New Pentagon Video Detailing Actual Flight Path Over Naval Annex, page 24

privacy

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

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 01:35 AM by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by discombobulator

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

I said I would consider it.

But since you are still anonymous and refuse to address the FACT that you lied about my claims I doubt I will follow through.

I have no reason to believe you at this point.

Provide recorded proof of your dialog with Sucherman or your identity and I might consider it further.

In the mean time you need to address this post.

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 01:42 AM by discombobulator

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by discombobulator

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

I said I would consider it.

No, you made a deal that you are now backing out of.

Once again you are refusing to provide evidence.

But since you are still anonymous and refuse to address the FACT that you lied about my claims I doubt I will follow through.

I have no reason to believe you at this point.

Provide recorded proof of your dialog with Sucherman or your identity and I might consider it further.

You are moving the goalposts. You asked me to provide what he said, my identity was not part of the deal.

Once again you are refusing to provide evidence.

In the mean time you need to address this post.

I think you need to provide the evidence that is asked of you (and promised by you, we had a deal) before you make demands of others.

Finalise the deal and I will consider your request.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by discombobulator]

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 01:56 AM by discombobulator

As stated before, you know how to contact Joel Sucherman. Even if you didn't he is a ridiculously easy person to find online.

If you believe the information I have provided is fraudulent then why don't you contact him and confirm it with him?

That should get to the bottom of the issue right away, wouldn't it?

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 02:06 AM by Craig Ranke CIT

reply to post by discombobulator

If you are not willing to provide evidence for your claims and put your name to it you do not deserve to be returned with that level of evidence/respect.

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 02:18 AM by discombobulator

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by discombobulator

If you are not willing to provide evidence for your claims and put your name to it you do not deserve to be returned with that level of evidence/respect.

Craig, once again, refusing to provide the evidence that he has promised to provide.

When I get:

1) Additional video of Lloyde's confession (as requested by multiple persons)
2) Additional video of Sucherman confirming his location (as requested)
3) The "official flight path" that demonstrates how the plane could not have been seen from BigSarge's location (as requested)
4) The original Sucherman phone call (as requested, and promised by you)

You will get:

1) Quotes from yourself supporting the assertion that you have used multiple and different "official flight paths" to eliminate witnesses from the witness pool that are inconvenient to your patently absurd fairy tale.

As far as confirmation of the Joel Sucherman email goes, you can do that yourself. You're an investigator, remember?

Investigate.

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 02:25 AM by Craig Ranke CIT

reply to post by discombobulator

discombobulator STILL trying to focus on irrelevant information as a means to derail the discussion while misrepresenting my claims in a desperate attempt to create a strawman argument.

We make one simple claim that proves a deception. That claim is this:

All confirmed firsthand witness accounts in a position to tell unanimously place the plane over the Navy Annex or north of the gas station proving Roosevelt Roberts and the witnesses Erik Dihle referenced were not hallucinating or lying about the plane flying away immediately after the explosion.

You are unable to remotely refute any of this rock solid scientifically validated evidence therefore I am unwilling to take the discussion with you any further.

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 02:33 AM by avelino

Craig, I have followed your contributions to this forum for quite some time now .
Stay with it lad, you have them on the run, the people who are attempting to knock you are paid up members of the treasonous scam. Always check your rear-view mirror, stay safe, but hit them where it hurts.

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 02:36 AM by discombobulator

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by discombobulator

All confirmed firsthand witness accounts in a position to tell unanimously place the plane over the Navy Annex or north of the gas station proving Roosevelt Roberts and the witnesses Erik Dihle referenced were not hallucinating or lying about the plane flying away immediately after the explosion.

You keep referencing Erik Dihle, who couldn't even remember that he had reported HEARSAY, and it creates a problem for you.

You're going to have to explain to me how the Route 27 witnesses were all fooled into thinking that they watched the plane hit the Pentagon, now that your Route 27 deception has been revealled and we know that the witnesses had a clear view.

You're going to have to explain to me how Sean Boger was fooled into thinking that he watched the plane impact with, fully enter and then explode inside in the building.

Because you see, "military deception" doesn't really cut it anymore now that you use Erik Dihle to support your case, unless you can come up with some kind of special reason why these multiple unnamed witnesses were not fooled by such an elaborate ruse, and why those closest to the impact were.

How does the plane drop below the mound and out of Robert Turcios' view and then magically pull up and over the Pentagon without him noticing?

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 02:41 AM by discombobulator

Originally posted by avelino

Stay with it lad, you have them on the run, the people who are attempting to knock you are paid up members of the treasonous scam.

Ahh, the inflationary model as it relates to conspiracy theories at work once again.

Disagree with the absurd notion of a flyover and you're "in on it".

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 02:53 AM by discombobulator

Craig,

Wow, what did you do to piss off Dylan?

I had not seen this before!

I simply have to respond to Aldo Marquis’ and Craig Ranke’s comments about me. We did not piggyback on their project.

We had planned on going to D.C. for several months to speak with eyewitnesses and get their honest testimonies for the film Loose Change: Final Cut. After speaking with Aldo and Craig on our forums and realizing they wanted to research the Pentagon incident, we offered to help put them up and combine our research trip. We even got them their own hotel room, never asking for a single cent in return. At this point, they had no fly-over theory, no PentaCon, nothing. Their “flyover” theory emerged from that trip we took together. Considering the thousands of hours that Aldo and Craig have logged preaching on our website’s forums, I would say that Aldo using the term “piggybacking” is the finest example of the pot calling the kettle black.

I do not claim to know for a fact what happened on 9/11, nor will I ever. All I claim to know is that the victims’ family members had to beg and scream for an investigation into what happened, and when they finally got one, it was severely flawed, underfunded and compromised. Even today, almost seven years later, they are still pleading for answers to hundreds of unanswered questions. People like Craig and Aldo, who point at everyone who opposes them with labels such as “deep-cover operative” and command that everything we know about the Pentagon incident is staged or fake, only make individuals with legitimate questions about the events of 9/11 look like complete lunatics.

I am not a lunatic. I am a 24-year-old concerned citizen who loves his girlfriend, surfing, music and playing with his dog.

Dylan Avery, via e-mail

[edit on 3-7-2009 by discombobulator]

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 03:10 AM by tezzajw

Originally posted by discombobulator
You're going to have to explain to me how Sean Boger was fooled into thinking that he watched the plane impact with, fully enter and then explode inside in the building.

You have to explain why Sean Boger stated that the plane flew North of Citgo. That contradicts the official story.

If you believe that Sean Boger is a reliable witness to an alleged impact, then why would you refute Sean Boger allegedly witnessing a NOC flight path?

Commence your spin...

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 03:19 AM by discombobulator

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by discombobulator
You're going to have to explain to me how Sean Boger was fooled into thinking that he watched the plane impact with, fully enter and then explode inside in the building.

You have to explain why Sean Boger stated that the plane flew North of Citgo. That contradicts the official story.

Did Sean Boger draw a flight path?

Was Sean Boger interviewed on location?

Does Sean Boger mention NoC in his 2001 testimony?

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 03:24 AM by tezzajw

Originally posted by discombobulator
Did Sean Boger draw a flight path?
Was Sean Boger interviewed on location?
Does Sean Boger mention NoC in his 2001 testimony?

You're grasping at straws now. Why does any of that matter?

Sean Boger stated that he saw the plane approach him from NOC when interviewed in the DVD that is the title of this thread.

Try again, your spin didn't work. You better dial up another brand.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by tezzajw]

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 05:58 AM by trebor451

Originally posted by tezzajw
Sean Boger stated that he saw the plane approach him from NOC when interviewed in the DVD that is the title of this thread.

Here we go again. Boger also said he watched the aircraft slam into the building.

If we aren't going to get into selective acceptance of witness testimony, how can Craig, without speculation or lying or putting words or thoughts into Boger's mind or intentions, use him as a "NOC" witness without compromising his own beliefs?

At best, this should if anything disqualify Boger (and Lagasse and pretty near everyone else who saw the aircraft impact) as a valid witness to the event.

To continue to use only part of someone's testimony and discount the remaining part because it doesn't match your pre-conceived and pre-determined results is disingenuous and dishonest.

Why am I not surprised?

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 06:07 AM by tezzajw

Originally posted by trebor451
Here we go again. Boger also said he watched the aircraft slam into the building.

Yes he stated that. He also stated that he saw the plane fly NOC. If true, that contradicts the official government story.

Originally posted by trebor451
To continue to use only part of someone's testimony and discount the remaining part because it doesn't match your pre-conceived and pre-determined results is disingenuous and dishonest.

I agree.

So why do you accept only part of Boger's testimony? You accept that he saw a plane hit the Pentagon, but you reject that he saw it fly NOC.

I accept both of Boger's claims as he stated them. He was there and he's relating what he saw. I wasn't there.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by tezzajw]

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 06:51 AM by trebor451

Originally posted by tezzajw

So why do you accept only part of Boger's testimony? You accept that he saw a plane hit the Pentagon, but you reject that he saw it fly NOC.

Who said I accept only part of Boger's testimony? With the contradictory elements of it, any rational, sane person would reject him as a viable or credible witness. "Your honor, I move to strike this witness as credible due to the fact his testimony contains mutually exclusive elements that cannot be reconciled. His testimony is therefore deemed non-credible and as such should be discounted". I would not use him to bolster my case, support my case, pimp my case, *anything* my case since his credibility, from second-one on any stand, would be demolished in a heartbeat.

I accept both of Boger's claims as he stated them. He was there and he's relating what he saw. I wasn't there.

Well, thanks for showing us the logical part of the CT world is still dead as a doornail.

As long as Craig touts him as one of his "NOC" witnesses, however, the a) lying or b) speculation or c) dishonest element of Craig's using him will always be pointed out as evidence of Craig's disingenuous approach to this matter.

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 06:56 AM by tezzajw

Originally posted by trebor451
Who said I accept only part of Boger's testimony? With the contradictory elements of it, any rational, sane person would reject him as a viable or credible witness.

Fair enough. You don't accept Boger as a credible witness, so you can't use his testimony that he saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

Thanks for that!

[edit on 3-7-2009 by tezzajw]

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 08:22 AM by PplVSNWO

reply to post by tezzajw

Shot himself in the foot with that one. If he rejects the witnesses that saw the plane on the north of Citgo path and an impact, he is left with only NOC witnesses and no impact...

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 08:42 AM by weedwhacker

reply to post by PplVSNWO

Sean Boger is not necessary....

Originally posted by weedwhacker

103 witnesses saw the airplane hit the Pentagon

26 said it was an American Airlines jet

7 said it was a Boeing 757

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 08:55 AM by PplVSNWO

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by PplVSNWO

Sean Boger is not necessary....

Originally posted by weedwhacker

103 witnesses saw the airplane hit the Pentagon

26 said it was an American Airlines jet

7 said it was a Boeing 757

Prove it. Theses aren't the same witnesses that CIT proved didn't see an impact through investigating, are they? Media quotes don't count unless confirmed 1st hand.

Pages: << 21 22 23 24 25 >> ^^TOP^^