New Pentagon Video Detailing Actual Flight Path Over Naval Annex

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by discombobulator

And when I spoke to Sucherman he personally told me that you had misrepresented what he had said.

Prove it.

I think you are lying.

What kind of evidence would you accept?

And why do I need to prove my statements when you refuse to prove yours?

Are you suggesting we trade evidence? You'll give me the video I ask for and I'll prove what Sucherman said?

Sounds great. Let me know when you are ready to make the exchange.

reply to post by discombobulator


I have provided evidence and I put my real name to it.

You are making personal accusations against my credibility from behind an anonymous screen name with nothing to back it up.

If you can't provide firsthand evidence your claim is reckless and will be dismissed by all logical skeptics.



[edit on 30-6-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

If you can't provide firsthand evidence your claim is reckless and will be dismissed by all logical skeptics.

My claims are reckless? I'm not the one falsely accusing an old gentleman of confessing to involvement in one of the greatest alleged conspiracies of all time and then refusing to provide credible evidence to support the allegation.

Regardless, I know you won't produce the video, just like you didn't want to produce the Sucherman video because you know it would reveal the techniques you use to deceive your viewers. Lloyde didn't confess to anything, and you didn't confirm Sucherman's location in your video despite stating that you did.

Don't believe me? Of course you don't, you've already called me a liar.

So let's see what Joel had to say about it in one of our conversations...

Adam - I appreciate your note. It is, sadly, fairly common for conspiracy crazies to pass themselves off as 'truth seekers' only to see that they end up twisting the facts so greatly or making ridiculous leaps from one comment or another, that I am a little reluctant to engage in a conversation with people I don't know. I will say this,
1.) Their literal take on my words ("I had just come up from the underpass") paints a not entirely accurate portrayal of my position. I was definitely a bit closer to the Pentagon then their characterization. Perhaps closer to the Dubil-Narayanan-Benedetto cluster.
2.) Clearly they have no understanding of the workday at a newspaper if they think coming in at 9:30 a.m. is late. Most newspapers are put to bed late in the evening. So there is no such thing as a 9-5 workday. While I would say it was slightly later-than-normal for me, it is very common for many to have workdays that are far outside the 9-5.
3.) They did pass themselves off as guys trying to find the truth, debunking myths, etc. So… I guess that would not be a lie, IF you believe in these ridiculous conspiracy theories and that the witness accounts are ‘myths.’
JS

Don't bother with an apology. I don't believe it would be sincere anyway.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by discombobulator]

reply to post by discombobulator


Looks like a bunch of words typed with italicization.

That is not evidence.

However if that really was Sucherman it proves he lied to you about what we said to him before the interview. We were very up front with him about questioning the official story and YES the missile theory etc.

So did you fabricate this or did you just prove that Joel lied about that?

Also, if there was any truth to your claim that none of the witnesses have accused you of misrepresenting them (which, thanks to Joel, we know is not a factual claim), I suspect that it may be because not many of them are aware that use have used them to support your theory.

For instance, let's consider Levi Stephens response to your use of his testimony:

Thank you. I was unaware that they had posted my picture and aligned my story with their theory.

Levi's photo was removed from the The Pentacon website within hours of me receiving his email...

He wanted nothing to do with you.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Looks like a bunch of words typed with italicization.

That is not evidence.

Your videos are not evidence. They are just a bunch of moving pictures.

However if that really was Sucherman it proves he lied to you about what we said to him before the interview.

Prove it.

Oh, you want me to take your word for it?

No.

So did you fabricate this or did you just prove that Joel lied about that?

It is authentic.

You know how to contact Joel, I suggest you do it and confirm the authenticity of the email with him. After all, he wrote it.

Let me know how you go with that.

Sean Boger did not even remember being interviewed by you guys (despite the fact that the interview did happen) and was most surprised to be alerted to the fact that his testimony was being used to support your absurd fantasy.

Maybe that's why he hasn't accused you of misrepresenting him when you consistently say that he lied to Military historians when he said he watched the plane impact with, fully enter, and then explode inside the Pentagon.

Oh that's right, he didn't lie... he "innocently embellished" his tale and must have "deduced" the impact.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by discombobulator]

reply to post by discombobulator


NEITHER of them claimed we "misrepresented" their accounts and you have provided no evidence that they said anything AT ALL.

But again, assuming it was really them, it makes Sucherman a north side witness!

And Levi never took back his north side approach claim so all you are doing is solidifying the case for a flyover. The fact that Levi doesn't understand or accept the implications of seeing the plane on the north side like Lagasse and some of the others is not surprising in the least nor does it change the implications.

You have provided absolutely nothing that refutes the north side approach evidence and no evidence that we have been deceptive in any way whatsoever.

The fact that Sucherman is implicated by his talk of a 2nd plane veering away "3 to 5 seconds" after the explosion is not our fault and we're not the least bit surprised that he doesn't like us pointing it out.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0fde04739b6a.gif[/atsimg]

But we do NOT cite him as a north side witness so he has NOTHING to do with the definitive evidence proving the plane did not hit and flew away.

Sucherman, Mike Walter, and the entire USA Today Parade can say whatever they want about us but they can't refute the definitive and ever growing north side evidence.

Seems that every time they open their mouths they actually end up supporting it!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0e5277cd2969.gif[/atsimg]

So you think that bank description is genuine?

Originally posted by discombobulator


I would like to see the five minutes of footage immediately before the clip starts, and the five minutes of footage immedaitely after.

Can you provide it please?

I would like to see this too PLEASE.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
But we do NOT cite him as a north side witness so he has NOTHING to do with the definitive evidence proving the plane did not hit and flew away.

Would that be because the testimony he provided of watching the plane hit the Pentagon contradicts your flyover theory?

Hasn't stopped you before...

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Sucherman, Mike Walter, and the entire USA Today Parade can say whatever they want about us

How kind of you to offer them that luxury. You've certainly said whatever you want about them.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The fact that Sucherman is implicated by his talk of a 2nd plane veering away "3 to 5 seconds" after the explosion is not our fault and we're not the least bit surprised that he doesn't like us pointing it out.

I imagine that he would feel a bit of clown, if he later found out that there wasn't supposed to be a plane in the area only a few seconds afterwards. It's no wonder he would try to twist his story post-interview.


discombobulator: I don't know why you're appearing to persecute Craig for interviewing these people. If they didn't want to be interviewed, then all that they had to say was 'no'. It's a simple word - no. Yet, funny enough, they all said 'yes' and were more than pleased to tell their story with the camera rolling. That's not Craig's fault. No way.

I wonder if any of them had secret fantasies that they would get their 15 minutes of fame, like Aziz El-Hallan did on national TV.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
[Sucherman, Mike Walter, and the entire USA Today Parade can say whatever they want about us but they can't refute the definitive and ever growing north side evidence.

I watched this video. You seem to have no idea what the 2 Oclock position is.

12 Oclock = 0 deg.
1 Oclock = 30 deg.
2 Oclock = 60 deg.
3 Oclock = 90 deg.
4 Oclock =120 deg.
5 Oclock =150 deg.
6 Oclock =180 deg.
7 Oclock =210 deg.
8 Oclock =240 deg.
9 Oclock =270 deg.
10 Oclock =300 deg.
11 Oclock =330 deg.

You have grossly underestimated the 2 Oclock position. My sugestions...

1 Buy protractor.
2 Ammend the video.
3 Apologize to Mr. Sucherman.
4 Stop telling lies.


[edit on 30-6-2009 by waypastvne]

Originally posted by waypastvne
I watched this video. You seem to have no idea what the 2 Oclock position is.

I highly, highly encourage you to check out this thread on the CIT forum - z3.invisionfree.com...

This is probably the single most spectacular thread I have ever seen Craig participate in. He starts off mocking Adam Larson with the most bizarre interpretation of time direction that I have ever seen in my life.

Yes, they really believe that time directions are derived from a vertically aligned floating clock in front of you, with 12 O'Clock point upwards and 6 O'Clock towards the ground.

Here, check out the image he put together (note Adam's top down view, with the correct interpretation) -



Craig Ranke - "Clocks are never horizontal and this is not how normal people interpret the analogy of direction from time!"

Hilarious!

As you go further into that thread it is also revealled that Craig did not confirm Sucherman's location, but more importantly, he completely misidentified all of the lightpoles whilst attempting to demonstrate that Sucherman could not have seen the plane hit the Pentagon because he was too far back and his view was obscured by trees. The point at which they claim the plane would have been directly overhead is around 300 feet short of where it actually was.

Some of the links for my diagrams in the earlier pages have since expired, but there is a good one on page 7 that demonstrates this clearly.

And it takes him 15 pages to realise the mistake he made, even though Aldo seems to be suggesting that he was aware of it whilst making the video.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by discombobulator]

Originally posted by tezzajw

I imagine that he would feel a bit of clown, if he later found out that there wasn't supposed to be a plane in the area only a few seconds afterwards. It's no wonder he would try to twist his story post-interview.

Joel did not say the plane was in the immediate area 3 to 5 seconds after impact, he said that 3 to 5 seconds after impact he looked off to the west and saw another plane, in the distance, and at a much higher altitude. The C-130 pilot stated that he saw the explosion from the impact, meaning that the C-130 was in visual range.

Craig continues to infer that Sucherman literally meant that the second plane was 3 to 5 seconds immediately behind the first plane, and that this somehow provides a "cover story" for people who actually saw the "flyover". This is a gross misrepresentation of what Sucherman said.

discombobulator: I don't know why you're appearing to persecute Craig for interviewing these people. If they didn't want to be interviewed, then all that they had to say was 'no'. It's a simple word - no. Yet, funny enough, they all said 'yes' and were more than pleased to tell their story with the camera rolling. That's not Craig's fault. No way.

Nobody is persecuting Craig for interviewing anyone. In fact, I thank Craig for interviewing these people. It was The PentaCon that actually finally convinced me that AA77 crashed at the Pentagon on 9/11.

Unfortunately, however, Craig's enthusiasm isn't matched by his ability to form logical conclusions.

Wow Craig you are hilarious. You are also wrong. Amend the video.

Originally posted by discombobulator


Craig Ranke - "Clocks are never horizontal and this is not how normal people interpret the analogy of direction from time!"

Yeah, ol' Craig doesn't have much experience with anything he tends to argue about. It is the classic example of someone getting into a debate in a field they have no clue about. It is hilarious, actually.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by trebor451]

reply to post by waypastvne


::

Thanks, guys! I had no idea Craig was that daft! I had suspected his lack of knowledge of things aviation, and how them new-fangled aeromachines work...but really?

"Clocks are never horizontal" !!! Priceless!

And, though it's nearly ancient history, now, after all the conversations that have transpired, thanks to reheat for explaining about Sean Bolger *edit*: Boger, not 'bolger'. Gotta stay accurate, unlike some.

NOW I understand why that former helo pilot said "tilting" instead of "banking" when describing the jet's attitude.

Ahhhh.....laypersons. Gotta luv 'em!!!


[edit on 6/30/0909 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by waypastvne

 

:

:

Thanks, guys! I had no idea Craig was that daft! I had suspected his lack of knowledge of things aviation, and how them new-fangled aeromachines work...but really?

First and foremost to credibility is accuracy in the things you speak of and about. Craig and his minions lack this in truckloads. Even when they go to their supposed "experts" in aviation issues, Cap't Bob and his merry band of Sky Kings, the number of errors in and outright ignorance of things aeronautical they pretend to know about is staggering.

It merely adds to the entertainment value of their stories when they they come up with comments like "clocks are never horizontal" and then whine about nobody taking them seriously.

Originally posted by tezzajw

discombobulator: I don't know why you're appearing to persecute Craig for interviewing these people. If they didn't want to be interviewed, then all that they had to say was 'no'. It's a simple word - no. Yet, funny enough, they all said 'yes' and were more than pleased to tell their story with the camera rolling. That's not Craig's fault. No way.

I wonder if any of them had secret fantasies that they would get their 15 minutes of fame, like Aziz El-Hallan did on national TV.

discombobulator / bobloblaw is just another disinfo artist making things up as he seeks his own 15 minutes of fame. Just ignore him. His nonsense has never been worth reading.

These Mainstream Media plants at the Pentagon change their tales sometimes when their scripts cease to fit the evidence. They would not know the truth if it bit them.

Jamie McIntyre changed his original tale when ordered to by the 9-11 perps. Mike Walter changed his tale several times when ordered to by his masters. Bob Loblaw has his orders.

Originally posted by SPreston
Bob Loblaw has his orders.

YES!

I'm finally "in on it!"

Thanks for that SPreston, but I'm going to go ahead and resume not reading your posts.