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.

 

BREAKING NEWS: Many More than 8 People at CIT Conference

page: 5
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
Now Craig, you and I have both been in that parking lot and you know that is a load of manure. A plane with a 124 foot wingspan directly over that lot would be at a between 70 - 90 degree angle up from the ground from their POV. The angle indicated by their arms in your interviews is less than 45 degrees. Please pick up a trig book and do the math.


Look where they illustrated it John.

You are being dishonest and you know it.

Frankly I do not believe you were ever there if you think they could have been so wildly and drastically mistaken in the same way as the citgo witnesses who have ZERO room for perspective error regarding north or south of the citgo.

The ANC witnesses would NOT have thought it was going to hit their maintenance buildings if it was flying perfectly straight on the south side at 460 knots.

In fact they probably wouldn't have seen it at all.

Here is an approximate representation of what they described from their POV:


Heading right towards them and banking on the north side of the gas station over their parking lot.

So yes ALMOST directly overhead as they described and illustrated.

You can't spin this John.

Their accounts are on video and everyone can see for themselves.

But feel free to keep trying because it only further exposes your dishonesty.




posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Look where they illustrated it John.

You are being dishonest and you know it.

*****

But feel free to keep trying because it only further exposes your dishonesty.



Yes, they drew paths consistent with their perceptions. We have been through this already many times. Lawyers love to get witnesses to draw such diagrams in court all the time because they know they can discredit them because of perceptional errors (I know, I had an attorney attempt that with me once). Body memory is much more reliable (as indicated by pointing at the POV).

And why is it you call anyone who disagrees with you dishonest? It is a solid fact that a plane over the ANC parking area would be 70-90 degrees above the ANC witnesses. Not one of them in your video interviews points anywhere near that angle. That is not dishonesty, that is simply pointing out the facts of the matter. Body memory is much more reliable than perceptional memory. That is not dishonesty but something every trial lawyer and police officer understands. Even at that, all aspects of memory are subjective. The only thing the ANC witnesses all agree upon is that the plane hit the Pentagon. What is dishonest about that?

Oh by the way, that little animation is NOT representative of the flight path and you know it.
[edit on 13-7-2009 by 911files]

[edit on 13-7-2009 by 911files]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to posts by Craig Ranke CIT and 911files
 


You know what I just realized? You two have very similar argumentative styles. In fact, if you removed the names attached, it would almost look like the same person arguing with himself. Obviously, you two aren't the same person, but that's just how it seems.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files


Yes, they drew paths consistent with their perceptions. We have been through this already many times.


Uh-huh.

We've also many times gone over the well known FACT that all known witnesses at the gas station corroborate them from the opposite perspective proving the ANC witnesses were all accurate regarding the north side in general:





And why is it you call anyone who disagrees with you dishonest?


I don't.

I call you dishonest because this has been proven to be the case.




It is a solid fact that a plane over the ANC parking area would be 70-90 degrees above the ANC witnesses.


At what speed?

Certainly not at the relatively slow speed reported by aviation expert witnesses Terry Morin, Sean Boger, as well as William Middleton.

The NTSB speed of 460 knots is irrelevant when considering a north side approach.

I'd say you were wrong but this is really just another example of intellectual dishonesty on your part which is why you refuse to back up your fraudulent claim with math.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ligon

Originally posted by jthomas

Don't forget your Twoofer standards: "If there are no photos, there is no evidence."

Show us the photos of Ranke and Aldo with the entire group of people. By your standards, if you can't provide those photos, than you have no "proof" that more than a few people who were shown with Craig and Aldo attended.

You want to be consistent in your standards, correct, Ligon?


When did I ever say "If there are no photos, there is no evidence"? Please quote me or stop putting words in my mouth.

Clearly I am not of this view because I do not require a photograph to conclude which side of the gas station the plane flew on. I've seen/heard firsthand interviews with over a dozen witnesses who all had different yet excellent vantage points to judge this and they all insist it was on the north side. It is impossible for all of them to be wrong about this general detail in the same way.


Nice try, but that evasion has already been trashed, Ligon THINK.

One more time: There were hundreds of people all around the Pentagon who had an excellent vantage point to see a jet fly over and away from the Pentagon.

Yet there has never been a single statement by any of those people on the freeways, bridges, parking lots - anywhere - who reported any aircraft flying over and/or away from the Pentagon immediately after the "explosion." By CIT's own flight path, that jet would be flying directly toward many of those eyewitnesses.

Now, Ligon, Craig and Aldo have relied on gullible people not to question why their crack investigation team has never come up with anyone from those hundreds of individuals in perfect position to see any flyover. Neither has there ever been any report anywhere of seeing any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon.

So, Ligon, if you're not a gullible CIT groupie, I will ask YOU to provide statements of any of those hundreds of people CIT can't provide. Right here on ATS in this thread.

Show us your stuff, Ligon.

For reference see:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And see Rob Balsamo's animation of AA77 approaching and flying over the Pentagon..



The top photo is from Balsamo's animation. It shows what the pilot of the jet would have seen just after pulling up to fly over and away from the Pentagon. The bottom two is what Balsamo and CIT claim should have been seen on RANKE'S claimed flight path from the parking lot webcam location.

Now, Ligon, do you really think NO ONE would have seen a jet flying over and away from the Pentagon?



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonicInfinity
reply to posts by Craig Ranke CIT and 911files
 


You know what I just realized? You two have very similar argumentative styles. In fact, if you removed the names attached, it would almost look like the same person arguing with himself. Obviously, you two aren't the same person, but that's just how it seems.


Yes, I learned a long time ago that reason gets you nowhere with Craig. But today I am bored waiting for a batch of new ZBW and ZNY ARTCC sector and TMU desk audios to extract to my hard-drive. So I figured I would do a little circular logic Craig style with him to pass the time



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by 911files
Now Craig, you and I have both been in that parking lot and you know that is a load of manure. A plane with a 124 foot wingspan directly over that lot would be at a between 70 - 90 degree angle up from the ground from their POV. The angle indicated by their arms in your interviews is less than 45 degrees. Please pick up a trig book and do the math.


Look where they illustrated it John.


Nope. You still haven't provided any flyover eyewitnesses, Ranke.

Why are we not surprised?

So your buffet conference was an out and out flop.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SonicInfinity
 


I suggest you ignore both of us and simply view the evidence yourself to make your own determination.

I can assure you we are nothing alike and if you want the details behind his shadowy yet brief association with the "truth movement" read this.

He didn't emotionally spiral out of control while "quitting" the truth movement in a swirl of obscenities and deleting his website with every article he ever published on the topic because he was right.

I can promise you that CIT will never remove our published articles from the public domain.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Show us the photos of Ranke and Aldo with the entire group of people. By your standards, if you can't provide those photos, than you have no "proof" that more than a few people who were shown with Craig and Aldo attended.



If any photos surface they are to be considered automatically suspect. You see, the crowd was deceived into believing they were there even though they all report seeing Craig and Aldo on the north side of the meeting room.

This proves deception and most likely the people giving the presentation were stand ins, while the real dynamic duo left town in a hurry. Of course the audience fully believes what they saw is real, but it just cannot be.

It wasn't a conference, it was one big magic trick.

See how easy it is to do that?



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by SonicInfinity
 


I suggest you ignore both of us and simply view the evidence yourself to make your own determination.

I can assure you we are nothing alike and if you want the details behind his shadowy yet brief association with the "truth movement" read this.

He didn't emotionally spiral out of control while "quitting" the truth movement in a swirl of obscenities and deleting his website with every article he ever published on the topic because he was right.

I can promise you that CIT will never remove our published articles from the public domain.



Now who is being dishonest Craig? All of my materials are online. AAL77.COM has been backed up on three different hosts around the world so that hackers can't take it down again (course you being a software engineer would know nothing about that).

I did 'quit' the lunacy called the 'truth movement' because I did not want to end up as delusional as some folks I was dealing with. I still have contacts and communications with the serious people working on 9/11 research (off-line) and I am still collecting materials. I just chose not to associate with the loony toons any more. But as you can see, I am still here to annoy you.

It has been quite refreshing I might add



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files


Now who is being dishonest Craig? All of my materials are online. AAL77.COM has been backed up on three different hosts around the world so that hackers can't take it down again (course you being a software engineer would know nothing about that).



I have never claimed to be a "software engineer" and I am NOT one.

Your published articles have never been on AAL77.com.

You had dozens of articles chronicling your "research" over the past 2 years on 911files.com and they were all deleted along with the entire site.

NONE of these dozens of deleted articles have been replicated on AAL77.com.

Provide your own hosted link to the article you wrote for Gaffney's book and the dozens of articles you published on 911files.com. If you can provide the links to them I'll admit that I was mistaken. If you can't provide the links it will be proof that you are lying again.










[edit on 13-7-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by 911files


Now who is being dishonest Craig? All of my materials are online. AAL77.COM has been backed up on three different hosts around the world so that hackers can't take it down again (course you being a software engineer would know nothing about that).



I have never claimed to be a "software engineer" and I am NOT one.

Provide your hosted link to the article you wrote for Gaffney's book.

You had dozens of articles chronicling your "research" over the past 2 years on 911files.com and they were all deleted along with the entire site.

NONE of these dozens of deleted articles have been replicated on AAL77.com.

Provide the links to them and I'll admit that I was mistaken. If you can't provide the links it will be proof that you are lying again.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]


Sorry Craig, as you will recall, someone hacked that site as well and I started posting my stuff on JREF to avoid the hassle. So if you miss the stuff, take it up with the hackers out there, not me.

The article you are refering to is now part of a copyright (Gaffney's book). If you wish to read it, please buy Gaffney's book (he needs the money for future efforts). However, it is still available online to those whom I send the link to for research efforts. If it is that important to you, why don't you scan it and post it yourself (I would suggest getting permission from the publisher first though).

Keep in mind though that it was written before the other 5 radar databases became available. With the help of that data the light phenomenon has been pretty well associated with the debris cloud, not another plane as it suggests so it is out-dated.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by 911files]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files

Sorry Craig, as you will recall, someone hacked that site as well and I started posting my stuff on JREF to avoid the hassle. So if you miss the stuff, take it up with the hackers out there, not me.



Post links to the articles on jref then.

You had dozens of them.

I have not seen any of them replicated on jref or anywhere.

I'm sorry but even if your site was "hacked" twice as you claim it wouldn't have made the articles disappear from your harddrive or the cached articles on internet archives.

You published the initial version of the article used in Gaffney's book on your site several months BEFORE his book was released so it is clearly fair use.

So post a link to that version along with links to all the articles you published on 911files.com.

If you can provide the links to them (even on jref) I'll admit that I was mistaken. If you can't provide the links it will be proof that you are lying again.




[edit on 13-7-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by 911files

Sorry Craig, as you will recall, someone hacked that site as well and I started posting my stuff on JREF to avoid the hassle. So if you miss the stuff, take it up with the hackers out there, not me.



Post links to the articles on jref then.

You had dozens of them.

I have not seen any of them replicated on jref or anywhere.

I'm sorry but even if your site was "hacked" twice as you claim it wouldn't have made the articles disappear from your harddrive or the cached articles on internet archives.

You published the initial version of the article used in Gaffney's book on your site several months BEFORE his book was released so it is clearly fair use.

So post a link to that version along with links to all the articles you published on 911files.com.

If you can provide the links to them (even on jref) I'll admit that I was mistaken. If you can't provide the links it will be proof that you are lying again.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]


Why would I want to Craig? All of that material is being put into a book, so you will just have to wait for it to come out. I am only playing with you this morning because I am bored.

I am waiting for only one more data set so that I can complete the radar time study and I will publish everything I have in one volume. In the meantime I have no desire to cater to your delusions.

I think you guys have done excellent work in obtaining great POV location interviews with many of the eyewitnesses and if it stopped there, you would be a legend in the area of 9/11 research. Unfortunately, the harrassment, distortions and maligning of eyewitnesses has done a lot of damage in the Arlington area in regards to future research efforts. Sad really.

Sadly though, my files are done and I have work to do. JREF has a cool search function and the name is the same there. I don't post there any more because they keep blocking you and your trolls which just takes all the fun out of it.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   


Ranke, a 39-year-old software engineer and part-time drummer for the reggae band the Stemz,


OC Weekly

Darn, can't believe anything you read in the paper anymore.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files

Why would I want to Craig?


In order to demonstrate that you were being honest when you claimed they have not been removed from the internet.

It's clear t hat you cannot proving that you were of course lying again.



All of that material is being put into a book,


Oh really?

So the dozens of articles you wrote and published online chronicling your "research" and continuous personal attacks against us will be put into a "book"?

For some reason I find that hard to believe. Are people supposed to then buy this book?

Either way it proves you were just now lying about the notion that they were all still in the public domain.





Sadly though, my files are done and I have work to do. JREF has a cool search function and the name is the same there. I don't post there any more because they keep blocking you and your trolls which just takes all the fun out of it.


The articles are not on jref or anywhere and you know it.

What's funny is that you are now even going so far as to lie about why you can't even post at jref anymore.

Here is the truth about that....

You wrote:


Well, yours truly just got threatened with suspension because when HI attacked the OP author as being stupid, I asked him if he was sober. Yet the "stupid" remarks are left as perfectly fine. JREF can KISS MY A**!
source


With that emotional outburst that in essence was you committing suicide by mod, you once again faded into oblivion apparently to work on this new scrapbook of all your previously deleted articles.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by 911files

Why would I want to Craig?


In order to demonstrate that you were being honest when you claimed they have not been removed from the internet.

It's clear t hat you cannot proving that you were of course lying again.



All of that material is being put into a book,


Oh really?

So the dozens of articles you wrote and published online chronicling your "research" and continuous personal attacks against us will be put into a "book"?

For some reason I find that hard to believe. Are people supposed to then buy this book?

Either way it proves you were just now lying about the notion that they were all still in the public domain.





Sadly though, my files are done and I have work to do. JREF has a cool search function and the name is the same there. I don't post there any more because they keep blocking you and your trolls which just takes all the fun out of it.


The articles are not on jref or anywhere and you know it.

What's funny is that you are now even going so far as to lie about why you can't even post at jref anymore.

Here is the truth about that....

You wrote:


Well, yours truly just got threatened with suspension because when HI attacked the OP author as being stupid, I asked him if he was sober. Yet the "stupid" remarks are left as perfectly fine. JREF can KISS MY A**!
source


With that emotional outburst that in essence was you committing suicide by mod, you once again faded into oblivion apparently to work on this new scrapbook of all your previously deleted articles.


Darn Craig, you really are a poor researcher. Check my 911files ID. You'll find I was not suspended or banned. I canceled my membership on the board. It stopped being fun.

Please stop being delusional Craig. 911files.info was not about you. It was as described a place to make my working notes public. So no, the book is not about you and I doubt if I will even mention you or CIT.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by 911files]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files


Darn, can't believe anything you read in the paper anymore.



That's for sure....especially anything written by that proven liar Nick Schou.

I never told him or anyone that I was a software engineer so I have no idea where he got that nonsense.

I publicly called him out on it too in this detailed rebuttal to his numerous inaccuracies, omissions, distortions, and blatant lies.

Of course it's not surprising that you haven't read it in the spirit of getting a balanced perspective since your clear bias when it comes to information about us and 9/11 in general has been fully documented and established with hard proof.

You are only solidifying this now with this additional lie about *not* removing your previous articles from the public domain.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files

Darn Craig, you really are a poor researcher. Check my 911files ID. You'll find I was not suspended or banned. I canceled my membership on the board. It stopped being fun.


You do 9/11 research for "fun"?

Very telling.

Clearly it stopped being "fun" for you at jref since you once again "quit" in an emotional spiral out of control laced with obscenities.

This is a clear pattern with you!




Please stop being delusional Craig. 911files.info was not about you. It was as described a place to make my working notes public. So no, the book is not about you and I doubt if I will even mention you or CIT.


Ok good, so now you have admitted that the dozens of articles you published on 911files.com chronicling your "research" over the past couple of years no longer exist in the public domain despite the fact that you deceptively suggested they were all up on your other site AAL77.com, or on jref.

Real researchers don't remove their articles from the public domain and try to lie about it as a means to cover up that they were removed from the public domain.

Especially if they were right!



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I'm kinda surprised that Alex Jones didn't show up with his bullhorn to your one-trick-pony show.

Doesn't even HE believe that all your jibberish is disinfo?

When you've got THAT guy calling woo, it's an indicator of.....



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join