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: 14
16
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

I understand completely. In fact, it will surprise you to find that I agree with you that there is, and has been a movement in our govt build a M/I complex...its all part of globablization.


Ok good then you will have to understand how anyone who could be shown to have ties to the M/I complex and is used within the 9/11 propaganda would be implicated in such an internal war crime.




However. my specific question is: Do you, or do you not, allege that Gary Bauer was a part of the 9/11 deception at the Pentagon? Yes or No?


Me?

Any personal speculation that I might have in this regard is irrelevant.

But he most certainly is implicated as being involved because there are published statements attributed to him featured in the propaganda supporting the official story that has been proven a lie.




posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Wanna talk about Rick Renzi?






posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


The only minor quibble I could make on what I have seen is that a double-blind standard of interview could have been applied, in that the interviewer was also somebody who did not know the reason for the interview, and a standardised set of questions.


Please provide an example and elaborate.

I have no idea what you could possibly be referring to here but I am very interested.



Alright, to go back to the drug trial example. Say Viagra was causing complications that resulted in an infection and then Pfizer developed their relevent antibiotic, Mycoxafillin, to fight the infection, studies will be done on this.

There are techniques that can be used to minimise the skewing of results through patient or prescriber expectation, namely Single-Blind and Double-Blind trials.

In the trial, the patient will be given a course to supplement their Viagra. It will either be the Mycoxafillin or a placebo (sometimes there will be a third valid drug, in this case another antibiotic, say Penicillin, or multiple alternative drugs).

Irrespective of the trial type, the patient will not know what they are getting, to blind the placebo effect. In a single-blind trial, the patient does not know what they are getting but the prescriber does. In a double-blind trial, neither the prescriber nor the patient knows what the drug being prescribed is. The double-blind further reduces the chance of result skewing and reduces the number of human-factor variables in the study.

There is also the Triple-Blind method where the person analysing the results also does not know which course was prescribed. Again, methods to minimise the 'human factor'.

How this relates to your investigation? You have performed a single-blind trial. The interviewee was unaware of the reason for the interview, but the interviewer was not. If the trial was a double-blind one then you would have selected an interviewer, who also did not know the reason for the interview, and sent them out with a standardised template question set, or questionnaire, to perform the interview. Then, once you have this initial dataset (depending on whether it is a 2ble or 3ple blind), you can go out and revisit the data (or interviewees) in either a single-blind, open or unstructured or freestyle format.

This does not at all invalidate what you did, I was just making an observation regarding ways to minimise both the potential for bias, and the potential for attacks over claims of bias.

However, because you must have patient consent to include them in a trial, there is the element that they know that they are in a trial. As with this, because the witness is being interviewed then they know that they are having an interview, just not the reason why.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
All I am hearing so far is this:

'Our entire premise is based on eyewitness testimony. We've determined that ALL eyewitnesses that claimed to have seen a plane crash into the Pentagon were all lying or mistaken. And we've further determined that every witness we've interviewed is truthfull, and not mistaken. Further, we don't really believe anyone was in position to actually see the plane crash into the Pentagon. And finally, if they were, we believe they are suspects for being 'in on it.''

If that's not biased research, I don't know what is. Whereas some folks have said they would be willing to believe the plane perhaps was not where people thought it was, although, the end result was the same, I've not heard one concession from the folks favoring this conspiracy theory.

And in fact, the more I hear the defense for these very lackluster claims (a cased based FULLY on eyewitness testimony), the more I think they have an agenda ($$$?) other than providing the truth. The arguments so far, are not from someone trying to get to the bottom of something, you never hear any concessions that they could be mistaken about anything they claim. But rather a "you are all wrong and we are right about everything" mentality. Biased. Not much more to say.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by almighty bob

How this relates to your investigation? You have performed a single-blind trial. The interviewee was unaware of the reason for the interview, but the interviewer was not.


False.

The interviewee was always 100% aware of the reason for the interview.

We told them all we were interviewing eyewitnesses to the plane and focusing on specific and exact details as to where the plane flew. That we were trying to establish the exact flight path based on what the eyewitnesses report.

This was the truth.

The outcome was not pre-determined by us.

It is not necessary for us to inform the witnesses in advance of our suspicions regarding the official story because that has no bearing on what they witnessed and would only serve to put them on guard or potentially change how they would respond to us.

The notion that we would send out a "blind" interviewer is not only impractical but plain old silly in relation to what we were trying to accomplish. The interviews were organic and no question template would have sufficed for all witnesses. Particularly since each has a different point of view.

Again, this isn't a simple scientific problem like your drug testing analogy.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
All I am hearing so far is this:

'Our entire premise is based on eyewitness testimony. We've determined that ALL eyewitnesses that claimed to have seen a plane crash into the Pentagon were all lying or mistaken. And we've further determined that every witness we've interviewed is truthfull, and not mistaken. Further, we don't really believe anyone was in position to actually see the plane crash into the Pentagon. And finally, if they were, we believe they are suspects for being 'in on it.''


Why did you put quotes on this?

I never said this nor do I agree with it so if you are hearing it this can only be because you are hearing voices.

You should have that checked.



Whereas some folks have said they would be willing to believe the plane perhaps was not where people thought it was, although, the end result was the same, I've not heard one concession from the folks favoring this conspiracy theory.


I'm not sure I follow you.......

The entire point is that the plane CAN NOT be on the north side of the gas station and have the outcome be the same.

That is why this is proof.



And in fact, the more I hear the defense for these very lackluster claims (a cased based FULLY on eyewitness testimony), the more I think they have an agenda ($$$?) other than providing the truth. The arguments so far, are not from someone trying to get to the bottom of something, you never hear any concessions that they could be mistaken about anything they claim. But rather a "you are all wrong and we are right about everything" mentality. Biased. Not much more to say.


1. Although eyewitness testimony is the best source for independent verifiable evidence it is NOT the only basis for our claim. If you haven't been following my threads here perhaps you should click on my name and read a few. Not only have I demonstrated how the official story is scientifically impossible but I have also shown how the physical evidence is also irreconcilable with their story.

Your accusations of profiteering are baseless, unwarranted, and false since I haven't made a penny and have spent thousands of dollars and hours obtaining and presenting this evidence for you.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Tune in at wtprn.com to listen live at 4:30 pacific/7:30 eastern time tonight, Saturday October 4th, where I'll be discussing our latest release, The North Side Flyover, as well as the latest Pilots for 9/11 Truth presentation, 9/11 ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON.

Call in at 512-646-1984

If you dare!




posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by pinch 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.



Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT Pinch, come on. Grow up a little.



Tsk Tsk Craig, you really should be more aware of previous posts before you say such things. Just a friendly reminder so you don't appear the hypocrite in future posts
:


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT Now you are being immature and insulting





[edit on 5-10-2008 by justamomma]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by almighty bob
... your claims which do seem to hinge on "misunderstanding" or unsubstantiated attacks.
The testimonies are hard evidence. You have presented me with rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims as to the 'agenda' of CIT. I am not saying that they are incorrect, but you have not backed any of it up beyond misinterpretation of previous posts and more rhetoric. I'm sorry that I have to use the word a lot, but that's what so much of it is.



Rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims? Are you kidding me? Here's just one small example of what I'm talking about:



Here is the one account. Wanda Ramey. She is the ONE known witness who is directly quoted as having "seen" the plane hit the poles. She is or was a Pentagon police officer just like Chad Brooks. Chad had also said in the past that he saw the plane hit the poles. When we interviewed him he clarified and said that he didn't actually see it happen but simply saw the poles on the ground after the fact. No doubt Wanda is also deducing this and simply honestly embellishing her account just like Chad did. Since she is the ONLY one to specifically make this claim and since we have directly spoken with so many others who specifically say that they didn't see the poles get hit it is a fair assumption on our part to make. We are still trying to get a hold of her for direct clarification.


"No doubt" she is embellishing this? Because someone else did? Since she is the only one, it must not be true? And they haven't even talked to her?

Good luck spinning that as "rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims"!





Their agenda seems to be to discover the truth of the events of September 11.


The truth, eh?

There are around 100 (give or take) witnesses at the Pentagon, CIT has wittled that down to less than 30, and of those they have a dozen they use to promote their "truth" as you call it. They have omitted witnesses due to them being "automatically suspect" and have jumped to conclusions based on what other people have said, or whatever other reason they can use to spin it to fit their theory. That's not a quest for the truth, that's not an investigation, that's cherry picking.

If I may use the magician analogy, this is what they do - they wave the magic wand to distract the crowd, while the forklift comes to move the elephant off stage for the disappearing act. They don't want you to notice the 20 people helping too, so they hop up and down to get you to keep looking at the sparkly wand, in the hopes you don't notice. And in case you do, they shout that "well these people over here saw it, so it must be magic!"

Eyewitnesses saw the impact. Security video. Doubletree video (which does not show the plane pulling up but impacting the building)
Plane debris was on the lawn with AA markings. Photographed.
Plane debris was in the building. Photographed.
Bodies still strapped to airplane seats were in the building. Photographed.
Lightpoles knocked down on the highway and lawn by the plane. Photographed.
Cell phone call from passengers to loved ones. Recorded.

They have a dozen witnesses to the location of the plane, and make a huge leap in logic that there's no way they were mistaken about the location, but conveniently enough WERE mistaken about the impact (because CIT says so), and that this *alone* PROVES (their words) military deception, since if the plane were on the "Northside" it couldn't have possibly impacted the Pentagon.

Where is ANY evidence of the parts being planted?
Where is ANY evidence of the bodies being planted?
Where is ANY evidence of the lightpoles being planted?
Where is the plane?
Where are the passengers?
Where is the crew?
Where is ANY evidence of "pre-planted explosives" in the Pentagon.
Where are all the interviews with the rescue workers? Surely some of them know something.

Stop staring at the sparkly wand already.

Now, do you see the enormous elephant being moved around?

There's your truth.



What is your agenda?


I'm not here to sell DVD's
I'm not here to pimp my website.
I'm not here to try and get noticed by the media.

If I may quote another members sig - "Seek fame elsewhere"

I think it's not only wrong but irresponsible to try and lure in gullible people into this junk "theory". Unfortunately I work with a couple of people that managed to get sucked into it, and God bless em' they're not the most rational people on the planet, but it's taken a long time to get them to open their eyes and see through the charade.

My only hope is that others see posts like this and actually think without buying into the snake oil junk science these guys are trying to push down people's throats.


My agenda is far less noble, for entertainment purposes.


Well isn't that special?
Hope you're having fun, I don't take lightly people accusing our Government of mass murder and it's citizens of being complicit in the act using junk science, selective testimony, oh and NO tangible real evidence. That's quite a big charge to throw out there with nothing substantial at all to back it up.

Guess what?
I'm not here to keep you entertained. Since I know you're not here to be serious about the matter, I won't be your forum monkey.

You want to be entertained, you're more than welcome to see my band perform. Otherwise I'm done until you decide to stop staring at the little sparkly magic wand.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


I provide independent verifiable evidence regarding the 9/11 crime.

You spout off emotional baseless accusations against me personally in a desperate attempt to cast doubt on this evidence while making blanket generalized unproven faith based claims in favor of the official story.

That is the difference between us.

I understand how no amount of evidence will ever change the mind of an official story zealot.


I made that statement regarding Wanda Ramey based on the fact that NOBODY corroborated her claim of actually seeing the plane hit the poles and that yes, I had established a precedent how many others cited as witnessing the plane hit the poles admitted that this was not the case.

And guess what?

When I finally got a hold of Wanda, just as I initially thought, she could NOT definitively confirm that she "saw" the plane hit the poles.

NOBODY saw a plane hit poles.

NOBODY saw a pole hit a cab.

NOBODY saw a cab spin out sideways on the road with a 30 foot pole sticking out of the hood.

NOBODY saw a pole sticking out of the windshield of the cab after it came to a stop.

And NOBODY saw Lloyd remove the pole.

Sorry but these are the facts.




[edit on 5-10-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

You spout off emotional baseless accusations against me personally in a desperate attempt to cast doubt on this evidence while making blanket generalized unproven faith based claims in favor of the official story.

I understand how no amount of evidence will ever change the mind of an official story zealot.

I made that statement regarding Wanda Ramey based on the fact that NOBODY corroborated her claim of actually seeing the plane hit the poles and that yes, I had established a precedent how many others cited as witnessing the plane hit the poles admitted that this was not the case.

And guess what?

When I finally got a hold of Wanda, just as I initially thought, she could NOT definitively confirm that she "saw" the plane hit the poles.

NOBODY saw a plane hit poles.

NOBODY saw a pole hit a cab.

NOBODY saw a cab spin out sideways on the road with a 30 foot pole sticking out of the hood.

NOBODY saw a pole sticking out of the windshield of the cab after it came to a stop.

And NOBODY saw Lloyd remove the pole.

Sorry but these are the facts.

[edit on 5-10-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



So what? The FACT that you had a pre-determined conclusion based upon what other people say without talking to said person proves my point. BTW, she was just a small example, we have seen you do this very same thing to other people over the years.

Just pointing out your true colors and intentions, that's all. Everyone (for hte most part) already knows your biased and a conspiracy theory "zealot".

Guess what?

NOBODY saw the poles being planted. You have NO evidence of this whatsoever.

You have NO evidence of ANYTHING being planted.

Sorry but THOSE are the facts.

You're right no amount of junky, biased, spun up evidence will convince me, or most rational, logical people who use common sense.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

So what? The FACT that you had a pre-determined conclusion based upon what other people say without talking to said person proves my point. BTW, she was just a small example, we have seen you do this very same thing to other people over the years.


Your first example failed and so you allude to other instances without providing an example.

Prove it or admit you are making false claims as a means to personally attack me.




Just pointing out your true colors and intentions, that's all.


Nope.

You are lying which is why you can't back up your false accusation.




Guess what?

NOBODY saw the poles being planted. You have NO evidence of this whatsoever.

You have NO evidence of ANYTHING being planted.


Of course I do.

I have proof of it because I have independent scientifically verified evidence that the plane was no where near the poles.

The fact that you dismiss the evidence does not mean it doesn't exist.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

I have proof of it because I have independent scientifically verified evidence that the plane was no where near the poles.




LOL. There ya go waving that sparkly little magic wand again.

It ain't workin'.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist


LOL. There ya go waving that sparkly little magic wand again.

It ain't workin'.



Sorry but this is not a magic trick.






It is evidence that amounts to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Deal with it and start channeling all your anger towards something more productive like demanding an end to fraudulent permanent global war against a noun.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Tune in at wtprn.com to listen live at 4:30 pacific/7:30 eastern time tonight, Saturday October 4th, where I'll be discussing our latest release, The North Side Flyover, as well as the latest Pilots for 9/11 Truth presentation, 9/11 ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON.

Call in at 512-646-1984

If you dare!


That was a great interview Craig and I am looking forward to the new CIT interview with a previously published eyewitness and photos you promised.

I really liked that Chris Emery (Radio Free Oklahoma) and his open-minded style.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
It is evidence that amounts to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.


No it's not. But thanks for posting your "cartoons".



136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon, and

104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

And of course,

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.


Ouch.




Deal with it and start channeling all your anger towards something more productive like demanding an end to fraudulent permanent global war against a noun.


Oh look, your true colors and intentions are coming out.
Here's something for you to "deal with", since you want to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt....

Find out where the plane is/went.
Find out where the passengers and crew are.
Find out what did explode at the Pentagon, using actual PROOF, not some "assumption".
Find out who made the cell phone calls to their loved ones.

Why haven't you gotten the inside scoop from all the recovery workers? Surely some of their testimony should support your theory, I mean after all since you have such solid proof, no?

Just don't tell them why you're questioning them , I'm sure someone will slip up!



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   

posted by Soloist

136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon, and

104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

Most of these people are untraceable and do not exist. You cannot reproduce them nor verify their accounts. You official conspiracy theory faithful dare not even try to find them. Even if a few of these people are real, they were to the south and saw an aircraft to the north and that aircraft was flying over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo and could not possibly have lined up with the official damage path through the light poles and through the Pentagon interior. That north flight path has been proven by the CIT eyewitnesses and recently verified by the FAA.

These supposed eyewitness accounts you wave around are just a bunch of unverifiable mainstream media propaganda sound bytes and print bytes published for their masters.

FAA video screen capture - aircraft just before impact



Link to update FAA video source - 1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
Find the file, right click on it, and download it to your hard drive



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
Most of these people are untraceable and do not exist.


And I guess all the rescue workers don't exist either?


Pretty amazing of all the people that were there, that only a dozen or so which just happen to place the plane on the "north side" are the one's you guys claim to exist. And of the others, they are discounted and called "automatically suspect" , how convenient.





Even if a few of these people are real, they were to the south and saw an aircraft to the north and that aircraft was flying over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo and could not possibly have lined up with the official damage path through the light poles and through the Pentagon interior.


Wow, assume much do we? That's pretty awesome that you somehow know what they saw, after claiming they don't exist.



These supposed eyewitness accounts you wave around are just a bunch of unverifiable mainstream media propaganda sound bytes and print bytes published for their masters.


Your anti-government bias is showing, it's *really* hard to take you serious, so I won't.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Having been in the military and called in air strikes a pilot perspective is always different then ground observer. You dont know how many times i thought the plane was not going to hit the target .In order to judge distance you also have to know the airplane size to properly judge its distance from you .These were average people looking up there flight paths were no where near reality. That is why a bank from the ground can look like the plane just made an impossible angle because people cant judge distance. When i was in the military an aircraft coming in could look like it it a 90 degree turn but it didnt.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


There is no perspective issue at all for people at the citgo.

It was either on the right or left of them at less than 100 feet above ground level.



It would be virtually impossible for ANY of them to mistake which side of thew station it flew by them but it most certainly is completely impossible for ALL of them to independently make such a drasitc "mistake" the exact same way.

Especially since 2 of them are police officers who are professionally trained to observe and report.




new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join