*new presentation* Over The Navy Annex featuring Terry Morin

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by adam_zapple

 

You can SAY we "cherry picked" the statements but it's not true and you have provided zero evidence to back up your false and completely unsupported personal accusation against us.

You can not provide a single instance where we "cherry picked" statements regarding NoC/ONA or north of Columbia Pike where there are direct statements from the witnesses that we ignored supporting a southern approach.

Any NoC theory that includes a fly-off is in direct contradiction to witness' statements and is "cherry picked".

From LaBTop's witness list:
Steve Riskus - impact
Christine Peterson - impact
Sean Boger - impact
Deb Anlauf - impact
Gary Bauer - impact
Mark Bright - impact
Susan Carroll - impact
Joe Harrington - impact
James Mosley - impact
Mary Ann Owens - impact
Zinovy Pak - impact
Mike Walter - impact

.... and on and on and on ....

Cog ~

Der, don't you know? They are all victims of a military deception. They were supposed to think the plane hit. Just in case they were not fooled, the big bad NWO machine created a 2nd plane story...you know a little C.Y.A.

It was a perfect plan...

Until... PFT and CIT found that the FDR, DNA, Bodies, witnesses, videos, phone calls...we all fake or planted.

Craig,
I have seen you state in many places that Flight 77 was small compared to the Pentagon.
This is a scale of Flight 77 to the Pentagon:



That doesnt appear to be very small.
I can only imagine the noise and the spectucal that would cause seeing it fly up and away from the pentagon.

reply to post by cogburn


That is the same circular logic argument that a_z said he was NOT asserting.

Please provide proof of their confirmed POV along with the first-hand statements otherwise you are merely pushing unsubstantiated conjecture and hearsay anyway.

We have always maintained that the scientifically validated evidence we present is completely falsifiable.

All you need to do is provide 14 first-hand definitive SoC accounts from witnesses with an equal to or better vantage point than the NoC witnesses.

So far you have zero.

reply to post by 654321


Since you seem to be having trouble posting an image to make your point let me help you out with that.

Here is a scale image created by the ASCE.



A 757 is minuscule compared to the Pentagon.

Cogburn: ”” I'm interested to see why you think my position of Riskus at the time of impact is too far north. The size of the red dot is to provide an area of an estimated position, not an exact one. Given the position of the first frame he presents and the stated time lapse between the impact and that first frame, I don't see how my estimate is unacceptably inaccurate. „“

Cogburn, you made it unwillingly difficult by giving a link instead of showing the picture, which I do for you now. And you don’t oppose my note that you placed Penny too far north in your posted picture…
If you should have shown that picture, I would have immediately given you the answer where EXACTLY Steve Riskus said he was when he saw the plane. He is telling us it quite explicitly.
He was “” at about where the “E” in “ANGLE OF CAMERA” is written when the plane hit.””
He did not realize that there are two “E’s” in that phrase, but we know from the rest of his text that he was looking “at” the plane, so he was at the spot where the “E” from “ANGLE” is on that picture.
That is on the southbound lane from Washington Boulevard, driving south, going towards the two trees in front of the helipad, on the other side of his lane.
So, your placement of Riskus in his car in your posted picture is about right, he stood where a line along the North wall would cross over the southbound lane of Washington Boulevard, that’s where the “E” from ANGLE was drawn in the next picture after this first one :





However, your proposed position of Penny Elgas (not Patty btw) is definitely not right.
Firstly you place her in the normal northbound far right lane, secondly you place her about 300 meters too far North.
She was stuck in a traffic jam in the northbound HOV lane (between the north-and-southbound lanes!), which is up to 09:00 only accessible for cars with multiple occupancies, but Penny entered the HOV lane shortly after nine o’clock alone in her car, as she told us in her interview. And then she was stuck “”almost in front of the Pentagon”” as she said herself. Thus, she clearly meant by that “almost”, that she was almost standing still in front of the center of the Pentagon West wall.

Re-read her linked words again from my post up there on this page:

I headed north on 1-395 to DC from my home in Springfield, Virginia and I entered the highway a little after 9am so that I could take the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) express lane. As usual, traffic was very heavy and after I exited I-95, I found myself stuck in late morning rush hour traffic -- almost in front of the Pentagon.

Penny Elgas ads a very slight left bank to the path, after it crossed Washington Boulevard and flew over the Pentagon lawn. She saw the bottom of the left wing dipped down a little.
Christine Peterson says the plane crossed over her head and thus over her car, which she told us, was standing in front of the heli pad.

Thus, Penny Elgas was BEHIND the incoming plane and not far behind Christine Peterson’s car.!
Otherwise, she could not have seen the underside of that dipped down left wing. If she were at your spot, she would have seen the top side of that wing! Moreover, she then looked out her rear window.
A near as precise guess would be exactly at the bottom of your drawn blue ellipse, your proposal of Christine Peterson’s possible car positions.


Now back to Riskus again.
I very much like his photographs, and in a next post I will attend you on something everybody overlooked until now.
The problem I have with his recollection of the events is his sense of distance.
Riskus said “”I was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that I could see the American Airlines logo on the tail as it headed towards the building””. And “”I clearly saw the “AA” logo with the eagle in the middle””.

May I note that 100 feet in my books is 33 meter, about the length of the helipad!
That is SIX times 100 feet / 33 meters, which is nearly 200 meters / 600 feet away from where he says he saw the plane cross the road.
Riskus his own words: “”The plane looked like it was coming in where you have written “MAX APPROACH” on that picture””.
If he means it crossed the road at the word “MAX”, it is even further away from him.
However, if he really saw the plane “about 100 feet” from his car, then he corroborates nicely the report of Christine Peterson who said that the plane flew over her car, standing still in front of the helipad.

Full picture (738px × 954px), it is a JPEG shot from a web page, click i44.tinypic.com...






This is the strength of the Internet; we can keep track of certain information many years afterwards.
Have an intense look at the date of creation for Steve Riskus his “criticalthrash” page:
reports.internic.net...

Domain Name: CRITICALTHRASH.COM
Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
Whois Server: whois.tucows.com
Referral URL: domainhelp.opensrs.net...
Name Server: NS1.DN.NET
Name Server: NS2.DN.NET
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 29-aug-2008
Creation Date: 10-sep-2001
Expiration Date: 10-sep-2009

Isn’t that a tad bit shocking? ONE day before 9/11.
He created a page named criticalthrash (thrash the critics? Or critical swinging, he’s a skater) one day before the most shocking event of the new century, up until now. Then he magically was present in front of the Pentagon, with a high definition capable digital camera (very rare those days), and made the best pictures available from just after the event. What an unbelievable coincidence!
Then he started thrashing critics of the official explanation of that event.
That page is now a skating enthusiast page. And from an Internet addict. If he really is the Riskus that took the pictures, I don’t know for sure.

Let me first tell you something you perhaps never read anywhere. Moreover, it is true.
The US government and its allies caught hackers, crackers and other IT “criminals”, most of them very young, worldwide, and provided them with a simple choice:
“”do a loooong hard prison time, or cooperate with us, and you will be placed in a special detachment camp under DoD rule, where you will do our work as ordered, and you sign a contract, which you must follow to the letter, or ….. In the end, when we are pleased with your work, you will even be paid well for it, and you will be released, but you still have to work for us now and then, on the Internet, defending the official line of ANY event.””

criticalthrash.com...
This is Steve Riskus message board login text:
“”stuff to skate, people skating, sessions, home.
Jail, coc aine, broken bones, divorce, and alcohol “”

Seems that Steve’s life did not go well before (?) and after his last News post on 8.07.03 at this page of him:
criticalthrash.com...
Note the text of that page in the top of your browser:
“Can a ***** get a table dance”
And then read the text dated 6.11.03 where he gives his email address as follows:
Email me at riskus[at]criticalthrash[dot]com
Is it worth a try? Is it still working and does he still answer mails?

www.all-nettools.com...

www.criticalthrash.com (72.21.53.125)
72.21.32.0 - 72.21.63.255
Layered Technologies, Inc.
5085 W Park Blvd
Suite 700
Plano, TX
US

LT NOC Team
[email protected]
+1-972-398-7998

Mind that the site where the high definition pictures were posted has an address:
criticalthrash.com , without the www. in front of it.


[edit on 26/1/09 by LaBTop]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


You are lying when you say that Flight 77 is, "miniscule" when compared to the Pentagon
This image is much more accurate and shows just how large it is:

reply to post by LaBTop


Then I'm still missing something... if Penny was so far back in the line of cars that she was behind Christine, I'm having trouble reconciling this statement:

"Then I became aware of people streaming out of the back side of the Pentagon and congregating on the sidewalks. It appears it was only a minute or two after the impact because they weren't yet looking at the crash site and seemed perplexed as to why they were outside. Perhaps only a few minutes lapsed from the actual time of impact to the time when someone was yelling at the traffic to "Go! Go! Go!" But it seemed like an eternity. As I began to drive, I heard a crunching sound (like driving on gravel) and I saw a piece of metal on the road about the size of a softball (it looked like a small conveyer belt-like roller with pins.) I remember thinking that I could puncture my tires - but in that same thought, I vowed to keep driving, even if I had to ride home on the tire rims. As the car moved slowly forward in traffic, I realized that I was still headed toward my office and I absolutely did not want to go there - my office is on Pennsylvania Avenue, just a few doors down from the White House.

So I made my way across the lanes of traffic and instead, I exited into the Pentagon's parking lot. I circled around to the right and came out under the road that I had just been on -- headed toward I-66 West. "

She weaved her way through the stopped line of cars in Riskus's photos?

Someone in that knot of cars was yelling "Go, go go"?

EDIT: Do we have any independent information indicating how long traffic was stopped in front of the Pentagon?

She also states driving over some debris. I never attempted to equate it to more than regular highway debris, however is it noot possible that if she was that far back is that a something from the plane or the light pole?

I'm sorry, but I find your attempt at discrediting Riskus as some sort of informant as wanting.

The "www" or lack thereof is meaningless. It is a subdomain within the criticalthrash.com domain. Any attempt to address any subdomain at criticalthrash.com will still be routed to the IP address within the registry. An "internet addict" is not a "hacker", nor does that infer the means, motive or knowledge to abuse computer security. If you'd like some background on real hackers and the methods the FBI and other agencies employ to recruit them, send me a U2U. You unwittingly touched on a topic of which I have a great deal of personal experience. I'm assuming you are able to produce someone that has verifiable credentials and has been approached in such a manner?

Your assumptions reveal your lack of knowledge in this area or the attempt to manufacture a conspiracy where there is none.

I have attempted to state ad nauseam that measurements stated by witnesses in regard to a traumatic situation are worthless. Police take those kinds of statements with the largest grains of salt. They must be verified by real world tests (which you have done, btw) and then evaluated for their impact on the truthfulness of the statements in which they are contained. If found wanting, they become adjectives that may be removed from the account without altering the information being provided.

Given the nature of Steve Riskus's statements, does removing the measurements alter his account to the point where it is no longer conveying the same information? No.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by cogburn]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by adam_zapple

 

You are making sweeping generalizations and false claims about what I claim without quoting me.

It's your only recourse because my logic is sound and backed up by hard evidence based while yours is flimsy and purely faith based.

It is NOT a "theory" that all of the confirmed first-hand witness accounts in this critical area place the plane NoC/ONA/ and/or north of Columbia Pike.

It's not a "theory" that they say it....it's a "theory" that what they say is what actually happened. Try to understand the difference.

North of citgo is a *THEORY*....it doesn't become fact just because there are eyewitnesses who say that's where the plane was.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You can SAY we "cherry picked" the statements but it's not true and you have provided zero evidence to back up your false and completely unsupported personal accusation against us.

Lagasse made multiple claims:

One of which is that the plane was north of the citgo
One of which is that the plane hit the Pentagon

You simply chose which claim you wished to believe, and used that belief to reject any evidence that contradicts it. (There's that circular logic again)

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
They all 100% conclusively and definitively support the northern approach and you know it.

They also all 100% conclusively and definitively support the impact and you know it.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by cogburn

 

That is the same circular logic argument that a_z said he was NOT asserting.

Please provide proof of their confirmed POV along with the first-hand statements otherwise you are merely pushing unsubstantiated conjecture and hearsay anyway.

We have always maintained that the scientifically validated evidence we present is completely falsifiable.

All you need to do is provide 14 first-hand definitive SoC accounts from witnesses with an equal to or better vantage point than the NoC witnesses.

So far you have zero.

I'm sorry there's nothing circular about it. If NoC is true, analysis of witness statements from a different perspective should not disprove NoC. Analyzing witness statements for an impact has no bearing on the validity of an NoC theory.

LaBTop and I just clarified Steve Riskus's position. He agrees my placement of Riskus at the time of impact is within an acceptable margin of accuracy. Rather than refute Riskus's statements (made more difficult by his photos), the method of discrediting his account is an attempt to infer he's a government informant that ran afoul of the law and was recruited for a DoD/FBI disinformation campaign. Without proof of any such activities, mind you.

Christine Peterson saw an impact, and we just placed her on Washington Blvd in front of the helipad.

Sean Boger was in the air tower and he saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Am I to presume that the response to this is that he and his wife are gov't employees and therefore not a "real people" who can be believed?

3 down, 10 to go.

The next step, of course, is to attempt to reconcile each witness statement with an SoC or NoC flight path.

The process is logically sound and scientifically valid, even if in the end its results contradict the fly-off theory.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by cogburn]

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Lagasse made multiple claims:
One of which is that the plane was north of the citgo

There you have it. Do you believe him, or not? He's got some support with other people also saying that the alleged plane flew NOC.

posted by 654321
Craig,
I have seen you state in many places that Flight 77 was small compared to the Pentagon.
This is a scale of Flight 77 to the Pentagon:



That doesnt appear to be very small.
I can only imagine the noise and the spectucal that would cause seeing it fly up and away from the pentagon.

posted by 654321
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

 

You are lying when you say that Flight 77 is, "miniscule" when compared to the Pentagon
This image is much more accurate and shows just how large it is:

I swear that is the strangest looking aircraft I have ever seen.

Find the second trailer. Hint: Riskus frame 18



This one has three wheels. And the helipad tower is looming in the far distance behind it.
The first two-wheeled one I found parked along the road coming from under the overpass, SPreston will easily post it for you. I guess he will find this one also easily.

That's now 2 of those trailers to transport lamp posts, parked at the event area on 9/11. It's getting crowdy with these things.

Originally posted by adam_zapple

It's not a "theory" that they say it....it's a "theory" that what they say is what actually happened. Try to understand the difference.

Are you for real?

They are WITNESSES.

When they tell you where they saw the plane fly it is not their "theory".


It is evidence.

When it gets independently corroborated over and over it becomes proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The notion that a first-hand account from any witness about anything is a "theory" is ridiculous.

You can refuse to accept the evidence as valid for your own personal reasons or whatever but it is not a theory.

North of citgo is a *THEORY*....it doesn't become fact just because there are eyewitnesses who say that's where the plane was.

It would be a theory if it was MY idea.

It was never my idea. I simply asked the witnesses where they saw the plane. They all happened to say the same thing.

It would be a theory if it was simply being asserted by someone who is not a witness.

It is not a theory when a witness who was really there and really watched it happen says that this is what they saw!

Especially when they have been unanimously corroborated by everyone else in this critical area who witnessed the event.

Lagasse made multiple claims:

One of which is that the plane was north of the citgo
One of which is that the plane hit the Pentagon

You simply chose which claim you wished to believe, and used that belief to reject any evidence that contradicts it. (There's that circular logic again)

Dude you just claimed that you are NOT using this circular logic but here you are using it again.

Lagasse had a much better view of the plane as it passed by him compared to when it reached the building particularly since he ADMITTED he "flinched" and jumped into his car out of fear.

I "choose" to accept his north side claim because it is more logical that this is what he would be correct about since he doesn't have eyes in the back of his head and wouldn't be able to see the plane on the south path through the building.

But also of course because he is unanimously corroborated regarding the north side approach from EVERYONE in the area MOST of whom could not see the alleged impact point at all due to trees.



So you don't have to "choose" ANYTHING when it comes to the ANC witnesses because they could not see the alleged impact at all and admitted to running away in the opposite direction for their lives.

The ANC witnesses alone prove the north side approach.

But of course the fact that they !00% validate what the citgo witnesses report FROM THE OPPOSITE PERSPECTIVE should leave no doubt in any rational individual's mind that this is where the plane flew.



It is not their "theory" that's for sure!

They also all 100% conclusively and definitively support the impact and you know it.

But most couldn't even see the the alleged impact but had a PERFECT view of the north side approach and you know it.



[edit on 26-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by cogburn

The process is logically sound and scientifically valid, even if in the end its results contradict the fly-off theory.

Sorry but there is nothing "scientific" about using spin and conjecture regarding hearsay to counter real evidence.

Only first-hand eyewitness statements are evidence and you have provided zero.

Well we provided Sean Boger's first-hand account of seeing the plane on the north side which, since unanimously validated by everyone else, proves he deduced the impact.

You however are merely exposing your confirmation bias with your clear desire to dismiss scientifically validated hard evidence in favor of speculation and spin.

If you accept anything less than 14 first-hand definitive SoC accounts from people with an equal to or better vantage than the 13 NoC witnesses you prove that you are not willing to adhere to the scientific method or true critical thinking standards of proof.

Why would you accept infinitely LESS evidence in favor of the official story as a means to dismiss MORE evidence contradicting it?

That is not logical.



[edit on 26-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by 654321


You could fit 100's of 757's in an airplane hangar the size of the Pentagon.

Literally.

I haven no idea why you would argue otherwise because it looks pretty silly.

You need to keep up your fantasy of Flight 77 being, "minuscule" because you use that lie to push the fantasy of a flyover which didn't happen.

reply to post by LaBTop


... or used to transport the variety of construction materials in the area.

Empty flatbeds in a constructions site for plausible deniability?

Ok, stop.

I really would like to see a complete scenario for a light pole black-bag operation. Don't do this piecemeal or I will refute each piece of evidence before you have a chance to present your entire case.

If it takes a while, that's fine. Throwing out bits of random information is not going to garner much intellectual support nor does it lend any credibility to the claims of planted light poles.

Originally posted by cogburn


I really would like to see a complete scenario for a light pole black-bag operation. Don't do this piecemeal or I will refute each piece of evidence before you have a chance to present your entire case.

Already done here.

I'll bump it for you.