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 megaman1234
I have seen thread after thread after thread where the CIT group has been utterly and completely blasted with facts and figures and evidence, and have responded with nothing of any substance. .
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Thats funny, i have not seen any official reports or physical evidence that supports the official story.
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
For others, just looking at CIT's evidence alone with a critical eye will be all they need to realize the 'official story' is the only one that fits the largest portion of available evidence.
Originally posted by megaman1234
The stubburn refusal to admit that ANYTHING outside of thier own 7 witnesses or so has any credibility whatsoever is absolutely mind-boggling!
All I see over and over again is that it is some scientific law that 7 people who say the same thing means its right, no matter what. Period end of story.
Originally posted by megaman1234
I have seen thread after thread after thread where the CIT group has been utterly and completely blasted with facts and figures and evidence, and have responded with nothing of any substance. I must admit - when I first saw their theory, it seemed interesting. But looking at it for any length of time reveals very clearly that it lacks any depth at all. So in short - I'd like for people to post what one CIT point or claim was so ridiculous, that it cemented for you the idea that they cannot be taken seriously in any way. I am sure there are many examples of shaky reasoning, poor manners, and boring repetitive denials.
1) Honestly for me – it was that silly little tagline: “We ain’t playin’”. Which made it plainly obvious that they really have no desire to be taken seriously by anyone over 23 years old.
2) My other big bone came back when we were talking about – was it McGraw? Anyway – he was a priest, who in a horribly shameful attempt to discredit; Craig tried to make out as a child molester by association 3 degrees removed. It was a disgusting display; no research organization of any repute would stoop to such a level. If there was any validity to their claims, they would not have to resort to such tactics.
3) The fantastic post by the captain, on the validity of eyewitness statements. It shreds the CIT idea of “Utter scientific proof by way of a handful of witnesses” to pieces. Of course, published papers by respected members of the scientific community mean nothing to groups like CIT.
4) I encourage everyone to read the current thread on the CIT flightpath. Notice the utter lack of meaningful responses from Mr Craig Ranke. They seem to think that by repeating the same line over and over again makes it true.
I could go on and on here, but here is one more I thought was pretty funny – it was posted by another CIT guy on another forum – and explains how they got their witnesses.
“They wouldn't be "laughed at" or "ripped to shreds". They were there filming what they thought was a documentary on 9/11, one that focused on the attack and on a side note putting to rest the theories about missiles and global hawks. They didn't know the interview was about the details of the approach. They weren't there to give EXACT, PIN-POINT COMPUTER ACCURATE details. They just gave their story and answer the questions we asked. Part of telling their story was pointing to where they saw the plane. They did this without knowing the implications or realizing that is what we wanted.”
In short they had to LIE to their witnesses to get them to say what they wanted. Think about that for a second. They knew if they told them what they were doing, their prized witnesses likely would have had nothing to do with them – so they had to make up a story to get them on camera. It makes you think what other LIES they had to tell them to lead them to their claims. It completely invalidates ALL of their interviews, which is all they have anyway. Seriously, if they admit they lied to their heroic witnesses, doesn’t that pretty much kill whatever integrity they had? How can anyone trust what they have to say?
They are not to be trusted, and are interested in only shameless self-promotion.
I have seen many threads asking the questions like “what finally made you not believe the official story”, so let’s do it to these guys now.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I guess I should reply since apparently the mods have chosen to allow this baseless and completely false personal attack thread.
Originally posted by nicepants
Then you clearly haven't done any research into the subject.
Originally posted by megaman1234
I am sorry - but your friend clearly states that you all mislead your witnesses as to the intent of the filming.
Thanks for bumping that thread. You are right - I didn't remember quite right. However - the point still applies. A reputable organization would not try to bring up stories of weird sexual stuff practiced by a person completely out of the realm of discussion, in an attempt to smear a witness. If your facts were truly so convincing - that would never be neccesary. I seem to remember the moderator essentially aggreeing with me - and posting some warnings about doing it in the future. To me , and I'm sure many others, all it does is show an immaturity, and lack of decency, in a vain attempt to stay in the spotlight.
I enjoyed you stating the "Scientific method of corroboration". Please cite this from a respected source. Or did you make it up because it sounds cool?
I'm sorry Criag - but that whitepaper strikes to the heart of your arguement. It examines the validity of eyewitness statements sir. You only have what, 7, witnesses? I'm sorry, but please go to any statistician with that, and find out if that represents a valid sample size. Considering the many many other witness statements out there - you will find that it does not.
I have a simple question for you, can you give me an honest answer?
How many others did you interview, besides your 7? Do you have any documentation of these others? How did you find them?
Additionally - I would encourage ALL readers, guests, and members alike, to find all current threads concering the pentagon flyover, CIT, Craig Ranke, or pentagon evidence, and read them all carefully. I believe the posts by CIT representatives, and the lack of any substance whatsoever, will speak cleark for themselves.