CIT skeptics finally admit north side approach is possible after all!

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITA plane on the north side proves a military deception on 9/11.

I think it would be more accurate to say a plane on the North side suggests the possibility of a deception....and not neccessarily by the military.

You take great leaps in logic.

reply to post by darkbluesky


I disagree.

The plane on the north side proves the Pentagon was attacked from within.

This can only mean that the suspects have full access to all all the resources of the U.S. military.

There is no way around it.

Great news! You have defeated skeptics!


Is the issue skeptics, or bringing the perpetrators of mass murder to justice? When are you going to do something other than bait internet flame wars?

Honestly Craig, it appears from your recent flurry of activity you have no intention of doing anything other than seeking attention on internet forums. I know that sounded snitty and may have come across as a put down - it's not meant as a personal attack.

[edit on 29-9-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by darkbluesky

 

I disagree.

The plane on the north side proves the Pentagon was attacked from within.

How does this "prove" anything? Lets, for the sake of the discussion, completely concede the NOC flight path as you propose. How does this prove anything other than the plane flew into the building?

This can only mean that the suspects have full access to all all the resources of the U.S. military.

Why can this mean only one thing and how? Who would that be? How inflated would the CT need to become to reach a person of this level? 'Full access to all the resources of the us military'? Huh? How do you come to this conclusion by virtue of a NOC flight path? Further, how do you dismiss the massive amount of evidence that FLT 77 flew into the building? Unless your not contesting the impact? If your not contesting the impact, what are we arguing about?

There is no way around it.

There isn't? As someone else said, you make massive leaps of assumption without providing a narrative to address the various implications of your assumptions.

[edit on 29-9-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply to post by defcon5


Once again, someone else using "evidence" which is merely a conclusion drawn out from the assumption that there were radical terrorist hijackers crashing planes into buildings...

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar


How does this "prove" anything? Lets, for the sake of the discussion, completely concede the NOC flight path as you propose. How does this prove anything other than the plane flew into the building?

A north side approach is irreconcilable with all physical damage.

It proves the plane did not hit.

The extent of the cover-up also implicates those in control of the military & government.

If you concede a north side approach you must concede 9/11 was a military black operation.

Even our most fervent detractors admit this.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Or maybe, JUST maybe your witnesses accidentally embellished the parts that they told to you as well and it WASN'T really a north side approach. I mean come on dude, use common sense. How the hell did the damage (speaking of the damage that took place upon the descent of the plane) happen if it were a north side approach?

You are seriously expecting me and others to believe that the damage was "set up" w/out anyone noticing? Or that a missile caused the damage? I have seen the damage that was done BY THE PLANE and I promise you that even me, in my limited knowledge, would know that must have been SOME missile to have been able to cause the same damage the PLANE CAUSED on its descent toward the pentagon.

One would have to be pretty dense to believe the load of crap you are spewing out


[edit on 29-9-2008 by justamomma]

Originally posted by justamomma

Or maybe, JUST maybe your witnesses accidentally embellished the parts that they told to you as well and it WASN'T really a north side approach.

If that was the case then this detail would not have been verified 13 times over via the scientific process of corroboration.

I mean come on dude, use common sense. How the hell did the damage (speaking of the damage that took place on the descending of the plane) happen if it were a north side approach?

That is the conundrum isn't it?

No matter how hard it is to believe, there is nothing impossible about it and an argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy.

Faulty logic does not refute scientifically validated evidence.

You are seriously expecting me and others to believe that the damage was "set up" w/out anyone noticing? Or that a missile caused the damage? I have seen the damage that was done BY THE PLANE and I promise you that even me, in my limited knowledge, would know that must have been SOME missile to have been able to cause the same damage the PLANE CAUSED on its descent toward the pentagon.

I don't believe there was a missile.

But again, your argument from incredulity does not refute scientifically validated evidence.

One would have to be pretty dense to believe the load of crap you are spewing out

Now you are being immature and insulting to many hundreds of readers of this board.

Are you really a "momma"?

I hope you teach your children better manners than this.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Yes, I am a momma of two young sons who display more common sense than I have seen displayed by you, a grown man. I am rather proud of them, thank you. I don't worry so much about manners when it comes to thier being honest w/ someone their own age who chooses to spew forth ignorance (granted, that really isn't a problem among their age range.. lack of common sense seems to be something that afflicts adults more than the kiddos these days). Why not grow up bc honestly, I am not likely to water down the truth and how I present it for your sake.

I am not sure of any scientific analysis that would be considered credible when facts and evidence are being ignored and only bits and pieces of SOME testimony is being used to corroborate a theory. You have nothing really, Craig... other than a fable to sell to the masses of ppl who want so desperately to believe in a more sick and twisted plot that really was already quite sick and twisted to begin with.

reply to post by justamomma


Ah I see.

So you think it's ok to teach your kids to be rude and insulting to entire groups of people simply for not sharing your belief.

Sorry but I think that is horrible behavior and it makes me sad for your children.

At any rate I think our discussion has reached an impasse.

You refuse to accept the independent verifiable evidence we present in favor of embracing faith in what you were told by the government.

Unless you are able to discuss the evidence I don't see a need for us to continue this conversation.

Take care.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by justamomma

 

Ah I see.

So you think it's ok to teach your kids to be rude and insulting to entire groups of people simply for not sharing your belief.

Sorry but I think that is horrible behavior and it makes me sad for your children.

Who are you to judge??

This thread was started by you basically attacking a member of this board, in the hopes of winning an internet argument.

Get off your pedestal , you're no better than anyone.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


No doubt you would have not liked being my child. I would have had no problem slapping some common sense back into your head, not to mention bending you over my knee for attacking another's personal parenting skills that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. As it is, I am blessed with two very brilliant children who mind, for the most part, pretty damn well.

Back to the topic, shall we (good side~stepping there, Craig!! gotta hand it to you and you even had a fan come along and star ya...no doubt your partner who you called up to high five you w/ the star )....

You are the one saying that you are using scientific methods. So answer me this as straighforwardly as is possible for you.

1.) How many testimonies are you using IN THEIR ENTIRETY???

2.) HOW many testimonies are you using only bits and pieces from??

3.) How many testimonies, specifically, do you NOT use (not asking why you don't, just how many)?

4.) Who is picking and choosing the testimonies to be used and discarded, and among those that are being used, who is picking the bits and pieces from those testimonies to be used?

Just doing a little "scientific analysis" of my own here, if you don't mind. Will have more questions even more relevent to your initial post, but I think these are pretty flipping relevent as it is

[edit on 29-9-2008 by justamomma]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
A north side approach is irreconcilable with all physical damage.

I see your logic flow. The question I would ask is it more likely all the evidence was faked, or the few witnesses that claim NOC are wrong?

It proves the plane did not hit.

How does it prove this? Again, when you balance the evidence for a hit with evidence it did not (purely your NOC witnesses), which is more likely?

The extent of the cover-up also implicates those in control of the military & government.

What extent? What cover up?

If you concede a north side approach you must concede 9/11 was a military black operation.

I concede neither. It is a massive, massive leap from one to another in the first place.

To your specific argument? I must? Why?

Even our most fervent detractors admit this.

I'm one of them and no I don't. What I have seen is a few mined quotes taking posters comments completely out of context.

Can you answer my other question I have posed at least a dozen times? Why the fascination with skeptics? Is, or is it not, your goal bringing the perpetrators of mass murder to justice, or attention from forum posters?

So far, we have literally years of posts on internet forums and absolutely no action to bring mass murders to justice.

reply to post by justamomma


You already know the answer(s).

For goodness sake, look at one of the pictures in his opening post. Craig is showing the plane banking one way (his hands) and his 'witness' is indicating something else.

I have repeatedly called for the raw interview footage to be released. It will never happen. CIT needs to control the message; that is, what they claim their witnesses say, versus what they actually meant are two entirely different things.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar


I concede neither. It is a massive, massive leap from one to another in the first place.

To your specific argument? I must? Why?

You said:

Lets, for the sake of the discussion, completely concede the NOC flight path as you propose. How does this prove anything other than the plane flew into the building?

Now you are going back on your own hypothetical discussion.

It's impossible to have a productive conversation if you are unable to maintain continuity of the discussion.

IF you conceded this AS YOU DID for the sake of discussion, it proves the plane did not hit.

This is a fact.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar



Sheesh, I know. I have been warned. But I seriously just want him to point blank say that he is manipulating testimony and picking and choosing only that which supports his theory. It is so obvious that I wish I could let it go, but it makes me angry considering what happened that day. This is not a game. This was a tragic day where thousands of ppl lost their lives and the facts are harsh enough as it is w/out these movie makers coming in to make profits or push their names by exploiting it.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

For goodness sake, look at one of the pictures in his opening post. Craig is showing the plane banking one way (his hands) and his 'witness' is indicating something else.

You are wrong which is why you are not referencing the witness name, the image, or the time of the footage in question.

All witnesses described, indicated, and illustrated a significant right bank which is just as fatal to the official story as the north side approach.

I have repeatedly called for the raw interview footage to be released. It will never happen. CIT needs to control the message; that is, what they claim their witnesses say, versus what they actually meant are two entirely different things.

The interviews presented are edited as minimally as possible which is why they are so long and un-entertaining.

The fact that none of the witnesses are anonymous means that the evidence is 100% verifiable.

There is a large contingency of CIT detractors out there who would descend on any possibility to show misrepresentation of testimony like a pack of vultures.

Yet none of the witnesses have so much as uttered a negative word about us let alone claimed that we misrepresented their accounts.

NONE of them.

So the very fact that the evidence is first-hand eyewitness accounts has a built in verification factor since we would be outed as frauds within minutes if we had lied about what any of them said.

If you think we lied, contact the witnesses yourself.

If you are unwilling to provide evidence that we lied, you have no right to make such a baseless accusation.

reply to post by justamomma


Nothing has been manipulated which is why neither you or SAP are able to even verbalize or reference this alleged contradicting moment.

It doesn't exist.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


well, do you mind just answering my questions specifically how I asked them? I mean, the ppl that you witnessed (god bless them cuz I watched and was getting annoyed personally) were kind enough to answer your questions specifically, even fullfilling your requests to make their drawn lines broader

If you feel that the answer to any of the questions are zero, you most certainly can put zero. come on, they played along in your investigation. Can you at least show the same courtesy to those investigating you?



[edit on 29-9-2008 by justamomma]