New Pentagon Video Detailing Actual Flight Path Over Naval Annex, page 23

privacy

Pages: << 20 21 22 23 24 25 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 23 times

reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 03:09 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

reply to post by discombobulator

I was quoting you.

YOU said that and falsely attributed it to me WITHOUT quoting me.

Are you now suggesting that you weren't attributing those claims to me?

If so then who were you attributing them to?

reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 03:41 PM by Swampfox46_1999

I so long for the day that Craig's ramblings end up in a court of law....just to see the humiliation that would be rained on him. Even better to find out he was the one that has caused my buddies to have changed their phone numbers a half dozen times or so in the last 8 years because of the harassment they get from "truthers".

Of course, even better would be for people to wake up and understand that so much of what gets posted about the subject...is like arguing if the fire started at the rear of the Hindenburg or at the front of it.

reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 03:57 PM by Reheat

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

It will never get that far.

It is too silly.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Reheat]

reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 05:25 PM by trebor451

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 06:08 PM by waypastvne

Originally posted by BigSarge
I want to know how the plane was allowed to fly into Pentagon airspace to begin with.

The best information I have seen on this was a series of articels published in Aviation Week June 3 ,June 10 and september 9 2002 I was only able to find the third part of the series.

Link

If this is the kind of information you are looking for then I will try to find the other two articels. What I would suggest is start a seperate thread on this subject and ask members to submit information that they have come across. This thread is for people to who want to laugh at Graig as he tries to legitimize his "scientifically proven " witch hunt. Not the best place to be looking for real information.

Thank you for your post, I have enjoyed reading a first hand account.

Way Past VNE

reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 06:35 PM by tezzajw

Originally posted by discombobulator
It is possible that there are additional scenarios here.
For instance, how about these additional choices:
Choice C: The data has been misinterpreted. The NTSB is certainly wrong due to the issue of magnetic declination. To me that indicates it is highly probably that further mistakes were certainly possible.

That alone should be cause for an independent investigation into why the NTSB failed to produce an accurate flight path. If Choice C is correct, then:

Have you asked yourself how the NTSB, who's purpose it is to study and recreate crashes, failed to get this one right?

I don't see how any official story believer can so easily shrug off the NTSB screwing up the alleged flight path of the alleged Flight AA77.

Who screwed up for what reason? These people are supposed to be paid professionals!!!

[edit on 2-7-2009 by tezzajw]

reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 06:52 PM by Reheat

reply to post by tezzajw

What is being discussed is a "working copy" animation which was not and never intended to be the NTSB's Flight Path Study.

Here's their Flight Path Study.

ETA: I listed the wrong URL for the flight path study. I was working with two and listed the wrong one HERE'S the study.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Reheat]

reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 07:02 PM by tezzajw

Originally posted by Reheat
I haven't accused Roberts of anything yet, but I don't believe what he said until it's proven.

The double standards amaze me.

Roberts, an identifiable person isn't to be believed. Yet, BigSarge, an anonymous forum poster has been believed by some people, at face value, without any verifiable interview.

BigSarge also allowed the possibility that the official flight path might not be true. The quotes are here in this thread. He specifically stated that the plane could have been North of the Annex and that it may have been between the Citgo and the official South path.

Originally posted by Reheat
Neither you nor Roberts can prove there is anything to fear based on what he says. Where are all of these people that have been harmed in any way other than sheer paranoid speculation for people who have died of natural causes. LaGasse got promoted, so why does Roberts have anything to fear? I don't want an answer as I don't want to see your silly paranoia on display again.

It's interesting when the discussion turns to fearful witnesses.

Remember in this post by member pinch, he made the following statement:

Originally posted by pinch
If you boys were really soooooooo important and soooooooo poerful with what you know, you'd be toast right now.

pinch effectively admitted that CIT would be in danger if they knew too much. pinch is a USAF veteran (so I believe), so does he have some knowledge of the extent to which the USA government would threaten/harm/silence its opposition?

The fear shown by witnesses to speak out against the official story is more than justifiable, when pinch openly admitted on the ATS forum, that any powerful knowledge would make someone 'toast'. Reheat, these witnesses are not paranoid, as pinch stated that their safety would be in danger.

As for the flyover... If it occured, then we can rely on jthomas' accurate admission, in this post, to sum up the situation.

Originally posted by jthomas
Do you understand that neither you nor anyone else has the magical power to claim what an unknown number of people in a position to see a jet fly over the Pentagon would or would not see and you cannot guarantee that NO ONE would see the jet?

jthomas admitted that neither he, nor anyone else, could know how many people may or may not have seen a jet flying over.

You're free to disagree with jthomas, if you like, Reheat. However, he understands that he wasn't there, so he's not going to claim what people should or should not have witnessed.

reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 07:17 PM by trebor451

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I so long for the day that Craig's ramblings end up in a court of law....

Never happen.

reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 07:53 PM by discombobulator

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by discombobulator

I was quoting you.

YOU said that and falsely attributed it to me WITHOUT quoting me.

Are you now suggesting that you weren't attributing those claims to me?

If so then who were you attributing them to?

I have explained this already, I paraphrased the arguments that you have presented here and on your website.

I never directly quoted you, and I never claimed that I did. Had I quoted you I would have either put the quote in quotation marks or used quote tags.

You are the one who, whilst quoting my posts, manipulated my statements to add a context that was clearly not there before. You are the one pulling the deception here, not me.

Your website says the "official" flight path was too high to hit the poles. You are saying in this thread that the "official" flight path was too low to be seen from BigSarge's location. You have said in your videos that the plane was far too south on Route27 for the impact witnesses to have seen it as they described doing so.

You keep changing the "official" story in order to eliminate witness testimony that is not convenient to you.

reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 08:41 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by discombobulator

I have explained this already, I paraphrased the arguments that you have presented here and on your website.

You tried but you failed, because those are not my arguments which is why you are unable to provide quotes from me making those arguments.

You have been working really hard to set up a strawman argument but failing miserably because I have exposed your attempt to use this deceptive logical fallacy.

I never directly quoted you, and I never claimed that I did. Had I quoted you I would have either put the quote in quotation marks or used quote tags.

You used scare quotes around the word "official" while fraudulently attributing YOUR claims to me without quoting me.

You are the one who, whilst quoting my posts, manipulated my statements to add a context that was clearly not there before. You are the one pulling the deception here, not me.

I quoted your fraudulent arguments exactly as you stated them.

This is why you can not show how I allegedly "manipulated" them.

I quoted YOU with quote marks! That is not manipulation.

(ETA: In the quotes below I added the original argument that you fraudulently attributed to me for reference because you deceptively morphed their wording a bit.)

Your website says the "official" flight path was too high to hit the poles.

original wording: "It hit the poles? Oh, no... "official" story has the plane was too high."

Oh really?

Prove it with a sourced quote or admit you are fraudulently representing our claims in a desperate attempt to set up a strawman argument.

We have NEVER cited the NTSB reported altitude as evidence the poles were not hit or as evidence for the true location of the plane and we have ALWAYS cited the witnesses as proof of this.

Certainly we have claimed that the NTSB data is irreconcilable with the physical damage which is 100% true, but we never cite the data as evidence for where the plane really flew.

You are saying in this thread that the "official" flight path was too low to be seen from BigSarge's location.

original wording: "It could be seen by the guys at ANC? Oh, no... "official" story has the plane was too low."

Oh really?

Prove it with a sourced quote or admit you are fraudulently representing my claims in a desperate attempt to set up a strawman argument.

Never did I cite the NTSB data, I was merely referencing the officially required HEADING due to the physical damage.

You have said in your videos that the plane was far too south on Route27 for the impact witnesses to have seen it as they described doing so.

original wording: "It could be seen in front of the guys on Route 27? Oh no, "official" story says the plane crossed northbound Route 27 about 300 feet south, meaning the plane was behind them or directly over them!"

Really?

Prove it with a sourced quote or admit you are fraudulently representing my claims in a desperate attempt to set up a strawman argument.

You phrased this argument more appropriately the first time but the reference we make in this regard is concerning the location of the physical damage which is not up for debate.

You keep changing the "official" story in order to eliminate witness testimony that is not convenient to you.

No I do not.

That is merely you fraudulently misrepresenting my claims in a desperate attempt to set up a strawman argument.

The fact is....WHENEVER I use the phrase "required official flight path" I am referring to the southern approach HEADING that most certainly IS required due to the physical damage.

It has nothing to do with the govt controlled and supplied data that we have always considered invalid and proven fraudulent on multiple levels.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 09:18 PM by tezzajw

Originally posted by discombobulator
I have explained this already, I paraphrased the arguments that you have presented here and on your website.
I never directly quoted you, and I never claimed that I did. Had I quoted you I would have either put the quote in quotation marks or used quote tags.

So you made things up to suit yourself.

Thanks for that admission.

reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 11:30 PM by discombobulator

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by discombobulator
I have explained this already, I paraphrased the arguments that you have presented here and on your website.
I never directly quoted you, and I never claimed that I did. Had I quoted you I would have either put the quote in quotation marks or used quote tags.

So you made things up to suit yourself.

Thanks for that admission.

par⋅a⋅phrase /ˈpærəˌfreɪz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [par-uh-freyz] Show IPA noun, verb, -phrased, -phras⋅ing.
Use paraphrase in a Sentence
–noun
1. a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in another form, as for clearness; rewording.
2. the act or process of restating or rewording.
–verb (used with object)
3. to render the meaning of in a paraphrase: to paraphrase a technical paper for lay readers.
–verb (used without object)
4. to make a paraphrase or paraphrases.

Learn to use a dictionary.

reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 11:45 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by discombobulator

Learn to use a dictionary.

Learn to not be deceptive.

You did not "paraphrase" my claims.

You fraudulently represented them in a desperate attempt to set up a strawman argument.

reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 11:51 PM by discombobulator

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by discombobulator

Learn to use a dictionary.

Learn to not be deceptive.

That's rich coming from you.

Should we go over the many lies you told about Joel Sucherman again?

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 01:05 AM by Craig Ranke CIT

reply to post by discombobulator

You did not "paraphrase" my claims.

You fraudulently represented them in a desperate attempt to set up a strawman argument.

You owe me a detailed response to this post.

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 01:09 AM by discombobulator

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You owe me a detailed response to this post.

I don't owe you anything, Craig.

You have refused to respond to multiple requests to provide evidence to back up your claims.

What makes you think you can make demands now?

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 01:12 AM by discombobulator

In fact, I believe you are the one who owes me something.

Please send me the Joel Sucherman phone call recording as you promised to do.

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 01:14 AM by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by discombobulator
In fact, I believe you are the one who owes me something.

Please send me the Joel Sucherman phone call recording as you promised to do.

Really?

Please provide the quote where I made this alleged "promise" and I will consider it.

If you can't please admit that you were once again fraudulently representing my claims.

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 01:20 AM by discombobulator

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by discombobulator
In fact, I believe you are the one who owes me something.

Please send me the Joel Sucherman phone call recording as you promised to do.

Really?

Please provide the quote where I made this alleged "promise" and I will consider it.

If you can't please admit that you were once again fraudulently representing my claims.

Here it is...

QUOTE (bobloblaw @ Jun 16 2008, 06:08 PM)
Cool, let's hear the whole thing if it's so damaging to him.

Ok deal.

After you post what he told you.

THAT is what is going to be incriminating!

I provided my end of the deal, now you provide yours.