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 Craig Ranke CIT
Bump for anyone who may have missed the debates.
I find it interesting how virtually every blog and thread CL has posted here since these debates focus on CIT and our research.
Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups. Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of focusing on conspiracy theory, cover-ups, and scandals.
Originally posted by eyewitness86
What I would like to know is why a guy like Larson is listened to anyway. What makes him someone to have his opinions held important? As soon as I heard him say that it was most likley that the entire Citgo crew were in on a conspiracy, that did it. No need to go on. The man is like one of these kids that gets on here at the end of a long thread and asks silly questions and has to be directed back to learn the basics.
I am sure that a better example could be found that could try and debunk the truth..this guy is so banal and so unasahmed about looking like a fool that it is almost cruel to debate him. It is like debating some second grader about a subject: Their logical thought systems are not fully formed, and neither apparently are Larsons.
Craig is believeable, Larson is not. If anyone can believe in the Citgo people all lying or conspirators, then they will believe anything that the Bush cabal says. Makes one wonder why?!
Originally posted by eyewitness86
After going back and reading even more, I found a line by Larson that sums it all up perfectly:
He said " Craig, you just don't know how my logic works ".
If there is more than one way to be logical, please tell me what it is. Logical people will see things pretty much the same. They will see evidence and come to a conclusion based on odds and facts.
Reading Larsons words is a case study in denial and obfuscation and out ridiculous nonsense. He admits to believing in the most far flung and outrageous scenarios, yet asks to be seen as a man of logic!!
I guess what he means is that HIS logic is radically different than standard logic, but it is just as valid!! Amazing gaul....he has no substance, makes no correct determinations, and is either unable to correctly process data and odds, or has some motive for being so stubborn and willing to support the absolutely phony official story.
I feel sorry for people who think like he does...how in the world can he make heads or tails out of anything if even plain and simple facts can be turned around and seen totally in the wrong way. Unreal.
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Are you just now noticing that? I'll take this bump as a bump of your reticence to address why you have these sharp banks in your flight path that no one reported, and that several people, including one of your witnesses, indicate the opposite of. Bank vs turn thread
Google Video Link |
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
No matter how you slice it, CIT/PFT analysis just doesn't add up.
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
And quickly regarding that FDR analysis - that is a great modeling job Rob did that would be very useful if we even wanted to see what the plane was doing over S Courthouse Road and 12th st S, but has little bearing on the actual period before impact, a mile to the northeast and about 6-8 seconds later than that last data was recorded.
Google Video Link |
MIKE WALTER: I will never forget that day, trapped in traffic and then I rolled down the window and heard the sound of the jet overhead. I wasn’t surprised. I worked in the USA today building in Roslyn nearby and we were used to seeing a lot of choppers coming to the helipad at the Pentagon and a lot of commercial jets heading to Reagan which is nearby. But for some reason I looked up and saw the underbelly of the jet as it gracefully banked, then I watched in shock as the jet basically lined up the Pentagon in its sights and began to scream towards the mammoth structure. I watched as it continued to dip from the sky, diving towards the Pentagon. There are some trees that are adjacent to 27 the road I was stuck on, so the jet went out of sight momentarily. Then I picked it up as it struck very low into the Pentagon.
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
reply to post by eyewitness86
And Eyewitness, I notice no response to my challenges, but also no new attacks on me. Are you wise enough to know you stepped too far? [tough guy voice]Dat's what I THOT.[/tough guy voice]
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I have no idea what your point is in your nonsensical bank thread that deceptively attributes claims to Edward he never made. In fact he specifically said in our first interview how he did not notice a wing tilt. Ask Russell Pickering if you don't believe me because he is the one who asked the question.
When I refer to bank I mean actual turn of the plane which is what Walter was describing and why his account is irreconcilable with the official flight path.
The fact is that Mike Walter would not have been able to see a slight wing tilt OR turn immediately before alleged impact in a fraction of a second with the plane a few feet above ground and the trees that he admitted blocked his view.
Furthermore the "graceful bank" that he describes is clearly the plane on the approach and not when it would have been at eye level directly in front of him for a fraction of a second before it disappeared behind the trees.
Now....granted, I'll admit that the fact that he says he saw the underbelly would indicate he is describing the opposite bank that we report, however, this does not change the FACT that a bank like he describes is still irreconcilable with the official flight path either way.
Also......there are many contradictions we will be demonstrating in Walter's account which seriously implicate him as not telling the truth.
The fact that I referred to his account many months ago on jref as I was being badgered about the impossibility of the plane banking means nothing.
Frankly I didn't even consider how his "underbelly" claim would indicate an opposite bank nor do I care because his dubious account STILL contradicts the official flight path and FDR.
You really enjoy quote mining various forums from months ago and taking things out of context in order to twist claims for confusion.
You are awesome at that.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
No matter how you slice it, CIT/PFT analysis just doesn't add up.
Except that you have failed to make a single point as to how.
You simply make excuses for all of the anomalies in the government story right down to calling all the information that contradicts it as planted disinfo!
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Alright, fine, I'll respond here too. That is mildly interesting. Perhaps he recalled this detail after that interview, then included it when he talked to the camera later? Watch the video yourselves: He’s never ASKED about bank/tilt, and doesn’t TALK about it. His drawn lines are essentially straight.
– 11:42 describing the black wings he extends his arms, right hand high, relaxes the gesture then repeats it the same.
- 12:52 – striking a jesus pose, facing the OTHER way he somehow puts his LEFT hand higher to indicate the right wing. He even seems to think about it a moment first.
Coincidence? Yes, perhaps. But this also matches the type of bank described by many others and in the physical damage.
And which is more consistent with his not noticing any bank anyway? An extreme right bank or a mild left one?
Alright, that's what I was guessing. Can't see a plane's wing bank? That makes no sense...
What proof do we have that Boger, Walter, anyone in that describes a 'bank' means it in the same way you do? As I see it the word alone could mean a turn or just an actual bank, and I'd need other clues like "it banked right, turning from northeast to east..." etc.
No but neither would it change in a fraction of a second from what he had seen earlier. Where does he say it stopped 'banking' and straightened out? How do we know it wasn't still doing that behind the trees? Did it level its wings, pull up and fly over behind the trees?
Sure, just like your repeating that nonsense that doesn't make it true. The official story has no appreciable turn, or bank as you call it, between the poles and the building, but it does have a bank, or a tilt as you call it.
If walter meant bank, then a 'graceful' one showing him belly fits the official story fine.
It may even have been turning 'gracefully,' but with a left-bank, and on the scale from the Annex to the Pentagon, about 20 plane-lengths, it might be negligible, a slight bow of a nearly straight line.
So for every instance you say Walter's report of a bank contradicts the official story I call bull. Until you get him to explain he MEANS a right turn, and that graceful means extreme, with left wing very high.
I will never forget that day, trapped in traffic and then I rolled down the window and heard the sound of the jet overhead. I wasn’t surprised. I worked in the USA today building in Roslyn nearby and we were used to seeing a lot of choppers coming to the helipad at the Pentagon and a lot of commercial jets heading to Reagan which is nearby. (so he saw the plane off in the distance but thought it was normal at first. Would he really have time to think all that in 2 seconds?) But for some reason I looked up and saw the underbelly of the jet as it gracefully banked, then I watched in shock as the jet basically lined up the Pentagon in its sights.....
Wow there's more? This guy must be REALLY suspicious, huh?
Thanks. I call it research. So why did both you and Aldo repeatedly emphasize his bank reports elsewhere too, including to me? JREFFers made you do it? his 'bank' report that only specifically implies a right-wing high 'tilt' and NOT specifically a turn-type bank - used to support your EXTREME right bank and turn - Talk about out-of-context...
And since we're keeping this in the vs. thread, I have a general Q for you. You mentioned Paik's earlier interview w/Pickering present. I hear Robert Turcios gave an earlier recorded interview before his video-taped one. Is this available for the public to hear? Do you have a copy you can share in the interests further verification of your scientific and open process?
Originally posted by eyewitness86
I will let the guys who study this in depth deal with the particulars, but when Larson is willing to accept incredible odds, outrageous scenarios totally unsupported by any proof, just to keep the fires buring in the official incinerator of unfounded allegations, I see quite clearly where the odds lie: No proof exists that confirms the official story, and the screaming contradictions say a lot.
The ONLY reason that the perps are able to get away with this is because the public will swallow any fairy tale given them by the media, and most would not want to know the truth if it was right there in black and white in front of them; some people just cannot imagine such things being possible.