It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


CIT's (latest) Theory Pulverized

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 11:10 AM
Read it and weep.

Keep in mind CIT has been asked to provide their own numbers.........and cant.

Prediction: name calling (as currently going on in the LC forums), Aldo insisting on the name and address of the poster - as though that makes a bit of difference on the math and various truth club members demanding that I prove the paper is correct, rather than providing math (not argumentative techniques) that refutes the conclusion(s).

P.S. The goal post movement has already started

Remember: this is using CIT information and witnesses. They have had ample opportunity to provide the math that makes any of their theory even plausible. As is typical, IMO, of the truth club it's up to the skeptics to do the actual math and or science to prove or disprove a particular aspect to the 9-11 truth club nuttery.

9-11 Truth Club: ask question, demand answers, refuse to do the leg work yourself and then when it's done for you, personally attack those that do your homework for you and start the cycle all over again as though your question wasn't/hasn't been answered.

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 12:06 PM
Solid work...and the conspiracy kids will start trying to rip it to shreds using things they claim can't be used to shred their beliefs.

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 02:08 PM
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

His calculations are irrelevant to what we claim.

We have NEVER said the plane behaved in this manner and neither have the eyewitnesses.

Anonymous "Reheat" has done nothing but create a false "impossible" scenario that we have never asserted and attributed it to us.

It is a textbook straw man argument.

Of course if you choose to accept his logical fallacy you are required to dismiss evidence that has been scientifically validated 12 times over while asserting that all confirmed unanimous witness accounts of the plane on the north side must be from individuals who simultaneously hallucinated the opposite of reality.

Not even our most fervent detractor, former ATC member Caustic Logic thinks Reheat's argument is valid!

Frustrated Fraud response here

We will be releasing a whole new wave of north side witnesses very soon.

Stay tuned.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 02:19 PM

Of course, Craig doesn't want you to know that he didn't have to say it. It comes from CIT's own accounts:

"I have taken witness testimony (without CIT's spin) and applied it to the locations at varying speeds in order to analyze the aerodynamics required to make the turns."

See this thread for Craig Ranke's, Aldo Marquis's, and Rob Balsamo's Last Stand:

CIT is history.

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 02:21 PM
Please stop lying and saying

evidence that has been scientifically validated 12 times over

This is a complete and total lie and you know it!!
But hey prove me wrong!
Please cite the experts that were used to "scientifically validate" your "evidence"?
CIT has already openly stated that they have no qualifications!
You spread lies like this like as if they are candy.
This is why the CIT is such a fringe group and very few truthers even entertain your fantasies.
A year ago on the Jeff Rense show you were saying that flight 77 was remote piloted.
You used to state openly to whomever was within ear shot that the flight 77 passengers were either gassed or executed by the government.
Of course ALL OF THIS was stated WITHOUT evidence.
You speculate is what you do but then try and pass it off as fact and "scientifically validated".

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 02:29 PM

Anonymous "Reheat"

Math DOESNT LIE Craig!
Get OVER IT with this "Anonymous" stuff.
You are reaching.
Within a few minutes a person from the UK (I think UK) was able to call Levi and unravel your fantasy.
Why is that?
Who wouldnt want to be part of uncovering MASS MURDER?
Its over Criag, get out of the hole so that you dont get the dirt thrown over you.

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 02:47 PM
BTW CRAUG What you posted about Terry Morin is MEANINGLESS.
YOU have ZERO QUOTES from him?
Why did you not quote what he said?
Do you have a written statement from Terry?
Do you have a recorded stateement from Terry?
Oh wait a second.........

So I had the opportunity to spend about an hour with Terry Morin in person.
Nice guy but he said he is not allowed to give formal interviews so I can only report my personal experience.

WOW a whole hour?
Did you go to where Terry was on 9-11?
Did he provide you with additional people to speak with?
Did he provide you with anyone to confirm what he told you?

Craig you have a bunch of "he told me".
Anyone can see this is not a professional and thorough investigation.
This does go along with what Aldo has said about CIT not have credentials.

You then say this

So Terry Morin is now a confirmed north of Columbia Pike/Over the Navy Annex witness fatally contradicting the official data and physical damage.

It is your word ONLY this does not amount to "confirmation".
So Terry commented about the "physical damage"?
How does Terry specifically contradict the "physical damage"?
Does he know that you are twisting what he may or may not have told you to draw this conclusion?
How does he contradict the "official data" when you yourself claim in the beginning of your post that:

He told me he was not aware of the NTSB data

You seem to be cherry picking and twisting what he may or may not have told you.
Did you record the conversation so that later you could make clear and succint notes?
Do you have a transcript of the order of the questions along with his response?
I will give you credit though Criag because at least you can hold a conversation without resulting in threats and name calling like your cohorts Aldo and Dom.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by TheBobert]

[edit on 12-6-2008 by TheBobert]

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:13 PM
Ya know what? You back one thing with this: that the aircraft couldn't have hit the Pentagon.

If you search through these forums, and those of CIT, you'll see some calcs I did on this, too.

The calcs I did showed that the turns were very much possible.

I don't know where the curve came from though; I'm aware of the gentle bank over the Navy Annex, but these couple of turns over the Citgo towards the Pentagon is news. I don't remember Sgt. LaGasse mentioning them (I worked on his viewpoint as there is CCTV placing him where he said he was, and it seriously limited his options on the flight path of the aircraft).

[edit on 12-6-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:35 PM
No, I asked for math not argumentative techniques.

Please provide your math that refutes the provided data. Don't talk to me about how much of a schmo you think I am or someone else is.

Talk to us in math.

Show us the math that makes even one of your proposed NoC non-paths physically possible. Talk to me about math using your data, information and witnesses.

(apologies for the confusion)

[edit on 12-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:40 PM
Hmm... didn't I suggest you searched the forums? It's better that way then you can see the context in which I was posting.

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:44 PM
Are you 12?
Why dont you just POST THE MATH!

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:53 PM
Well, seeing as you have a problem with the word "context", and are avoiding the point, here is a definition:


1. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
2. the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.
3. Mycology. the fleshy fibrous body of the pileus in mushrooms.
[Origin: 1375–1425; late ME < L contextus a joining together, scheme, structure, equiv. to contex(ere) to join by weaving (con- con- + texere to plait, weave) + -tus suffix of v. action; cf. text]

—Related forms
con·text·less, adjective

—Synonyms 2. background, milieu, climate.

Originally posted by TheBobert
Are you 12?
Why dont you just POST THE MATH!

I also suggest you stop with the personal attacks. I think you'll find it is in violation of the Ts and Cs.

If I just "post the math", it would mean very little as it would be out of context (see the above definition for clarification).

[edit on 12-6-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 05:11 PM
I'll humor you for 5 seconds.

The distance between the Citgo and the Pentagon is 0.33 sm (statute miles) or 0.33 x 0.86897 = 0.28676 nm.

Let's suppose the jet was flying at 350 kts. It will take 350 / 0.28676 = 0.0008 hours to travel that distance (or 2.9 seconds).

A standard Rate One turn means it takes 2 minutes to turn 360 degrees.

In 2.9 seconds, the aircraft could turn a whole 8.7° (360/120 * 2.9) assuming it was already banked.

The approx. bank angle required is 10% of 350 kts + 7 = 35+7 = 42°.

Whilst at first I appear to support the point of this thread, the turn that is being referenced hasn't (to the best of my knowledge) eveer been suggested to have occurred where the map in the link suggests a turn occurred.

This is why I suggest you search for my previous posts. I can't see how relevant it is to anything CIT have so far presented. The turn itself is the opposite way to the way they suggest it turns slightly to the right over the Navy Annex and the center of the turn is miles away from where CIT suggest the aircraft then starts to turn left (after it already passed the Citgo).

The only thing I could conclude was that the aircraft wasn't flying at 350 kts at all, but much slower (which would make sense for an aircraft that isn't to be crashed!)

[edit on 12-6-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 05:22 PM
Hey Craig - how come you and your band of conspiracy loons have
not interviewed the people with the best view of the impact, ie
the firemen (Alan Wallace, Mark Skipper, Sean Boger) who were
at the Pentagon Heliport with their fire truck. They had a perfect view
of Flight 77 approach.

Is it because they would disprove your little fantasy?

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:21 PM
reply to post by thedman

We did interview Sean Boger.

He saw the plane bank on the north side of the citgo:

We'd be happy to interview Allan Wallace and Mark Skipper but haven't been able to find them.

If you know how to reach them let us know.

But we already know they were running for their lives as the plane approached and therefore missed the pull up and flyover.

Allan Wallace describes the plane as "white" which is corroborated by many others we spoke with.

See here:
"Flight 77" The White Plane

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:25 PM


posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:26 PM
The same old responses over and over.
When are you releasing the Researchers Edition?
Wasnt that supposed to be released March of 07?

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:32 PM
All that you have to do Craig is take this evidence to the courts like you have been promising for well over a year and a half
How is that going?
Lately you have been posting how your "witnesses" should be subpoenaed.
Well what is stopping you from having this done?
Once the trials begin you will FOR SURE win a Pulitzer!
Think about Craig!
There will be book deals, movie offers, better weed!!!
Just get those trials started like you have been promising!!!!!

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:36 PM

Originally posted by scotty18
Why is it that the conspiracy nuts always respond with anger when their theories get shredded?

Why do the "debunkers" always resort to calling them nuts? Oh, the hypocrisy from you guys is funny.

BTW, I see no one getting angry or calling names but the so called "debunkers" here. Denial really does distort people's views.

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:38 PM

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by scotty18
Why is it that the conspiracy nuts always respond with anger when their theories get shredded?

Why do the "debunkers" always resort to calling them nuts? Oh, the hypocrisy from you guys is funny.

BTW, I see no one getting angry or calling names but the so called "debunkers" here. Denial really does distort people's views.

Thanks for proving what I said.

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in