New full feature presentation from CIT now realeased!

Originally posted by Reality Hurts

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
... since the first responders are not relevant to the true flight path of the plane in any way whatsoever and can do nothing to help shed further light on the CLEAR and fatal anomalies in this regard it would be completely futile for us to seek out and interview the alleged "1,000's" of people as jthomas puts it who may have seen some scraps.

Fair enough?

Yes, fair enough.

That is a valid point in regards to this issue. jthomas still has a point though, should you ever chose to cover the actual impact.

No he doesn't because the evidence we provide proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there could not have been an impact.

The same logic still applies too.......nobody who was on the scene after the fact can testify as to what happened during the event.

I have never denied that very few airplane parts or scraps were on the scene.

I have never doubted that this would be confirmed by anyone who was part of the rescue or recovery efforts who may have seen these parts or scraps.

This still has no bearing whatsoever on the evidence we present proving the plane did not hit the building.

This may seem like a simple question but let us say we had access to the raw radar data for the DC area for the seven days before and seven days after 9/11. The plane would be easy to see as the transponder was off. Despite all wild turns if the plane disappeared in the area of the Pentagon and never showed up again would it be said that it crashed or that it was removed?

What is so hard to understand about this? There was a jet that flew in the direction of the Pentagon. There is damage to the building and aircraft debris all over the area and inside the building. Not one single person has proven that it was a fly over. No one has come forward that witnessed a fly over. And to my knowledge there is no jet bomber that could do a precise carpet bomb run and have the majority of debris enter such a small point.

What will it take? A god eye view of the impact in super HD that we can positive ID a middle eastern man behind the yoke flipping the bird at the camera?

I actually like the baseball pitch analogy. You know it left the mound, you know it is headed towards the plate but if you think you can count the threads to be sure it is a legal ball you are going to strike out.

The reality of the whole situation is you have to be lucky if prevent a determined action. The gov't dropped the ball. If you want to the public to rally behind something. Prove that they dropped the ball for whatever reason and demand what will satisfy you. Be it resignation of all elected officals, refund of tax paymants made for our defense orwhat have you.

But trying to prove that no plane hit the Pentagon because you can not fathom how when there is wreckage in a smoking hole and many people saw a plane is like saying you did not take a dump when there is a turd in the bowl and no fecal matter was on the toilet paper when you wiped. It happens like that sometimes in life...just be sure to wash your hands.

Any five year old will tell you that a bumblebee can fly but it took years to figure out how since it wasn't easily to explain aerodynamically.

reply to post by Ahabstar


Clearly you have not viewed the evidence provided in the OP.

This is not a general discussion thread about whether or not the plane hit the Pentagon.

There are plenty of those already.

The information in this thread presents SPECIFIC EVIDENCE proving the official reports and data fraudulent.

Please view the evidence and explain why you refuse to accept it as valid or what evidence you have to refute it.

Thanks.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

You are floundering which is evident by your virtually incoherent post and clear need to distract from the topic with your convoluted "shadow" analysis.

No, that was just a sidetrack. I was inspired to explain that again since certain classes of evidence don't get repeated or even xplained enough.

I'll return to the C-130 issues but just for reference, here I've tried to map out the radar C-130 path, your final decoy maneuvers, and Chacones' location. Did I get anything wrong here?

i133.photobucket.com...
That turn seems too far to the west to git what he says, but it does turn to the right and continue back towards the airport.
Please explain to us how Chaconas rules out a C-130. What does he say where in the video? (I have no time to dig now, so help us out).

Also you say my original guess was way off, even though it has the decoy crossing the river east, looping north of the Capitol, looping southeast, southwest, crossong the river west, turning east again to the Pentagon. So what's so off?

The original angle of the decoy seen by O'Brien you say?
The second river crossing slightly too far north?
The inclusion of your existing swerve from the Driving Range over the Annex?
the overpass to cross the river a third time and circled DC a second time at 9:40?
Something else?

I think you just didn't like how I guessed right and basically showed your loop before you did, and was already making fun of it.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Thank you for your consideration and kind words and glad it wasn't "get with the program or get the hell out" I respect you for that.

However, I feel that you started with a flawed premise that a plane did not hit the building. And that finding precise data points that refutes descriptions that are generalities is an odd way to prove your idea. I have met many people in my lifetime that are rather remarkable but have yet to meet anyone that describe anything in precise coordinates by an innate ability of sense of presence like a human GPS device.

I have read many of your posts and points and you have refined yourself over time as new data was gained some things are silly the way you refute them like an eyewitness making a "dive-bombing motion" with their hand while describing what they saw. And some points have been rather insightful. I just would hate to see you fall apart and feel that you have wasted your energy.

To focus so intently over a minor plot point could become a breaking point later down the road. I have personally watched a guy try to build a sugarcube from sugar grains with two toothpicks while touring an asylum. The doctor said that he was actually rather intelligent and could build a car on his own with the parts and fabricate most of them if he had a forge and metal shop. I asked how he got that way. The doctor said his wife left him and the dog died on the same day, he just couldn't cope and killed 5 people.

I would hate to see you go from encompassing interest to absolute obsession. No matter how noble, sometimes a belief can go too far. Be sure to leave yourself an out like a self-promise to do a frivolous project like satire or parody in a month or so. Best benefit is that it clears the mind for looking a old data from a fresh perspective.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by jthomas

 

Nothing in Gravy's inaccurate blog refutes ANY of the evidence we present proving a military deception.

You haven't demonstrated it. Prove it.

The alleged fact that "1,000's" saw a few airplane scraps included.

Verified fact. Just because you deny it does not relieve you of your responsibility to refute the evidence against your claims, Craig.

Feel free to provide any evidence refuting our claims because so far you have completely failed.

It is quite clear that it is your responsibility to refute the evidence that contradicts - in massive detail - your claims and assertions.

It is not my responsibility to prove or report on everything that happened during this operation.

It is your claim that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon, therefore it is entirely your responsibility to refute the massive evidence that demonstrates AA77 hit the Pentagon. You already know that.

All I need to do is prove a fatal contradiction to the official story and this we have done more than once.

You haven't proved anything, Craig. You have only made claims and assertions, and in every post, including this one, you have refused to refute the evidence that demonstrates that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Tell us why you refuse to deal with ANY of the evidence of what happened at the Pentagon that clearly demonstrates that your are wrong, Craig Ranke?

What do you expect to accomplish by showing you do not know how to do research?

reply to post by Caustic Logic


That image looks accurate as far as I can tell.

Chaconas specifically says it was a "commercial jet" just like he sees "all day long" on the river.

He clearly is quite knowledgeable on the difference.

Plus the bank/turn he saw was quite obvious and notable to him and there would be no visible bank/turn at all for him on the RADES data.

Oh yeah and the C-130 pilot says he had just past the Mall headed westbound after traveling NORTH and west. Not just passed Reagan airport headed southwest or westsouthwest.

Big difference.

Your loop was simply not accurate just as Koeppel's loop based on a guess was not accurate.

I was not interested in discussing any of it with you until the evidence was released.

Now it is and you can not possibly say anything to spin Chaconas' account without calling him a deep cover disinfo operative.

It's clear the plane he saw was not the C-130 according to O'Brien's statements AND the RADES data.

reply to post by Ahabstar


Ok.

Let me know if you have any comments on the evidence I have provided in this thread proving a military deception on 9/11.

reply to post by Caustic Logic


Yes it's definitely a good graphic.

It demonstrates perfectly how there is no way the plane that Chaconas saw was the C-130.

Thanks!

Originally posted by Unit541
reply to post by jthomas

 

It seems that nobody is dodging anything more than you. I asked, point blank for your opinion on whether or not the official story leaves any unanswered questions. Please, put your bickering with Ranke aside for just a moment, and look at this objectively, as I NEVER stated that a 757 did not hit the pentagon.

Excuse me, Unit54, I'll be delighted to address your questions below, but first: is there a reason why you have not read my two direct point-blank answers to your question here?:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Reality Hurts

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
... since the first responders are not relevant to the true flight path of the plane in any way whatsoever and can do nothing to help shed further light on the CLEAR and fatal anomalies in this regard it would be completely futile for us to seek out and interview the alleged "1,000's" of people as jthomas puts it who may have seen some scraps.

Fair enough?

Yes, fair enough.

That is a valid point in regards to this issue. jthomas still has a point though, should you ever chose to cover the actual impact.

No he doesn't because the evidence we provide proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there could not have been an impact.

You've provided no evidence, Craig. You have made a claim and, of course, you have not refuted the massive evidence against you, Craig. Tell us why you mock this survivor, for instance:

Killtown,
I am certainly aware of people like yourself who believe that those of us who suffered on 9/11 must be part of some giant plot, either as dupes or plotters. I was in the Pentagon when the plane hit, I held parts of that aircraft in my hands, covered with fuel and oil, and I helped with the triage area. I helped a guy with a headwound, aided ambulances coming in, and suffer to this day with ongoing nightmares on a very regular basis. When one has seen what I saw, and had to do what I had to do, the images, the smells, the sounds, resonate in your mind forever.

I do not object to your desire to dispute the facts of that day. While I feel you are hopelessly naive and silly, that is your right. But please know that your page on the Pentagon crash is deeply offensive to the survivors such as myself. Again, it's not that you argue. But your tone is one of mocking, of making light of the greatest suffering I ever saw in my 25 years of military service. Your fake "quotes," your quips, all mock the pain of those of us that were there, and served that day. I am very likely one of the people in some of your photographs, and I assure you our thoughts were not about the grass (a silly claim you make, by the way), but were deeply, intensely worried about the people hurt, the people left inside. I will never forget that day, and while I can forgive your foolishness in not understanding the facts, the science, the reality of that day, I find it much harder to forgive your willingness to laugh at those who were so terribly hurt that day. Such an attitude shows you to be a cruel and heartless person, in addition to silly one.

LT Col Hal Bidlack
USAF Retired

forums.randi.org...

Don't you think you should discuss this with LT Col Hal Bidlack, Craig?

It's time for you to stop playing games, Craig Ranke, and start refuting the evidence against you.






[edit on 27-2-2008 by jthomas]

I am not Killtown and I have mocked nobody.

Bidlack is not a witness to the plane or the violent event.

Let me know if you have any direct comments regarding the evidence presented in the OP proving a military deception on 9/11.

Thanks for the bump!

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Bidlack is not a witness to the plane or the violent event.

Oh, "the violent event"?

Don't keep us waiting, Craig, Just WHAT violent event are you talking about other than the crash of AA77 into the Pentagon?

Originally posted by jthomas

Excuse me, Unit54, I'll be delighted to address your questions below, but first: is there a reason why you have not read my two direct point-blank answers to your question here?:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Could you be anymore belittling here jthomas? Neither link really answers the simple question of "is there anything wrong, in your opinion, with the official story about the Pentagon attack?".

Maybe you'll answer, maybe you won't, no big deal in my book but certainly frustrating for some trying to have civil discussions about highly emotional things.

It doesn't matter if you refuse to accept everything else that we assert in our new presentation, the account of Steve Chaconas alone is solid irrefutable proof of a military deception on 9/11.



The approach and timing of the plane that he saw cross the river is proof that the decoy jet flew over DC skies and came from east of the river and then looped around to the Pentagon timed perfectly with the explosion.




Of course this is 100% irreconcilable with the NTSB and 84 RADES reported official flight path:




Caustic Logic has already asserted that the plane Steve Chaconas saw was the C-130 but this is impossible for a few reasons.

1. Although the RADES flight path for the C-130 shows the plane crossing over the river in the same area where Chaconas saw the plane, this flight path is nowhere near where the pilot of the C-130 says he flew.



2. Steve is on the river every day as a charter boat captain and is quite familiar with the planes that fly over his head every few minutes. He is quite aware of the difference between military and commercial airliners as he explained in the interview. He specifically stated that the plane he saw looked like a "commercial jet".

3. Steve was very descriptive about a significant "bank" or turn that he saw the plane make as it looped around to the Pentagon. The flight path of the C-130 as depicted in the RADES data has the bank way too far out for Steve to have noticed at all.




So given that there is no other plane depicted on the RADES data that could possibly fit the flight path and timing that Steve Chaconas described, and in light of all the other fatal contradictions and anomalies we have uncovered in regards to the official story, it's 100% clear that the radar data representing the plane that Steve Chaconas saw on 9/11 was manipulated out of what 84 RADES released to the public in 2007 many years after the event and that the fabricated official flight path of AA77 was simply added to the data.


There is really no way around this conclusion as this evidence will surely test the intellectual honesty of some of the "debunkers" if they STILL refuse to accept it just like they have refused to accept the north side claim.

The east of the Potomac and north of the Citgo claims independently prove 9/11 was an inside job.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

There is really no way around this conclusion as this evidence will surely test the intellectual honesty of some of the "debunkers" if they STILL refuse to accept it just like they have refused to accept the north side claim.

The east of the Potomac and north of the Citgo claims independently prove 9/11 was an inside job.

Sorry, Craig, everyone here knows you still haven't even begun to refute the massive evidence demonstrating that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

No researcher in the world would deliberately ignore his obligation to deal with all of the evidence as you do, Craig.

I have repeatedly requested that tell us what the 1,000+ people saw and/or recovered from inside the pentagon. You continue to refuse.

Since you realize that that you cannot deny or escape the evidence, why don't you step up to the plate and admit it? Denying the evidence only makes you look like a foolish kid.

It's time to come clean, Craig, and stop playing your silly game.

You can start here:
youtube.com...

Now, are you going to admit you are wrong, Craig, or not?

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

Originally posted by jthomas

Excuse me, Unit54, I'll be delighted to address your questions below, but first: is there a reason why you have not read my two direct point-blank answers to your question here?:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Could you be anymore belittling here jthomas? Neither link really answers the simple question of "is there anything wrong, in your opinion, with the official story about the Pentagon attack?".

That wasn't the question asked. Go back and read the question. It was this:

"So, in your opinion, there are no unanswered questions about the Pentagon?" to which my direct answer was clear:

"There is one major unanswered question that Truthers have avoided answering since I first asked it in March 2002. You'll note that is almost six years ago."

The question you claimed Unit54 asked is entirely different and based on the faulty premise that there is some"official story." As I've made clear that is a canard and strawman of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Originally posted by jthomas

Since you realize that that you cannot deny or escape the evidence, why don't you step up to the plate and admit it? Denying the evidence only makes you look like a foolish kid.

So why do you deny the evidence jthomas?

I have never denied that first responders saw a few airplane scraps.

Of course that has no bearing on the evidence we present.

Why do you deny the testimony of Steve Chaconas?


[edit on 28-2-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by jthomas


You call that evidence? I guess it depends on if you blindly believe what the establishment tells you. Hal Bidlack is far from being an unbiased witness.

z9.invisionfree.com...

Are you buddies? Why are you so passionately bias?

reply to post by jthomas


So your going to argue symantics? So when you heard or saw evidence, then depending on who said or presented it, believed it or not? There's no official story? What your friends said about the Pentagon is not an official story? Did you talk to any of the 1000s of witnesses? I'd like to know how much of flight 77 was recovered that month.

Recently TWA 800 was discussed here and they recovered 90% of that aircraft, lost at sea and most is found.

Now AA 77, the plane is spread over much smaller area, 90%+ inside the building.

Were any parts confirmed by serial #, as coming from aircraft assigned flt 77?

Has anyone you know said they confirmed said parts with Boeing records?