Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
However the independent evidence I provide simply proves the official narrative false.

If we assume that all of the eyewitnesses you present are correct only about the parts of their stories which contradict the "official narrative" then that is true however it still does not prove any military involvement.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITBut I also strongly believe that the operation could not have been completed without the resources of U.S. military and intelligence.

Your beliefs are not proof. Your continued claim that "X proves a military deception" is only hurting your arguments.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITMoving forward if you wish to continue participating in this thread I respectfully request that you stick to the evidence presented in the OP as the rules of this forum require.

You brought up military involvement, and I responded. I think we've settled that point now since that claim was based on speculation, not evidence, so we can move on.

Back to Mr Morin. Did you give him an overhead map of the area, as with other eyewitnesses, and ask him to plot the path of the plane?

[edit on 7-1-2009 by adam_zapple]

Originally posted by adam_zapple

If we assume that all of the eyewitnesses you present are correct only about the parts of their stories which contradict the "official narrative" then that is true however it still does not prove any military involvement.


[edit on 7-1-2009 by adam_zapple]

There is very strong and compelling evidence with the CIT investigation that the official story of the Pentagon attack is complete bunk. That would further lead to the conclusion that that the evidence supporting the official story was staged.

Although it does not 'prove' military involvement, such an operation would surely best be executed by some special military branch (not the everyday grunt). Just because it likely had military involvement, it does not mean every member of the military recieved a memo stating "Hey guys, Psyops attack on USA tomorrow, but keep it quiet.".

No, there is no proof of military involvement, but the military would be the prime place for recruitment of operatives for the attack.

Originally posted by almighty bob
Although it does not 'prove' military involvement, such an operation would surely best be executed by some special military branch

No, there is no proof of military involvement, but the military would be the prime place for recruitment of operatives for the attack.

Do you then agree that, despite your opinions or speculation, it would be incorrect to state that any of the evidence presented by CIT thus far "proves a military deception"?

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS/matrix911
I just think the debates craig et al are having with you is a complete waste of bandwidth.

Boy, you nailed that one on the head. Trying to "debate" anyone with such preconcieved and pre-judged opinions as the CIT boys, who claim to be supported by the most incredible cherrypicked and quote-mined evidence for such a select and hand-picked group of "witnesses" is more of an exercise in entertainment than anything else.

Craig and Captain Bob and their minions are hanging out on internet discussion boards instead of out badgering the media with their accusations. If they really believed the offal they are putting out, they'd ride the power of their convictions straight to a grand jury indictment. They aren't and they never will.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by pinch]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Morin confirmed his original "parallel" claim that has been proven incorrect by the other confirmed independent witnesses.

Or does his statement, and all the others that you HAVEN'T interviewed prove your 13 incorrect?

I guess you haven't considered that, eh?

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Do you then agree that, despite your opinions or speculation, it would be incorrect to state that any of the evidence presented by CIT thus far "proves a military deception"?

Because of my own personal dogma, it is my opinion that you can never actually 'prove' anything, so yes.

Furthermore, I would not have called it a 'military' deception. My opinion of it is that the military only follows orders, so technically it wouldn't really be their deception, more the deception of those that ordered whichever super-duper-secret-blacker-than-black-ops operatives within the military (or paramilitary, if you will) carried out the plan.

On the other hand, if these Special Op Branch guys carried it out then you could also claim that these SOB's also pulled off the deception.

Ultimately, this just starts grinding down to unproductive niggling over semantics though. I understand why CIT call it a military deception, and agree that the military SOB's are the prime candidates for carrying it out. However, again because of my belief system, I would never claim that anything can be proven. But that's just me.

Originally posted by almighty bob
Because of my own personal dogma, it is my opinion that you can never actually 'prove' anything, so yes.

So then...no one could prove that the 9/11 attacks ever took place?

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by almighty bob
Because of my own personal dogma, it is my opinion that you can never actually 'prove' anything, so yes.

So then...no one could prove that the 9/11 attacks ever took place?

Not definitively, no. All proof, at best, is subjective.

All I know about the events of 9/11 is the result of hearsay and conjecture, media reports, second-hand information or information from the n'th degree of separation.

Conversely, no one can ever prove that they didn't either.

From my experience of the evidence, the likelihood is that the attacks did take place. Also, from my experience of the evidence, the likelihood is that the attacks were staged. An inside job.

But, again, this is a distraction from the point in question.

Originally posted by almighty bob

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by almighty bob
Because of my own personal dogma, it is my opinion that you can never actually 'prove' anything, so yes.

So then...no one could prove that the 9/11 attacks ever took place?

Not definitively, no. All proof, at best, is subjective.

Then what you have is not an evidence-based belief system, but a faith-based belief system. Since you don't believe in "proof" there is no way anyone could "prove" anything to you. You will believe whatever you want to believe regardless of the evidence. That explains a lot, thanks for being honest.

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by almighty bob
Not definitively, no. All proof, at best, is subjective.

Then what you have is not an evidence-based belief system, but a faith-based belief system. Since you don't believe in "proof" there is no way anyone could "prove" anything to you. You will believe whatever you want to believe regardless of the evidence. That explains a lot, thanks for being honest.

Actually, quite the opposite. What I have is an evidence-based belief system. I don't believe things just because I have faith in what I am being told being true. I am presented with evidence and weigh my understanding of that evidence against my understanding of other evidence to come to my own personal conclusion. This is what everyone does, except I am realistic in that I understand that either the evidence or my understanding of the evidence is flawed. I realise that everything I have learned is learned, it is not necessarily true (as per my sig).

This is skepticism at its finest


Ironically, what you appear to have done is draw an incorrect conclusion over my belief system because you have a faith-based belief system.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by almighty bob]

posted by Craig Ranke CIT

You can pretend he doesn't say what everyone can hear him say in the interview presented in the OP all you want but it only makes you look really odd.

He specifically says he was in between the wings.

posted by adam_zapple
So...if this is true. How much time would he have in which the aircraft was in view above him?

Can't you handle simple math? If this was the official Flight 77 above him as represented in the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY which it could not be, then the speed would be 535 mph or 784 fps. The openings between the building wings appear to be exactly 50 feet wide. The 757 body is 155 feet long. About 0.2 seconds (1/5th of a second) seems about the amount of time the aircraft would be visible to Morin at the official 784 fps.

However we do not know the type of aircraft used for the decoy aircraft nor its speed, except it was much slower according to real living videotaped eyewitnesses. So lets guess and divide everything in half. Do not forget that Morin HEARD the aircraft approaching from the sound waves bouncing off the interior walls of the building wings, and was looking up EXPECTING to see an aircraft. Don't let the disinformation excreted by jthomas lead you down the path of fools.

Also, if the aircraft were the official Flight 77 757 depicted in the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY which jthomas so foolishly defends, then Terry Morin could simply have turned around, looked to the south, and viewed the aircraft from the side about 300-400 feet away and about 30-50 feet above the parking lot level. Terry Morin would never have been so fooled to describe that aircraft as above him would he?

270 mph or 395 fps
0.4 seconds (2/5th of a second) is the amount of time Morin had to view the aircraft between the wings and then run out into the parking lot and seeing the tail until the explosion. Adjust the time either way you want, but there was not much time to view the aircraft between the building wings was there?

At 784 fps, Morin had two seconds to run out into the parking lot to see the tail before it dived down out of sight to hit the #1 and #2 light poles. But the aircraft never did dive down out of sight did it? Morin still saw the tail until the explosion. An additional second before the explosion at the wall at the official 784 fps.

At 395 fps Morin would have twice as much time. (4 seconds before the aircraft dived out of sight and 6 seconds total time to the wall) But then it is impossible to hit the #1 and #2 light poles with wings level from Over the Naval Annex isn't it?




[edit on 1/9/09 by SPreston]

JThomas,,,

I've followed this thread (and many others you've been in) and its beyond logic or reason how utterly in denial you seem to be even when a government official is one of the EYE WITNESSES who unequivocally states something that irrefutably supports CRAIG and the NOC path, and clearly is an UNBIASED OBJECTIVE CREDIBLE WITNESS. Yet you still refuse to accept what he's said... Do you have a mental disability or are you just upset you're realizing the evidence has proven you've been deceived and are defending the LIE 9/11 was? One now has to question your intellectual stability if you're not just upset or part of the coverup. You're attempting to claim he couldn't have seen what he SAYS HE SAW which he's 100% sure about.

Its quite bizarre really.

I've never before quite seen your level of denial and refusal to accept or even understand the facts coming from an actual government official who was even carrying evidence itself. The facts are so obvious aside from basic common sense, the only way someone could take the position you are, is if they're a shill, involved in the cover-up, or lack the ability to reason.