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.

 

Question to opponents of CIT

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Now, I can perfectly understand why people may be cautious of the controversial 'Flyover' hypothesis put forward by CIT, but it seems that opponents of CIT use this hypothesis as a way of invalidating the eyewitness testimonies collected by Ranke & Co, so I want to ask this question to those that oppose the work of CIT without it balling over into the usual '...but the flyover...' distractions.


So, CIT have collected independant and verifiable eyewitness testimonies, that have yet to be refuted in the same manner as they were collected (that is, in an independantly verifiable manner, or by a greater number of contradictory independant accounts), that shows anomolies with the official version of events.

1: The flightpath is markedly different to that of the official story.
2: With that flightpath, the witnessed craft could not have interacted with the downed lightpoles.
3: Which would indicate that the lightpole damage was staged
4: Which would indicate some kind of internal Government/Agency collusion.

Now the question.

Without referring to the Flyover theory, why do you (the CIT opponents) discount the eyewitness testimonies in favour of the official story that, without refutation of these testimonies, cannot be trusted and show very strong evidence that the American Government has lied to and assisted with the deception and murder of its citizens?

I ask this in a sincere manner, wishing to more fully understand the opposition to the work done by CIT, as the opposition in the CIT threads invariably ends up obsessing on the flyover theory, but whether that theory is accurate or not (and, again, I fully understand why people do not support that), it does not change the eyewitness reports of the difference in the flightpath.




posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Does anyone remember the conversation which stated that an aide kept coming into the room to update Cheney; "its 30 miles away"... "its 20 miles away" etc....



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by almighty bob
Now the question.

Without referring to the Flyover theory, why do you (the CIT opponents) discount the eyewitness testimonies in favour of the official story that, without refutation of these testimonies, cannot be trusted and show very strong evidence that the American Government has lied to and assisted with the deception and murder of its citizens?


A couple of things: While I don't consider myself an "opponent of CIT", I'm sure they would consider me such. I am an opponent of what I believe to be deceptive tactics on the part of the members of CIT.

On to your question...I don't "discount" the eyewitness testimonies, in any situation there are going to be some people who observe something that differs from the majority or disagrees with the physical evidence. These "NOC" eyewitnesses are just that.

I suspect that part of this is due to the fact that the point of impact at the pentagon is north of where they were located, so it would be a simple mistake to assume the plane flew straight into the wedge which would require a "NOC" flight path. Until CIT is able to prove that these eyewitnesses were not simply mistaken about the flight path, I don't see any reason to reject the other 100+ eyewitnesses, the 1000+ first responders, physical evidence, etc etc because a dozen people thought the plane was a few hundred feet north of where it was.

That's without even getting into the mechanics of this ridiculous theory they propose...



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
On to your question...I don't "discount" the eyewitness testimonies, in any situation there are going to be some people who observe something that differs from the majority or disagrees with the physical evidence. These "NOC" eyewitnesses are just that.
I suspect that part of this is due to the fact that the point of impact at the pentagon is north of where they were located, so it would be a simple mistake to assume the plane flew straight into the wedge which would require a "NOC" flight path.

I agree, but there is a corroboration between these eyewitnesses, some in a position where there would be little, if any scope for error in placing the flightpath so significantly at odds with what the official story would state.


Originally posted by adam_zapple
Until CIT is able to prove that these eyewitnesses were not simply mistaken about the flight path, I don't see any reason to reject the other 100+ eyewitnesses, the 1000+ first responders, physical evidence, etc etc because a dozen people thought the plane was a few hundred feet north of where it was.


The problem with these 100+ eyewitnesses to the official flightpath is that they have not been independantly verified. They are names and stories that have been supplied by Government affiliated agencies. The fact we have such evidence pointing to an alternate theory means that this information cannot be fully accepted as valid without independant verification. These 100+ testimonies must be considered as tainted in such a situation, until an independant, impartial party verifies them. This is what makes the CIT efforts so important.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Bob,

Adam made some great points with his post. I would like to add that there are many witnesses that CIT has not interviewed. CIT dismisses them and refuses to interview them. They dismiss many witnesses because of the affiliation with the media and Pentagon officials.

They have dismissed many of the witnesses from the Gannet company because Gannet = USA Today. They claim that these special cutter, monkey charges were planted, yet refuse to interview any of the hundreds of civilian contractors.

Craig and Aldo are not familiar with construction planning, phasing, inspections, building, codes, etc. Although construction was almost completed on 9/11, there were many contractors still in and around wedge one. CIT claims that airplane debris was planted by the governments and their goons.

They call a priest "suspicious" because he worked at the DOJ.

They call an elderly cab driver an "asset" because his memory has faded.

They call Morin a NOC witness yet never give him an overhead picture of the area.

They call Boger a NOC witness yet HE stated and confirmed his statement with CIT that he watched the plane go into the building.

They call Paik a NOC witness yet one of his drawings show SOC. Paik also claims to be facing his office and crouched down when the plane flew over.

Anyway.... the biggest this is why.

Why crash 3 planes into buildings. (one failed) and decide to ditch one of them and attempt to dupe the public with a deception. To control the damage? Has CIT done and analysis to hypothesize what would have happened to the Pentagon" if it were a 757 that slammed into it?"









[edit on 12-2-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by almighty bob
 




anti-CIT could do a Pentatrust documentary. Allowing witnesses that agree with the official story to lay it all on the lawn. They could end up on the news who knows?

You anti-CIT may want to start the Pentatrust today. Eyewitnesses are becoming scarce.


rip

[edit on 13-2-2009 by Aubryish]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   

posted by almighty bob
Now the question.

Without referring to the Flyover theory, why do you (the CIT opponents) discount the eyewitness testimonies in favour of the official story that, without refutation of these testimonies, cannot be trusted and show very strong evidence that the American Government has lied to and assisted with the deception and murder of its citizens?



posted by adam_zapple
I suspect that part of this is due to the fact that the point of impact at the pentagon is north of where they were located, so it would be a simple mistake to assume the plane flew straight into the wedge which would require a "NOC" flight path.

Until CIT is able to prove that these eyewitnesses were not simply mistaken about the flight path, I don't see any reason to reject the other 100+ eyewitnesses,


How do you figure that the alleged point of impact into the Pentagon was north of the location of the Over the Naval Annex and North of Citgo eyewitnesses? Some of the previously published eyewitnesses were located within ANC and were still north of the alleged point of impact. You have started with a false premise which is apparently the cause of your confusion. The alleged point of impact and the flight path through the light poles and into the Pentagon along the alleged damage path as contained within the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is most definitely far to the south of the actual flight path witnessed by the confirmed eyewitnesses placing the aircraft ONA and NOC. The alleged point of impact or the site of the initial explosion is not the only piece of evidence to consider. Have you actually reviewed CIT's anaylsis and their interviews with the confirmed eyewitnesses? It seems not. Is this the cause of your false premise?

And exactly who are these alleged south flight path 100+ eyewitnesses? Are you certain they actually exist, or are they the products of a dishonest disinformation pushing mainstream news media? Have you confirmed their existence yourself?



[edit on 2/13/09 by SPreston]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aubryish
anti-CIT could do a Pentatrust documentary.


As odd as it sounds...I was considering going to Washington and the surrounding areas to see if I could meet some of the people that CIT interviewed and possibly look into speaking with other witnesses.

Then I slapped myself. Why would I? The evidence is there. There was not a cover up. Anything I would find would be nothing but total redundancy.

I decided to spend my hard earned money on more important things.


In addition, there is 911 Files (John Farmer) He has done quite a bit of research and shares it all. CIT are not very big fans of him because he has found much of what he seeks and it has lead him to draw conclusions that differ from CIT.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Turning that around, why does CIT dismiss the much larger number of witnesses that actually saw the AA flight hit the Pentagon? All I've seen is a less than half complete list of "interviews," that in some cases, nothing is said at all! The entire thing is a biased, lopsided mess.

It's sort of difficult to accept a flyover theory based on eyewitnesses that didn't even see the plane fly away, just flying in a different direction than reported in the official story, when on the flip-side, CIT routinely ignores the larger % of eye witnesses that saw the thing hit the Pentagon.

I am also amused that apparently, this handful of witnesses are all honest, not mistaken, and clear, cognitive thinkers, while ALL the witnesses seeing the plane strike the Pentagon are all deluded, lying, have ulterior motives, or were "tricked" akin to a David Copperfield illusion (actually have seen this suggested more than once).

There is an official story. Until you can discount the witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon, it really doesn't matter if these witnesses saw the plane a bit off from an official report.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

posted by fleabit
Turning that around, why does CIT dismiss the much larger number of witnesses that actually saw the AA flight hit the Pentagon? All I've seen is a less than half complete list of "interviews," that in some cases, nothing is said at all! The entire thing is a biased, lopsided mess.

There is an official story. Until you can discount the witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon, it really doesn't matter if these witnesses saw the plane a bit off from an official report.


Who are they? Are they real persons or fictional characters with prepared scripts 'invented' by the 9-11 perps and the untrustworthy US Mainstream News Media?

Why haven't you searched out and interviewed them? Verified eyewitnesses with videotaped interviews would add tremendous support to your desperate defending of the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY. Unfortunately whenever one of YOUR witnesses is finally tracked down, it seems they have changed their original story or they were badly misquoted. Where is your sense of loyalty to your government god?



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
Turning that around, why does CIT dismiss the much larger number of witnesses that actually saw the AA flight hit the Pentagon? All I've seen is a less than half complete list of "interviews," that in some cases, nothing is said at all! The entire thing is a biased, lopsided mess.

It's sort of difficult to accept a flyover theory based on eyewitnesses that didn't even see the plane fly away, just flying in a different direction than reported in the official story, when on the flip-side, CIT routinely ignores the larger % of eye witnesses that saw the thing hit the Pentagon.

I am also amused that apparently, this handful of witnesses are all honest, not mistaken, and clear, cognitive thinkers, while ALL the witnesses seeing the plane strike the Pentagon are all deluded, lying, have ulterior motives, or were "tricked" akin to a David Copperfield illusion (actually have seen this suggested more than once).

There is an official story. Until you can discount the witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon, it really doesn't matter if these witnesses saw the plane a bit off from an official report.



Here is another problem with that.

In any event, be it an accident or a crime, people might have different recall. However, it is unlikely that there will be a large number of people getting something wrong in the same way. That is unusual.

There is eyewitness testimony from different places, that put the Plane in a different place than the Official Flight Path, that to me suggests something is wrong.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
There is eyewitness testimony from different places, that put the Plane in a different place than the Official Flight Path, that to me suggests something is wrong.


There is no eyewitness testimony, or physical proof that puts the plane anywhere other than inside the Pentagon.

Anyone identify the plane flying away? Anyone find the plane somewhere else? What about the passengers? Why didn't anyone see the planting of all the debris, how about these so called "northside witnesses" who are to be believed that what they saw is what happened, surely they would see something. Are they all still alive? The very people who could prove the "biggest military deception in history" and they are free to tell their story to a couple of internet amateurs?

Nothing? Nope. Never will be.

Something *is* wrong alright, and that's people that choose to found their beliefs on a conspiracy theory first, and build around that. Unfortunately it's a never ending downward spiral which they must follow since they won't face reality.

See CIT would have you believe that this witness testimony is absolute, YET they will tell you in the same breath that there is "no doubt all the witnesses deduced the impact". This is not what the witnesses say. They interject these hilarious assumptions into their posts hoping that others won't see through them. It's a *VERY* convenient way of dodging ALL the evidence, they can toss it all out easily by saying the witnesses were fooled and it was all a magic trick.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
Here is another problem with that.

In any event, be it an accident or a crime, people might have different recall. However, it is unlikely that there will be a large number of people getting something wrong in the same way. That is unusual.

There is eyewitness testimony from different places, that put the Plane in a different place than the Official Flight Path, that to me suggests something is wrong.


After watching the Lagasse and Brooks video again, I really, really hope Craig gets them on the stand whenever he gets his day in court. I don't know about Brooks, but Lagasse gets so many things wrong its almost comical.

First off:

1) He had mistaken where his car was first.

2) He has light poles being knocked down where no light poles were knocked down.

3) He has Lloyd's cab in the wrong place.

4) He said he's never seen anything that talks about the aircraft being on the south side of the NEX service station, "ever...ever" (this was in 2006, 5 years after the event), which tells me he either can't read or has no interest in current events, not exactly a good combination to have in a Pentagon cop.

5) Pointing to the overpass on the image he says "Nothing happened" there, which contradicts a volume of documented, anecdotal and photographic evidence that far, far, far outweighs his opinion of how events occurred.

6) In his June 25, 2003 email to Dick Eastman, Lagasse states very clearly that he did see the light poles as they were hit:


Question from Eastman: You did not say whether you saw the poles being struck down. Am I right in assuming that you did? Did you see how high on any of the poles contact was made?

Answer from Lagasse: near the top....yes I saw the plane hit them..granted at the speed it was traveling I cant be 100% sure of exactly where on the
poles...but I did remember a black and orange cab that was struck by one of
them.


However, in Craig's video Lagasse states from his position you can't really see the light poles so he didn't see them be hit. Which is it?

You gotta wonder what else he is mistaken about.

Craig, what did Lagasse and Brooks say when you asked them how certain they were that the aircraft hit the building? Top-notch citizen investigators such as yourselves must have asked them.

...or did you skip that part?

Anyhow, getting back to the post this reply is addressing, I agree - it would be "unlikely that there will be a large number of people getting something wrong in the same way". Everyone who says the aircraft hit the building can't be wrong.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
just stopping in to say Great Thread!!!! Stars all around, very compelling data here.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by pinch
 


Your straw man points have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the north side approach.

Look at you work over-time to try and discredit the witnesses!


Clearly you are forgetting that we are not relying on Lagasse alone.

11 other people corroborate his placement of the plane on the north side and ZERO first-hand accounts exist to directly refute it.

You've got A LOT more witnesses to discredit there pinchy.






posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Where is Paiks drawing that shows SOC?

Where is Morins Drawing?

Where is Bogers drawing?


Craig.... it's over and you know it.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Look at you work over-time to try and discredit the witnesses!


No, not overtime. Spare time. That's all you are worth.


Clearly you are forgetting that we are not relying on Lagasse alone.


Most of your "witnesses" have at least one thing or another that would disqualify them as a credible witness. The ANC workers lacked the proper perspective to accurately portray or witness a credible flight path. Morin's first testimony had him in a completely different location, saying he could watch the aircraft all the way until it disappeared behind trees at the bottom of the Annex hill. Paik's drawing of 11/04/2006 showed a flight path that would take the aircraft over the outer right-hand side of the Annex (curiously similar to Morin's initial testimony) but south of the Citgo. Paik also, though, could not even see the Annex from his position so how could he, with any credibility, project where the aircraft went after it passed out of his sight?


11 other people corroborate his placement of the plane on the north side and ZERO first-hand accounts exist to directly refute it.


I have to laugh every time you bring up that "ZERO" claim.

Mitch Mitchell
Terrence Kean
Isabelle James
Daryl Donley
Deb Anlauf
Don Bouchoux
Mike Walter
Sean Boger (yep...an impact witness)
Pam Bradley
Steve Anderson
Don Wright
Don Chauncey
Steve Gerard
Jim Robbins
Penny Elgas
etc,
so on,
so forth.

I could go on and on and on....


You've got A LOT more witnesses to discredit there pinchy.


A target rich environment, no doubt.

[edit on 14-2-2009 by pinch]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
They call Paik a NOC witness yet one of his drawings show SOC. Paik also claims to be facing his office and crouched down when the plane flew over.

Anyway.... the biggest this is why.
[edit on 12-2-2009 by CameronFox]

Have you got a link or verifiable source for that SOC Paik drawing Cameron?

Thanks in advance.

RH



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhunter

Have you got a link or verifiable source for that SOC Paik drawing Cameron?

Thanks in advance.

RH


here ya go RH:




posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 

Nice picture. I like how it shows the plane flying ONA, which contradicts the official story. The plane is not going to be knocking down any light poles on that flight path.

Great!



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join