was a study. Scientific rules of application still apply. You don't have to be a scientist.


Oh come off it now, we're talking about allegations of MASS MURDER! Do you not get that? Do you think it's really ok to omit people's testimony and ignore all physical evidence that does not agree with their "theory"?????

Does that sound like something a true scientist would do????

Is that really the quest for the "truth"????


1: This is emotive rhetoric. As an aside, multiple question marks are only a step away from multiple exclaimation marks. Never a good sign for rationality.

2: Read my post again, you have taken my quote out of context. You seem to commonly take quotes out of context to fit with your own dogma or agenda.

3: Read my post again. I said it was not good practice to omit testimony, but acceptable to practice to argue why you believe some data is not indicative of the true result. You also seem to not infrequently "misunderstand", and I do make effort to ensure that my posts are not ambiguous as to their meaning. You are invalidating your stance as prejudiced.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by almighty bob
I believe I pretty much established why the event analogy with the Dancing Sun phenomenon was not entirely relevant here: [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread395713/pg10#pid5065174]

There are marked differences to take into consideration.




And that's called moving the goalposts. He set the criteria, and she gave a perfectly good example that fits and makes sense. Rather than admit she was right about the occurrence's relevance, people tried to change the criteria.

Too late.



The example does not fit and my post explains why. Can you point out a flaw in the actual argument I presented rather than presenting more rhetoric?

You could even use the argument to validate the flyover theory. People believe they saw a dancing sun, but the earth was not scorched, so there is some mistake or misinterpretation. People believe they saw a plane fly into The Pentagon, so they could also have misinterpreted or mistaken the event. But this is a weak link rationale, which is why I didn't, and don't, actually present it as a serious argument.




top topics



 
16
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join