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.
Originally posted by CaptainObvious
NO Craig.... It is your responsibility to show a flight path that is possible.
You showed "potential" flight paths and they were shown to be impossible.
Find one that works within the laws of physics and avionics, until then.... well you know.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Now could you please find pictures of other plane crashes that are consistent with the pentagon tragedy? I am pretty good with google, I can find the Pentagon pictures, but I cant find any pictures where over 99% of the mass of the plane was missing. Its been over 6 years now and there haven't been any posted on this site (certain of that) or any other (approaching certain). Thanks.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by CaptainObvious
Of course as usual you are 100% wrong.
That is yet another blatant unsupported lie about us that is continuously pushed primarily by jrefer/hardfire host Ron Weik.
We have approached media both alternative and mainstream.
We have approached authorities both federal and local.
We will continue to contact more and more agencies and media outlets and continue to put pressure on them until they listen.
Their inaction is expected and has no bearing on the validity of the evidence.
Perhaps one day we'll release a short with documentation of the agencies who fail to respond and therefore the ones who implicate THEMSELVES in obstruction of justice by their inaction.
Originally posted by megaman1234
It seems that the overall case against CIT is building. Lately the focus is on trying to find a viable flight path that would fit the CIT witness statements. Craig claims over and over again that they do not need one. But - that’s just not true. You have created a flight path by default using your witness statements. You have them describing a flight path - that’s your whole point, that their flight path is different than the official story. If that alleged flight path is aerodynamically impossible - which seems to have been proven repeatedly - then you have a problem.
Also- I see someone pointed out the coaching given to the witness Steve C. Who begins in his own words to tell of a plane coming out of the east skies (which matched the radar data of the C130), but then is led by the interviewer into changing to the northeast. If this is not an example if leading the witness I’m not sure what is.
Also - the newest witness on the annex. CIT has released a little video that shows the plane zipping briefly between two buildings. But that matched NONE of what he describes. This is not acceptable.
I think it boils down to the continued CIT belief in the veracity of these witness statements. They talk about the Scientific method of corroboration. Yes - the witness’s corroborate each other. Where they go wrong is thinking that eyewitness statements are scientific. They are not. Thus there is no "Scientific method" here at all.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Steve Chaconas proves that a constant descending loop around the airport like that is entirely possible and Mike Walter and Sean Boger prove that the final bank over the navy annex is also quite possible.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Wrong.
They fabricated values as a straw man argument. There is nothing impossible about the flight path at the speed we hypothesize.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Wrong again.
You won't quote the conversation to back up your lie because you know it is not leading the witness.
You have been caught lying in the OP and you are lying now.
He had already said that the plane came from the east so we asked him to be more specific and he did.
East of the river at all destroys the official story anyway.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Acceptable for what?
The animation does not depict anything but the north of citgo approach. It was not meant to depict Terry Morin's account.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Eyewitness testimony is valid evidence in every court in the land.
Corroboration is a scientific process used to validate eyewitness statements.
The fact that you are trying to pretend like these factual statements are untrue demonstrates your confirmation bias and propensity to dismiss evidence based on nothing but faith in the government story.
Now stop lying about me like you did in the OP.
Originally posted by megaman1234
Craig and all. Please read the last several pages of this thread – as there is no need to retype it all. There are no fabricated values. There is no “straw man”.
forums.pseudoskeptic.org...
You claim that “He saw the plane come from the northeast, cross the river etc……”
Here is the exchange
Steve
“We kinda noticed that there was a plane coming out of the east side.”
Interviewer
“So it was coming from the DC area – it came over DC.”
Steve hesitates here and gets kinda turned around. Because DC is not to the east of him – is more to the north. Northeast – which is what the interviewer obviously wants him to say.
“Well yeah- it could have come over DC. it looks like it was coming out of the east, maybe the northeast.
Craig – can you not see this? Steve initially says NOTHING about Northeast or DC, not until the interviewer coaxes him in that direction. This is not valid information at this point. He is speaking of an event 6 years in the past, being led by an interviewer with an agenda. You did not ask him to explain - you put words in his mouth.
Wait a minute – so if that video is not supposed to be from Morins perspective – then what is it? In fact it was developed to demonstrate that it looked “parallel”. Do I really need to link to those discussions Craig? Come one.. Is this not a picture you have stood by?
Is this not a picture of CIT’s placement of Morin?
Does that video not show a plane flying right over here you have Morin placed? A blip between wings?
Does that have any relationship – AT ALL – to what he describes in his statement? NO!
Eyewitness testimony has been proven over and over again to be unreliable. It is NOT scientific evidence. You assertion of "scientific corroboration of witnesses" is incorrect - because of that fact. An experiment under controlled conditions can be corroborated yes. That is scientific. You need to consult a lawyer - or perhaps a police dept - and learn the difference. Once you do - then perhaps you'll understand why you are not getting anywhere with this.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by megaman1234
... put my life on the line ...
Originally posted by megaman1234
Sorry Craig – there is nowhere to go with this. You really need to find another career path.