How CIT uses "witnesses" to promote the No Plane/Wrong Plane Theory

Your hypocrisy is funny at times.

Thanks, glad I made you laugh.

The point is, CIT claims this guy is proof of a fly over. Yet, he steadfastly claims (with a lot of anger) the plane hit the building and he has some very strong feelings about truthers.

Isn't that odd? One the one hand the SGT speaks the gospel: NOC location. Yet, on the other he makes it perfectly clear, there was no "fly over".

I'm not trying to be in any way condescending to you but, are we having the same conversation and do you understand how "at odds" the CIT position is?

Again: CIT points to a guy who (1)was there, (2) saw the plane hit the building and (3)makes no bones about what he thinks of truthers and most importantly (4) provides information that makes a fly over a mathematical impossibility.

Good God man, if you want to try and understand, I don't know what else I can do to help you. If you disagree, that's just fabulous. Have at it.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Okay. I await the new "big" news.

If you have evidence that proves the murder of over 3,000 innocent Americans - please don't waste time engaging me. As a matter of fact, I would say it's your civic duty to bring this to all the major media outlets and before a prosecuting State Attorney ASAP.

Go to the authorities and get these people prosecuted. Is there any reason you haven't already done this?

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


I'm not arguing the fly over. As I said before, Flight 77 hit the pentagon. What I am arguing is the pseudoskeptics calling all these eyewitnesses liars because they (the skeptics) have come up with assumptions of most of their math to prove there was no NOC.

And if these eyewitnesses are correct, it puts another dent in the official story that Flight 77 flew SOC.

But, you guys take eyewitness testimony as gospel when it comes to plane parts at the pentagon etc. but call these eyewitnesses liars. Whether you want to say it or not.

BTW, I'm done with this thread as I see it's only going to become a censorship fest like the last one. So, there's no need to answer me as I won't be answering you.



[edit on 6/17/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 6/17/2008 by Griff]

reply to post by Griff


NO, you said we said that. We skeptics don't think the witnesses are liars. We think CITs spin on their recollections is misleading.

I think the SGT (as an example) is being 110% honest as he remembers it. He's also 111% wrong.

That's a far cry from calling the man a liar. I'm certainly not.

Concerning the witnesses and the Pentagon wreckage. There is video, pictures, hundreds (if not thousands) of first hand accounts literally moments after the attack happened. Your example isn't even in the same league.

If you want to try and disprove the wreckage actually pulled from the Pentagon existed, I eagerly await that thread.

reply to post by Griff


Censor fest? I don't understand. I don't have any more ability than you do to censor someone. Anyone can say anything they like, I am just asking people to stay on topic, that's all.

Do you think that's unreasonable of me?

I was thinking along the same lines.

Why all the anti CIT threads??? I don't get it??

Is this spillover from Jref?? I don't go there because of the constant acrimony and backslapping circle jerks that seem to frequent the site.

Personally I wish Craig would stay away from these folks and present the evidence and let the cards fall where they may. It will be self evident if he is onto something or not. I don't need the amazin randi to tell me what's what.

So guys what's the good word? What are you up to???

Please realize that SlightlyAbovePar has completely abandoned the fraudulent and libelous point he attempted to make in his original post.

He attempted to claim that the quote cited suggests CIT has admitted to misleading the witnesses when nothing could be farther from the truth.

This is why he is unable to verbalize HOW we misled witnesses.

Because we didn't.

The quote cited was in regards to why only those who were deceived into believing an impact are willing to talk with us.

That's the crux of this discussion.

The north side evidence forces YOU (the effective public jury) to choose whether or not you believe the witnesses simultaneusly and unanimously HALLUCINATED THE SAME THING....or that they were deceived into believing an impact.

What is more logical: mass hallucination or mass deception?

The answer should be clear.

Originally posted by Griff
As I said before, Flight 77 hit the pentagon.

Thank you for all the logic and intelligence you bring to this discussion.

But for God's sake man......

View all the evidence we present and pm me with a phone number.

Let's try to reason again for a moment with the opposition.

CIT uncovered in 2006 and later on, two handfuls of eyewitnesses leading to a flightpath NORTH of the Citgo gas station for flight 77 on 9/11/2001.

1. The most important, directly resulting conclusion from that north of Citgo flightpath is, that it is impossible for any airplane, civilian or military, to do two things at the same time frame of about 2 seconds :

Fly north of Citgo, and then hit all the downed light poles south of Citgo.

And subsequently hit the west wall of the Pentagon in the manner as is pictured for us by all these officially condoned "scientific correct" sources, payed for their conclusions by the US government, like FEMA, NIST, Purdue University, USGS and a whole lot more of them.
It would have been totally impossible to make that kind of sharp S-turn in 2 seconds, and level the wings off again to a horizontal path over 300 meters of the Pentagon lawn, as shown to us by those 2 videos from the DoD toll-boot cameras.

I had a lengthy discussion with a skeptical member, darkbluesky, in this forum (actually the now defunct PentaCon forum) :
www.abovetopsecret.com... and all next pages to page 21,
about his misconception that it could be possible, and he concluded ( and obviously all others, since nobody else did counter my arguments there after), that a north flightpath was totally inconsistent with all the downed light poles in the official south of Citgo flight path.

So, this inevitable conclusion leads us to the first indicator, that there is something terribly wrong with the official explanation of events at the Pentagon on 9/11.

2. The next conclusion has to be, that a game of misconceptions has been played on us, especially by some Pentagon officials, parts of the FBI and numerous more agencies.


I know, that this has to be a very scary scenario for the uninformed citizen who will read about these eyewitnesses for the first time. He will then have to watch all the CIT videos available at this forum as links to YouTube videos and other video sources. And she/he will see with their own eyes how honest and believable these testimonies are.

They convinced me on the spot, that my earlier conclusion that flight 77 hit the Pentagon had to be evaluated and re-tested concerning this new evidence.
I do have more faith in the taped testimonies of US citizens, who all are convinced that their observations are correct, than in the misconceptions pushed through my throat by politicians and military representatives who clearly lie about all the important facts surrounding the tragedy that 9/11 was for us, the citizens who they should represent and defend as honest co-citizens.

Edit: link.

[edit on 18/6/08 by LaBTop]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Thanks for your reply CIT, I appreciate you adding to the discourse. I also appreciate your argumentative techniques but the question remains:

Got math? Do you have any math that makes any of your NoC witnesses and the locations they refer to possible? Any at all?

This thread is about one of your “star” witnesses and what he thinks of truther conspiracies, like yours and how you have willfully manipulated his testimony to be something he never intended.

As you say, please stop wasting time engaging me and my “libelous slander”. Go to the authorities with your evidence! Get the new investigation started with your evidence. Get the murders prosecuted! You claim to be holding unseen, undeniable proof of a mass murder but yet you withhold all of the information for........what? Are you busy tying to create a new video, or are you interested in bringing murderers to justice? Again, is there any reason you haven't? Flash animations, spiffy cut scenes are nice for creating You Tube views but doesn't do a thing to promote the prosecution of mass murderers.

In so far as you misrepresenting your own witnesses, most of whom disagree with you, make all the information you have publicly available. Stop filtering the message and just let what you have “uncovered” stand on it's own.

There is a dam good reason you don't do this, haven't done it and wont. If the evidence could stand on it's own, without your re-interpretations, you would. It can't, so you don't.

What are you left with? Argumentative rebuttals that don't address one simple question.

We skeptics have applied simple, high school-level math to your evidence, as presented by you, as framed by you, as promoted as proof by you, as filtered by you and provided universal truth (which you claim to be after) known as math and highlighted the physical impossibility of your “suggested” locations.

Again, got math to counter our argument and thereby broadening the discussion? Or are we to look forward to another two years of dishonest representations of witness testimony?

In closing, I am asking for a couple of things:

(1) All materials relating to any communications between you and any of your witnesses in any form, without so much as a single edit for everyone's public consumption
(2) Signed affidavits from your witnesses testifying to the authenticity of what you have and will present (as to completeness, lack of editing, etc)
(3) Signed affidavits from your witnesses that indicate they know why, for what purpose they are being interviewed and how their statements will be used
(4) All of your video and audio recordings, without so much as a single edit – completely raw footage – for public consumption and review
(5) Math – from anyone – that supports your NoC contentions. Shoot, I'll accept something that only goes so far as to move this NoC discussion from the absurd to just barely possible (not even plausible, just physically possible)
(6) Signed affidavits from those you include in your videos testifying to their agreement with what they intended to convey and how you present the finished material

[edit on 18-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Please realize that SlightlyAbovePar has completely abandoned the fraudulent and libelous point he attempted to make in his original post.

Actually, not a chance. Your failure to provide math to support your assertions doesn't equal me abandoning the support of truth.. What I have given up on is getting you to produce something, anything other than argumentative techniques........say MATH that supports a NoC flight path.

Any reason this is so hard for you? Let's move the discussion forward with your rebuttal math.

After all, math the the universal language of truth, is it not? Why tolerate people like me asking you (repeatedly) for actual proof? Why not shut people like me up and provide some math that supports your assertions?

Strangely, instead of providing something that should be exceptionally easy to do (didn't say it had to come from you personally) and by extension virtually silencing the critics, you engage in more of the same? Why would that be?

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


While on the subject of math, you better save up a a whole lot of zeroes, because you're going to need them to put behind that phrase: "one-in-a" when you try to convince us that Hani Hanjour, of "never soloed in a Cessna" fame, pirouetted that Boeing at 450 mph+ from 7000 feet in a perfect arcing descent, clipped the light poles, went slightly upgrade, skimmed the lawn but didn't leave a divot, then made that hole, vaporized his wings and rear stabilizer, and popped out that nice round hole three or four rings later, and did it 5-6 minutes after the watches and clocks stopped in the blast area.

I'd estimate you should save 5-6 dozen for that one.

Carry on.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

This thread is about one of your “star” witnesses and what he thinks of truther conspiracies, like yours and how you have willfully manipulated his testimony to be something he never intended.

You have provided no evidence that we manipulated anything and an email from 3.5 year before we ever contacted Lagasse means nothing.

Lagasse stands by his north side claim to this day and respects us for asking him the questions.

You are erroneously claiming in this thread we misled witnesses as to our intentions.

You are desperately reaching to discredit us personally as a means to dismiss the evidence we present.

I know the implications are hard to accept.

I know this makes you want to lash out to me personally.

I'm sorry for that but the fact that all the witnesses place the plane on the north side is not my fault.

Originally posted by gottago
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

 

While on the subject of math, you better save up a a whole lot of zeroes, because you're going to need them to put behind that phrase: "one-in-a" when you try to convince us that Hani Hanjour, of "never soloed in a Cessna" fame, pirouetted that Boeing at 450 mph+ from 7000 feet in a perfect arcing descent, clipped the light poles, went slightly upgrade, skimmed the lawn but didn't leave a divot, then made that hole, vaporized his wings and rear stabilizer, and popped out that nice round hole three or four rings later, and did it 5-6 minutes after the watches and clocks stopped in the blast area.

I'd estimate you should save 5-6 dozen for that one.

Carry on.

I've been saying this for a long time.

Debates often revolve around arcane points, meaningless minutiae and the endless demands for "proof."

Well, here they are: real live provable facts of 9/11. What's frustrating is that the entire 9/11 story is riddled with similar anomalies.

I'd like to hear someone dispute these essential matters in a professional, non-manipulative, non-diversionary manner.

Then we can move on to the daily implications of dishonesty by examining the circumstances surrounding 3.5 year-old emails.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

This thread is about one of your “star” witnesses and what he thinks of truther conspiracies, like yours and how you have willfully manipulated his testimony to be something he never intended.

You are desperately reaching to discredit us personally as a means to dismiss the evidence we present.

I've been watching the video on your website and your theory makes sense. This would help resolve the contradictory evidence at the Pentagon that simultaneously supports the many eyewitnesses who are sure they saw a plane AND the minimal amount of physical and photographic evidence from the site.

I think you'll find whenever you get too close to the truth and propose theories that unite people instead of dividing them, you'll be increasingly attacked. Good work.

reply to post by gottago


Thanks for your addition to the thread. Unfortunately that's straw man. Then again, you know that but when faced with MATH what can you possibly say?

Instead of you - as per the truther code - demanding I prove a negative, why don't you provide some evidence you're correct? Better yet, start you're own thread about the impossibility you claim?

Even better than that, why don't we just skip it and refer to the various threads that have demolished that bit of nonsense for the....I don't know.....last six years?

Here's a hint for you: it takes virtually no skill to fly a plane if you're not concerned about landing and surviving.

Oh, you can't find any evidence? All you have is argumentative techniques? As before, thanks for your input.

Truthers make this way, way too easy.

Carry on Gottago!


[edit on 19-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

[edit on 19-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Again, stop wasting time on Internet sites and forums! Get on with presenting the evidence to the authorities for prosecution! Or, are you more interested in slick You Tube productions?

Why don't you unplug, volunteer for CIT and get the ball rolling? Stop starring posts and start doing...something! CIT is down to two members, I am sure they are looking for help.

Strangely, I don't think in another six years we will see the "smoking gun" evidence lead to prosecutions. I think we'll be on our tenth iteration of the wrong plane/no plane "theory".

Again, is the goal to bring about the prosecution of mass murderers, or self edification? It's a legitimate criticism and question.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


No, I have nothing against you personally. I am sure you are a stand up kind of guy in real life. My issue is with CIT and the conclusions it, as an entity, draws.

Again, stop wasting time engaging in what you think is meaningless banter and get your evidence out into the public realm! Stop “presenting” evidence. Provide everything you've got, without spin, editing or anything else.

If what you claim to have is as explosive (no pun intended) as you claim, it shouldn't require editing. Put everything you've got on public server for review. Not another “Pentacon” video. The raw, unadulterated material you have collected.

It's really simple: the evidence should stand on it's own. IMO, the reason you follow the hoax/scam model of trickling out information – again this is only my opinion – is because the evidence doesn't stand on it's own. You have to filter, edit and ensure the “proper” message is delivered.

This thread is about how CIT admitted to manipulating witnesses to appear on camera under false pretenses. In addition, one of your star witnesses doesn't agree with your conclusions and doesn't have very nice things to say about the truth club in general.

So, again, stop engaging me in what you think are “libelous”, personal attacks and get your “new” evidence out there. If what you have presented is/was as strong as you like to think it is, it would silence skeptics by virtue of it's....well.....virtues.

One last point: You, again, try to cast this as I am with “them” and seek to cover up the truth. Quite the contrary, I seek to expose abject ignorance (not claiming you are) and propaganda. I am after the truth. I am not “against” you. I don't have a dog in this race, other than the actual truth. I don't have a web site. I am not selling trinkets. I am not trying to get on radio shows or TV. I am not trying to draw attention to myself. I don't start posts asking for pats on the back for unglued (IMO) rants on the Howard Stern show.

I want the truth and I want it based off of evidence.

So, in conclusion: the math isn't going away. Do you have any math that makes any of the positions your witness place the plane in even possible? Not plausible, not likely....just possible. Or, will you respond with yet another attempt to put forth argumentative techniques in substitution for the universal language of truth?

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


You look obsessed with us and your rambling unreadable posts that are OFF TOPIC to your own OP don't help much.

The purpose of this thread was to accuse us of admitting to misleading the witnesses when we said or did no such thing.

You have in essence shown how you either have trouble comprehending the English language or are willing to deliberately and boldfaced lie in a desperate attempt to cast doubt on us personally.

What's great and quite clear from the responses is how all these pointless and hollow CIT bashing threads obviously tend to make the majority of readers here think that we are definitely on to something which no doubt inspires many of them to go to our website and check out the evidence for themselves.

So thanks for the attention!

I look forward to yet another thread about us when this one runs its course.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

What's great and quite clear from the responses is how all these pointless and hollow CIT bashing threads obviously tend to make the majority of readers here think that we are definitely on to something which no doubt inspires many of them to go to our website and check out the evidence for themselves.

Well, Craig, when you can't produce a single eyewitness that saw AA77 fly over and beyond the Pentagon after being asked to do so for two years, and then you bash almost 1,000 actual eyewitnesses as being liars, you have no place to go but into the trashbin of history.

CIT is nothing but a fantasy of a few kids that hate people.