CIT skeptics finally admit north side approach is possible after all!

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by almighty bob

That the witnesses claim to have seen the flight crashing into the building only shows evidence against the CIT's theory of a flyover.

That's right.

There was no flyover, there is no evidence of one in 7 years, yet these threads continue.

Anything else, (NOC Claim) matters not

So, evidence (not claims or conjecture, evidence, unrefuted evidence)pointing to the very real possibility of a coverup by the Government, that they were complicit in the murder of thousands of people, does not matter?

reply to post by almighty bob


Hope you don't mind me chiming in here because I think this is a GREAT question!!

To me EVIDENCE that suggest corruption playing a part in the events is very relevant. What is being offered in the flyover theory is not evidence. It is witness accounts that have been proven false because of the actual evidence.

I think there was corruption, not from within the US, but from ppl that have no ties to any one government. I think there were ppl on the inside that gave away information that was beneficial to those who hijacked the planes that day. I think there was funding and events that served as catalystic manipulations that led to the men hijacking the planes. Was there a cover-up? Most likely, but not in how the events played out. It happened before and after (the latter being the most tragic bc ppl are so busy trying to push unproven theories that distract from the real questions that should be asked).

Just as I don't believe Craig is on the "inside" of some corruption, I do not believe that those in our gov't (at least in the way most "truthers" view it) such as CIA, FBI, military, etc were on the "inside" of corruption.

I do not even believe that the men who slammed the planes into the buildings were on the inside of that corruption. I believe they were murdering for what they were manipulated into believing was a righteous cause.

I would answer yes to your question, but what has been presented here is not evidence of any cover-up... it is allowed to be spoken of bc it most likely helps to distract from the actual corruption (remember, you are not dealing with idiots that would allow some nobody like Craig to so easily unravel their deceit). We may never know though because people will grow ill of these unfounded and baseless theories and will never really seek the answers to the right questions... as has always been the case.



[edit on 2-10-2008 by justamomma]

Originally posted by almighty bob
So, evidence (not claims or conjecture, evidence, unrefuted evidence)pointing to the very real possibility of a coverup by the Government, that they were complicit in the murder of thousands of people, does not matter?

I didn't say evidence of a coverup by the Government does not matter, I said the evidence does not exist.

Period.

Originally posted by justamomma
reply to post by almighty bob

 

Hope you don't mind me chiming in here because I think this is a GREAT question!!

To me EVIDENCE that suggest corruption playing a part in the events is very relevant. What is being offered in the flyover theory is not evidence. It is witness accounts that have been proven false because of the actual evidence.

I agree, there has not been enough evidence presented to support this theory, and I think it was less than sensible for CIT to tout it without presentable evidence to the same degree as the northside flightpath evidence.

Originally posted by justamomma
I think there was corruption, not from within the US, but from ppl that have no ties to any one government. I think there were ppl on the inside that gave away information that was beneficial to those who hijacked the planes that day. I think there was funding and events that served as catalystic manipulations that led to the men hijacking the planes. Was there a cover-up? Most likely, but not in how the events played out. It happened before and after (the latter being the most tragic bc ppl are so busy trying to push unproven theories that distract from the real questions that should be asked).

Any thoughts on who these people would be, and what their affilliation or loyalties would be? Perhaps people, or agents within the Government or one of its agencies, but not of the Government?

It is certainly a possibilty but, if the NoC evidence is to be taken into consideration, there is a massive amount of staging for an outsider to set up; the powerpoles, the impact pattern and line of damage. And then to have all official transcripts released with data to support this path. It would require a large number of insiders with very high levels of clearance to orchestrate.

Originally posted by justamomma
Just as I don't believe Craig is on the "inside" of some corruption, I do not believe that those in our gov't (at least in the way most "truthers" view it) such as CIA, FBI, military, etc were on the "inside" of corruption.

I agree with this too. My personal belief (with no actual evidence ) is that the Government is basically a puppet body for a higher level of organisation hidden from the general public. This body would almost certainly have beyond-secret-service operatives which would have been responsible for the training. It is very unlikely to the extreme that any plot would have been shared amongst various agencies (except the upmost echelons).

But this is just my own personal conjecture and has no impact on the witness testimonies.

Originally posted by justamomma
I do not even believe that the men who slammed the planes into the buildings were on the inside of that corruption. I believe they were murdering for what they were manipulated into believing was a righteous cause.

This used to be my thought too, when I started observing that there was too much in the official story that didn't match up. But more and more it does seem to me that there was, to whatever degree (Government or beyond) and inside job and conspiracy.

The CIT NOC evidence is to date, for me anyway, the most credible evidence of internal complicity on that day. Despite any bias that may of their motives, there is still nothing against the actual testimony. Most of all, in this internet age, there is so much of people posting their outrage or theories on message boards and not actually doing anything, or expecting someone else to.

These guys actually did. They saw a problem and instead of just going through the "It's a bloody outrage!" posts, they actually followed through. With some very significant results.

Originally posted by justamomma

I would answer yes to your question, but what has been presented here is not evidence of any cover-up... it is just allowed to be spoken of bc it most likely helps in what may actually need to be distracted from.

We may never know though because people will grow ill of these unfounded and baseless theories and will never really seek the answers to the right questions... as has always been the case.

It is surely evidence of a coverup (not proof though. I do wish people would understand the significance of the word 'Proof' before they bandy it around), but that there is this, still currently unrefuted, testimony that is evidence of the staging, therefore the premeditation, and the tampering of official data to support a lie. This would be a coverup and a conspiracy.

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by almighty bob
So, evidence (not claims or conjecture, evidence, unrefuted evidence)pointing to the very real possibility of a coverup by the Government, that they were complicit in the murder of thousands of people, does not matter?

I didn't say evidence of a coverup by the Government does not matter, I said the evidence does not exist.

Period.

Eyewitness testimony is evidence.
Exclaimation mark.

Originally posted by almighty bob
Eyewitness testimony is evidence.
Exclaimation mark.

There is no eyewitness testimony of a cover-up.

There is no eyewitness testimony of a flyover by anyone in position to see the impact.

There is no eyewitness testimony of anyone planting plane parts.

There is no eyewitness testimony of anyone planting broken lightpoles, in the lawn or in the taxi cab.

There is no eyewitness testimony of anyone planting bodies.

There is no eyewitness testimony to the whereabouts of the plane after the impact (other than inside the Pentagon).

There is no eyewitness testimony to the whereabouts of the passengers after the impact (other than inside the Pentagon).

There is no eyewitness testimony to any pre-planted explosives, plane parts, and bodies (CIT's claim) inside the Pentagon prior to the crash.

I guess you have to ask yourself do you really believe the above or the spin of a amateur conspiracy theorist who admits to not being honest with the people he interviewed and has cherry picked only people that fit with his theory and omit others since they were "automatically suspect" (doesn't sound like *real* investigative journalism to me) , people who most of were in the North side vincinity and could (just as easily as Craig wants you to believe they are duped) have been off in their perspectives by a low, fast flying really freaking loud passenger jet on a suicide mission heading towards the Pentagon?

Or does the above lack of ANY eyewitness testimony listed above trump that...

Question mark.

reply to post by almighty bob


I starred you just because I feel assured enough that you are being honest and looking for honest answers. I don't agree with everything you have said, but I do agree with some of it. (which I doubt there is ANYONE I agree with 100% on anything haha).

To answer your question of who I think is behind it, I will say this. We have all heard that $$ is the root of all evil. What this REALLY means has become a recent revelation to me. Root is basically the grounding of something. Think trees and how they are firmly planted in the ground by their networks of roots. So, the beginning of the path to evil starts at the roots. In other words, look to those who are GROUNDED by monetary value and most likely you have found your source of evil. I do not believe those who are evil hate us though.. quite apathetic in fact.

Think about this.. normal ppl (this would include those in gov't branches and politicians themselves) are reliant upon the approval of someone else. But the top of the chain, the one grounded by the root of money is not reliant on anyone and will be the only one who thinks of anyone/thing as a disposable. Those ppl, the ones grounded in $$ is where I keep my watchful eye. George Bush? nah Dick Cheney? not someone I want as a friend, but not evil that is rooted by money. No, the evil will be ROOTED by $$ and everything/one has a price tag that is easily afforded.

Money will be their source for war; money will be their source to draw lines btw country and country; politician and citizen; citizen and citizen, but money OR approval WILL NOT be their reason. The person that doesn't rely on me and my opinion and considers me and my children as disposable objects. Follow the root... the trail of money and where that trail ends is where my suspicions lie. My government is merely a tool just as the hijackers were and just as I am.


(sorry for the off topic, but the question was asked )


[edit on 3-10-2008 by justamomma]

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by almighty bob
Eyewitness testimony is evidence.
Exclaimation mark.

There is no eyewitness testimony of a cover-up.

I agree with all except this one.

In the most literal interpretation of this, true, there is no eyewitness testimony saying "I was at the meeting. It's a coverup!".

But there is eyewitness testimony, that has still yet to be refuted, that the official story put forward of the events that day is false.

There is physical evidence of a crash having occured in the manner of the official story, but there is independantly collected and multiply corroborated eyewitness testimony, strong and valid evidence, that the flight in fact came from a direction that is markedly at odds with the official story and the officially produced data.

This would mean that there is a very real possibility that the damage pattern of the official story was staged somehow, that the official story is false and that the data to support that story was manipulated.

Now, since the data for the official story was released either by the Government, Government affilliates or agencies, or Government sponsored institutions, the information released by these sources must be considered as compromised or tainted until such time as the eyewitnesses or their testimonies against the official story are discredited, or quantifiably marginalised, that is by an equal or greater number of independant and impartial eyewitnesses to the official flightpath.

Originally posted by Soloist
I guess you have to ask yourself do you really believe the above or the spin of a amateur conspiracy theorist who admits to not being honest with the people he interviewed and has cherry picked only people that fit with his theory and omit others since they were "automatically suspect" (doesn't sound like *real* investigative journalism to me) , people who most of were in the North side vincinity and could (just as easily as Craig wants you to believe they are duped) have been off in their perspectives by a low, fast flying really freaking loud passenger jet on a suicide mission heading towards the Pentagon?

Do you have any specific instances of dishonesty?

Craig: What was your criteria for "automatically suspect". You really should consider and present all testimony (that the witnesses allow you, of course). Argue for the validity (or lack thereof) of it, by all means, but present it nonetheless.

Originally posted by Soloist
Or does the above lack of ANY eyewitness testimony listed above trump that...

Question mark.

No, merely the observation over theory trump again.

Or alternately, you could show how this logic, given the presented evidence (eyewitness testimony) against the official story is faulty.

Can you conclusively disprove the testimonial evidence beyond falling back on information that the same testimony shows as compromised

Interrobang

Originally posted by almighty bob

Do you have any specific instances of dishonesty?

Yep, it's on the previous page of this thread.

Backspace.

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by almighty bob

Do you have any specific instances of dishonesty?

Yep, it's on the previous page of this thread.

As I Also said on the previous page, he did not tell the interviewees the reason for the interview. It was a single blind study. A solid scientific technique, the interviewees had no predisposed opinion on the interview other than their own beliefs and experiences. Admittedly, a double-blind technique would have been far better, having interviewers who also were unaware of the reason for the interview, but this is not a significant shortcoming.

He said that they were deceived by the Government into believing that the plane hit The Pentagon. As I have previously stated, there has not been enough evidence (or, as you stated, any evidence) to support this, but I can appreciate their reasons for the theory. He did not deceive them. At least he did not admit to deceiving them. The best way to check this is to interview them yourself for their thoughts on it all in a way that you, personally, can be sure is not compromised and then present the evidence.

Originally posted by Soloist
Backspace.

Touché.

Originally posted by justamomma
reply to post by almighty bob

 

I starred you just because I feel assured enough that you are being honest and looking for honest answers. I don't agree with everything you have said, but I do agree with some of it. (which I doubt there is ANYONE I agree with 100% on anything haha).

An admirably skeptical attitude. I salute you.

Originally posted by justamomma
To answer your question of who I think is behind it, I will say this. We have all heard that $$ is the root of all evil...

Money will be their source for war; money will be their source to draw lines btw country and country; politician and citizen; citizen and citizen, but money OR approval WILL NOT be their reason. The person that doesn't rely on me and my opinion and considers me and my children as disposable objects. Follow the root... the trail of money and where that trail ends is where my suspicions lie. My government is merely a tool just as the hijackers were and just as I am.

(sorry for the off topic, but the question was asked

)
[edit on 3-10-2008 by justamomma]

Good post. My personal opinion is that desire is the root of all evil and suffering. Money is a means to the temporary fulfilment of desire, but that is only a part of it. The ultimate object of desire is control, and I believe that the events of that day were all about a very small, very select group increasing their control over all others.

Originally posted by justamomma to Craig Ranke
You are a silly man who has yet to answer my question. Do you believe, despite the evidence that the sun is a star fixed in space, the eye witness accounts since there are well over 13?

Careful, careful with the insults, justamomma.

You post an absolutely useless analogy about the sun and then you expect a reasoned answer to it? Why?

This is a thread about the witnesses who observed a North of Citgo flight path. Take your astronomy elsewhere - I suggest the mystical forums might give you a better answer to your sundance scenario.

reply to post by Soloist


Agreed.

Conjecture, supposition, cherrypicking of words and comments, simply making crap up and duplicitous motives does not convincing evidence make, and all of those words and phrases are part and parcel to CITs schtick.

[edit on 3-10-2008 by pinch]


Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 10/3/2008 by Hal9000]

[edit on 3-10-2008 by pinch]

Just a friendly reminder for members to stay on topic and show respect to other members.

CIT skeptics finally admit north side approach is possible after all!

reply to post by tezzajw


YOu are not that dense, are you? You understand perfectly well how I am using it relates to Craig's theory and if not, then I guess I wouldn't be surprised.

Okay, then where is the physical evidence? There must be some because otherwise, I would like Craig to answer if he believes the sun can descend from the sky and "dance". That incident is based on multiple witness testimony with no physical evidence as well.

Originally posted by almighty bob
As I Also said on the previous page, he did not tell the interviewees the reason for the interview. It was a single blind study. A solid scientific technique, the interviewees had no predisposed opinion on the interview other than their own beliefs and experiences. Admittedly, a double-blind technique would have been far better, having interviewers who also were unaware of the reason for the interview, but this is not a significant shortcoming.

LOL! He is not a scientist, this was not about science, this is the opposite of science. CIT went in to this with a pre-determined "theory" and set out to find ways to fit things into it and omit things that disproved the theory.

Is it "scientific" to throw out testimony or accuse witnesses of being "automatically suspect", or because a woman has a "jewish last name, but wears a cross" because they don't fit in with your theory? Is it? Really?

Does that sounds like "solid scientific techniques"? Seriously, can you honestly defend that behaviour? If so, why? Is it bias? What is it?

They have been doing this the entire time. They don't listen to logic or reason, especially given the mountain of evidence against their "flyover theory"

He did not deceive them. At least he did not admit to deceiving them. The best way to check this is to interview them yourself for their thoughts on it all in a way that you, personally, can be sure is not compromised and then present the evidence.

He knew they wouldn't be willing to talk to them if he told them the truth. He ADMITS this. "That's why they were willing to talk to us" - implies that they would NOT be willing to talk to them otherwise.

Here's an personal example of why the honesty matters :

When I was a teenager I saw an auto accident, a very very bad one, where one car smashed another and went through the walls of a bank. I gave a report to the officers who arrived ( I was the only witness, and only other person at the scene) about the accident, and then went on my merry way.

2 days later I got called in by a detective who told me it was actually attempted vehicular homicide, he needed alot of questions answered and made me aware that I might need to go to court to testify. Well, I tell you what, you will certainly be alot more clear on everything that you can possibly remember when someone's future and life are on the line.

I gave him alot more details than I did when I thought it was just an accident and really had to go over every tiny detail in my mind to be as accurate as possible.

Lesson applied to the topic is that not being up front about you're up to is not accurate nor is it honest. If the people would have thought they were going to have their testimony used as "evidence" of Government sponsored mass murder and were still "willing to talk" to them, you might have a very different outcome, as they would most likely tend be concentrate more on the details.

Or, you might not have a different outcome either, but at least it will be 100% honest.

These guys are not honest, they are simply promoting their agenda.

reply to post by justamomma


Perhaps you missed my previous posts about respecting other members? You can still discuss the topic without the insulting the intelligence of other members. Thank you.

Any further posts like this will be dealt with.

Originally posted by Soloist


Did you tell them you were going to use them for a 9/11 conspiracy video? Yes or no?

We told them we are were making a video focusing on the exact location of the plane according to eyewitnesses.

Obviously we did not know what they would tell us before we talked to them or that they would prove a conspiracy nor is that our fault.

We told them we would honestly represent exactly what they told us and we did.

Did you tell them you were going to use their interviews to claim they were deceived and that they didn't see what they claim they did?
Yes or no?

We did not know what they would say before they said it!

We told them we would honestly represent exactly what they told us and we did.

In fact they AGREE that we did!

It's not our fault this proves a conspiracy and we did not know it would prove a conspiracy BEFORE they talked to us so it would have been impossible to tell them this in advance!


Obviously if the witnesses feel we presented their testimony fairly nothing you can say changes this.

Because you said in that interview , "They were deceived into believing this plane hit the building, so that's why they were willing to talk to us. They don't believe there is a Government conspiracy, in fact they though they were defending the Government's story, they didn't understand what they are saying contradicts all the physical evidence, so that's why they were willing to talk to us"

Sorry, you can spin it any way you like it, but that is NOT honest.

Ummmm obviously I did that interview and made that statement AFTER knowing what they said whereas this would have been impossible BEFORE I talked to them.


The point here is that if they understood that what they saw proved a conspiracy in advance, they would have been too scared to talk about and be so open about what they experienced.

No doubt why it's hard to find "flyover" witnesses beause they would HAVE to know unless they thought it was a "2nd plane" like Roosevelt Roberts.

But most flyover witnesses would be aware of a conspiracy in advance and would most likely prefer to remain silent out of fear.

I have no idea why this is so hard for you to understand but this isn't even close to an example of dishonesty on my part as I could not have told them the implications of their own testimony before they gave us their testimony!

Please THINK before you type/accuse because you are WRONG.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

We told them we would honestly represent exactly what they told us and we did.

Did you "honestly represent" Sean Boger's claim that he saw the aircraft hit the building? Or did you twist it into a "deduction" that the plane hit?

Did you "honestly represent" Lagasse's claim that he saw the aircraft hit the building? Or did you twist it into a "deduction" that the plane hit?

Did you "honestly represent" Brooks' claim that he saw the aircraft hit the building? Or did you twist it into a "deduction" that the plane hit?

Did you "honestly represent" Mike Walter's claim that he saw the aircraft hit the building? Or did you twist it into a "deduction" that the plane hit?

Obviously if the witnesses feel we presented their testimony fairly nothing you can say changes this.

Go back to the abov ewitnesses and get statements from them that you presented their testimony fairly. Do it. if you don't, you are more of a liar and a fraud than you aspire to here because they wouldn't say any such thing.

No doubt why it's hard to find "flyover" witnesses beause they would HAVE to know unless they thought it was a "2nd plane" like Roosevelt Roberts.

Bull. Its because there aren't any because there wasn't any. try that out on da Judge:

Judge: How many witnesses of the flyover do you have?
CIT: None.
Judge: What? None? Why?
CIT: They are all scared.
Judge: So you have no witnesses, none at all, none whatsoever of the fly-over, and the reason you don't have any is that you claim they are scared, but you don't have anyone who has said they're scared.
CIT: That's about it. But we are Scientific Citizen Investigators, so there.