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

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by almighty bob

 

bob,

Crime investigations are not entirely equivalent to scientific studies.

Not entirely, no, but if you want to have an unbiased outcome, then certain principles do need to be adhered to.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
An investigator into any crime has to assume that there has been a certain level of subterfuge/deception performed by the perpetrator.

Criminals are professional liars by nature, and they are professionals at covering up the evidence or planting false evidence to throw the investigators off track.

Absolutely, but you cannot discount their evidence or testimony. That is steering the conclusion to a presupposed outcome. If you suspect the evidence tainted then you establish the why it is tainted and how.

Also, you weight the evidence depending on the bias of the source of the evidence. But misreporting or omitting evidence or data once collected is not acceptible practice.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You must see how arbitrary scientific studies simply do not have to deal with this.

Actually, this is similar to, say, a drug trial where a patient may be given Drug A, Drug B or a placebo. There are variations of rules on this because it is a non-formulaic observation-based study, but scientific method of data collection and analysis must apply.

There are further similarities. When giving the drug (or placebo), there is a predefined criteria for who is elegible for the trial (and, of course, consent should be given). Your criteria is set to those witnesses within a certain area who have no stake in the outcome. Every interview you make, all information you collect, should be presented otherwise you are skewing your results to fit your theory.

And while I realise that this is common practice in criminal investigations, it shouldn't be. It just compromises the integrity of any investigation.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Crime investigators begin on hunch, a suspicion, with a suspect or potential suspects in mind, and then they move forward collecting data to confirm or refute their suspicions all the while being aware that they could have been thrown off track, set up, and certainly lied to all along the way.

This is how science works too. There is, here, the human element, but you also have to deal with that in social or psychological studies, which is why weighting is so important.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
We entered this investigation based on simple observations that called the official story into question. Things like anomalous damage to the building, lack of plane debris, conflicting accounts, and certainly all the other myriad of questions surrounding all other aspects of the 9/11 attack.
[snip]
But we must suspect them all as being involved just as anyone associated with the murder victim are initially considered suspects in any normal murder case.

I understand and appreciate this, I really do, but lies do tend to unravel. The tangle web only weaves more tangled.

I really would like to know still, did you omit testimony, if so, what was that testimony, and why you decided to omit it. Is there any credence to Soloists claims of "automatically suspect"?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by almighty bob

 

Furthermore bob,

You can not accept the north side approach and impact claims at the same time.

They are mutually exclusive.

The witnesses didn't know this but WE all know this.

So you, as an observer, MUST choose between the two.

Therefore if you accept the north side approach as valid you have no choice but to accept a flyover.

And I also fully understand why you theorise this, and that it is a strong theory, but (I feel) it still needs greater evidence and corroboration.

Originally posted by almighty bob

I understand and appreciate this, I really do, but lies do tend to unravel.

Precisely.

And that is exactly what has been happening via our investigation.

I really would like to know still, did you omit testimony, if so, what was that testimony, and why you decided to omit it. Is there any credence to Soloists claims of "automatically suspect"?

No we certainly did not omit any testimony or specific details of any individual testimony. Nor have we "dismissed" any witnesses or automatically assumed that any are guilty.

But yes, ALL previously published witnesses are automatically suspects. This was the approach and HAS to be the approach considering the nature of the crime we are investigating.

Again...we suspected the previously published witnesses who ended up supporting the north approach as well.

I agree that scientific principles should be adhered to within the investigation and we have certainly proceeded on that level.

But this is not a simple "scientific" problem and that was the point I was trying to make.

The evidence must be considered within context of the crime we are investigating which is a world wide psychological black operation of mass murder.

Furthermore the entire body of evidence implicating government involvement in EVERY aspect of 9/11 must be considered as well.

Even if it's circumstantial.

It is not scientific to consider the north side evidence as if it stands on its own OR outside the context of the massive deception we are considering.

reply to post by almighty bob


Ahh ok.

So you are not convinced from the known evidence that the plane flew on the north side after all.

Just curious, have you viewed all of the evidence we present in its entirety?

Originally posted by almighty bob


1: This is emotive rhetoric. As an aside, multiple question marks are only a step away from multiple exclaimation marks. Never a good sign for rationality.

I have a problem with anyone who is claiming mass murder by several (hundreds? thousands?) members of our government and our citizens with NO proof, and in fact all the evidence points against a conspiracy, so yes it is emotive.

2: Read my post again, you have taken my quote out of context. You seem to commonly take quotes out of context to fit with your own dogma or agenda.

You obviously don't get it, these guys are not being honest, THEY are the ones with an agenda, and they freely admit it.

But you know what, feel free to buy into their "theory". I don't post to convince the truthers, hopefully other people read these and can make up their own minds using logic, reasoning and common sense after looking at ALL the evidence, not just some possibly mistaken flight path.

3: Read my post again. I said it was not good practice to omit testimony, but acceptable to practice to argue why you believe some data is not indicative of the true result. You also seem to not infrequently "misunderstand", and I do make effort to ensure that my posts are not ambiguous as to their meaning. You are invalidating your stance as prejudiced.

Well then what is your stance, you seem to flip and roll around with no direction. Me personally, damn right, I AM prejudiced, against people who try to convince others only they have the answers, but of course only if you look at this tiny little thing over here and ignore the big stuff because that doesn't matter due to it not fitting into their theory.

Soak this in :

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Bottom line, as a result of the body of evidence that currently exists, it would be foolish to not treat ALL previously published witnesses who have been used to sell the official story as suspects.

Does this mean they are all guilty? Of course not!

But we must suspect them all as being involved just as anyone associated with the murder victim are initially considered suspects in any normal murder case.

So guess what, by Craig making the determination of who's testimony to include by calling them "automatically suspect" and other members of his organization discounting testimony such as "the lady with the jewish last name wearing a cross", he is trying to play judge and jury.

My point was...........

Is that truth?

*My* answer is....

Nope.

Your mileage may vary, but if you cannot fathom any of that, then I'm truly sorry. It's easy to see between the lines, it really is, just stop squinting your eyes and open them up.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Soloist

Yet you have disregarded others by calling them "automatically suspect". You deny all the other physical evidence, claiming pre-planted bombs in the building with NO PROOF!

Nonsense.

It sure is nonsense.

Where is your proof of pre-planted explosives? You've claimed many times that's what happened. Or are you changing that?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by almighty bob

I understand and appreciate this, I really do, but lies do tend to unravel.

Precisely.

And that is exactly what has been happening via our investigation.

I agree, your investigation shows serious flaws in the official story. I trust you understand why I will be critical of any claim. If the investigation skews evidence or shows bias then it must be considered compromised.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

I really would like to know still, did you omit testimony, if so, what was that testimony, and why you decided to omit it. Is there any credence to Soloists claims of "automatically suspect"?

No we certainly did not omit any testimony or specific details of any individual testimony. Nor have we "dismissed" any witnesses or automatically assumed that any are guilty.

Thank you Craig.

Soloist, do you have anything to back up your claims?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
But yes, ALL previously published witnesses are automatically suspects. This was the approach and HAS to be the approach considering the nature of the crime we are investigating.

Again...we suspected the previously published witnesses who ended up supporting the north approach as well.

I agree that scientific principles should be adhered to within the investigation and we have certainly proceeded on that level.

But this is not a simple "scientific" problem and that was the point I was trying to make.

I understand that, but any bias or stake has to be taken into consideration and as much as possible, scientific method should be adhered to. The only minor quibble I could make on what I have seen is that a double-blind standard of interview could have been applied, in that the interviewer was also somebody who did not know the reason for the interview, and a standardised set of questions.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The evidence must be considered within context of the crime we are investigating which is a world wide psychological black operation of mass murder.

Furthermore the entire body of evidence implicating government involvement in EVERY aspect of 9/11 must be considered as well.

Even if it's circumstantial.

It is not scientific to consider the north side evidence as if it stands on its own OR outside the context of the massive deception we are considering.

Very sensible, I agree. If all else of the official story for the day was not so suspicious, then this witness case would be a marginal curiosity. But as there has been so much of the official story that doesn't add up, this witness testimony is the best unrefuted evidence to date that there was a conspiracy.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by almighty bob

 

Ahh ok.

So you are not convinced from the known evidence that the plane flew on the north side after all.

Just curious, have you viewed all of the evidence we present in its entirety?

"Convinced" is a very strong word. On the weight of your evidence and all evidence I have seen, I accept that there is a very strong probability of conspiracy and coverup. But I also have to accept that there is much unknown that could cast an entirely different perspective on this all.

I have viewed a lot of your presentations, certainly the witness testimonies. I can't promise I was fully concentrating or focussed the entire time though, there is a lot of information and material.

Originally posted by almighty bob
Soloist, do you have anything to back up your claims?

What claims? I have done my best to show you, heck he's even done it himself.

The overwhelming evidence of impact (plane parts, bodies, eyewitnesses) and the complete absence of any evidence of a "flyover" more than outweighs this notion of a "north side" flight path.

He will have you believe that the witnesses testimony he has chosen to show you PROVES they were deceived, but have you ignore they all claim to see the impact, which in fact lines up with all the actual physical evidence and other eyewitness testimony.


If you don't get that, like I said earlier then I can not possibly be of any help to you.

Originally posted by almighty bob

I agree, your investigation shows serious flaws in the official story. I trust you understand why I will be critical of any claim. If the investigation skews evidence or shows bias then it must be considered compromised.

Well true, but unless you have evidence that we "skewed evidence" I have no idea what you would bring it up.

Of course "bias" is subjective as even suspicion could be interpreted as bias and it is impossible for any investigation to move forward without suspicion.

The only minor quibble I could make on what I have seen is that a double-blind standard of interview could have been applied, in that the interviewer was also somebody who did not know the reason for the interview, and a standardised set of questions.

Please provide an example and elaborate.

I have no idea what you could possibly be referring to here but I am very interested.

Originally posted by almighty bob


"Convinced" is a very strong word. On the weight of your evidence and all evidence I have seen, I accept that there is a very strong probability of conspiracy and coverup. But I also have to accept that there is much unknown that could cast an entirely different perspective on this all.

I have viewed a lot of your presentations, certainly the witness testimonies. I can't promise I was fully concentrating or focussed the entire time though, there is a lot of information and material.

Ok this explains a lot.

I feel we provide evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane flew on the north side of the gas station.

I also feel that if you had viewed the entire body of evidence we present in full that you would also be convinced.

I am interested to hear what you would say after doing so.

I understand it's a lot but I think you have probably spent even more time on this forum talking about it.

Let me know if you ever do get the chance to view all of it in full and what your opinion is after that.

I am genuinely interested and hope you can get back with me within the next few days or weeks.

Originally posted by Soloist


Where is your proof of pre-planted explosives? You've claimed many times that's what happened. Or are you changing that?

Oh we fully admit that this is a hypothesis.

The evidence we provide simply proves the plane did not hit the building.

Actually bob,

Do you mind telling me which presentations you have viewed?

Because all of them but the "The Entire Jason Ingersoll Image Collection" and the 3 part location video youtube series, "CIT Jettin' Crosstown", have witness interviews.

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by almighty bob

1: This is emotive rhetoric. As an aside, multiple question marks are only a step away from multiple exclaimation marks. Never a good sign for rationality.

I have a problem with anyone who is claiming mass murder by several (hundreds? thousands?) members of our government and our citizens with NO proof, and in fact all the evidence points against a conspiracy, so yes it is emotive.

And now you are defending emotive rhetoric with more emotive rhetoric. You are not presenting rationally and it becomes harder to give you any credence to your claims which do seem to hinge on "misunderstanding" or unsubstantiated attacks.

Originally posted by Soloist

2: Read my post again, you have taken my quote out of context. You seem to commonly take quotes out of context to fit with your own dogma or agenda.

You obviously don't get it, these guys are not being honest, THEY are the ones with an agenda, and they freely admit it.

Of course they have an agenda. You have an agenda. I have an agenda. If we didn't we wouldn't be posting here. You seem to make 'agenda' synonymous with 'disingenuity' or 'dishonesty'. Yes, they have an agenda. They saw a problem and instead of just complaining about it on bulletin boards, they actually went out and did something about it. Their agenda seems to be to discover the truth of the events of September 11. My agenda is far less noble, for entertainment purposes. What is your agenda?

Originally posted by Soloist
But you know what, feel free to buy into their "theory". I don't post to convince the truthers, hopefully other people read these and can make up their own minds using logic, reasoning and common sense after looking at ALL the evidence, not just some possibly mistaken flight path.

Possibly mistaken, yes, I take that into consideration but, given multiple testimony to the same event which has yet to be refuted it is highly improbable that they are all mistaken.

Originally posted by Soloist

3: Read my post again. I said it was not good practice to omit testimony, but acceptable to practice to argue why you believe some data is not indicative of the true result. You also seem to not infrequently "misunderstand", and I do make effort to ensure that my posts are not ambiguous as to their meaning. You are invalidating your stance as prejudiced.

Well then what is your stance, you seem to flip and roll around with no direction. Me personally, damn right, I AM prejudiced, against people who try to convince others only they have the answers, but of course only if you look at this tiny little thing over here and ignore the big stuff because that doesn't matter due to it not fitting into their theory.

My stance is neutral. I have taken on board the witness testimonies, and I have taken on board your problems with the testimonies. The testimonies are hard evidence. You have presented me with rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims as to the 'agenda' of CIT. I am not saying that they are incorrect, but you have not backed any of it up beyond misinterpretation of previous posts and more rhetoric. I'm sorry that I have to use the word a lot, but that's what so much of it is.

Originally posted by Soloist
Soak this in :

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Bottom line, as a result of the body of evidence that currently exists, it would be foolish to not treat ALL previously published witnesses who have been used to sell the official story as suspects.

Does this mean they are all guilty? Of course not!

But we must suspect them all as being involved just as anyone associated with the murder victim are initially considered suspects in any normal murder case.

So guess what, by Craig making the determination of who's testimony to include by calling them "automatically suspect" and other members of his organization discounting testimony such as "the lady with the jewish last name wearing a cross", he is trying to play judge and jury.

What I believe he is saying here is that he is treating all witnesses with equal skepticism. This is sound.

As for Zackem, whereas Aldo bringing creed and race into it was a remarkably stupid thing to do, it doesn't change the presented evidence that she could not have seen what she claims to. And the CIT contestants seem to hold onto this as the gold standard of denial.


[edit on 4-10-2008 by almighty bob]

Originally posted by almighty bob

As for Zackem, whereas Aldo bringing creed and race into it was a remarkably stupid thing to do, it doesn't change the presented evidence that she could not have seen what she claims to. And the CIT contestants seem to hold onto this as the gold standard of denial.

For the most part, brilliant response.


However allow me to defend my partner's moment of candor that may have been best left for private discussion.

Once again, within the context of this investigation, we must look at all witnesses as suspects.

When considering the possibility that any witness may be a deep cover operative or long time asset with high level intelligence connections deep in their family heritage, it is not unreasonable or "remarkably stupid" to consider personal details that may seem contradictory, suspicious , or odd.

For instance it is not unreasonable to note how alleged witness Gary Bauer is a christian fundamentalist right wing politician who was a member of the neocon think tank Project for a New American Century and signer of their infamous "Rebuilding America's Defenses" document that lamented for a "new Pearl Harbor".

Or how alleged witness former DoJ attorney turned catholic priest Stephen McGraw is admittedly "inspired" by the equally radical Opus Dei secret society sect that is known to include many members of the "Washington Elite" such as former head of the FBI Louis Freeh and infamous convicted traitor/former FBI operative Robert Hanssen.

Or how alleged witness Rick Renzi is yet another extreme right wing christian fundamentalist who after 9/11 was elected to congress only to eventually be indicted on conspiracy and fraud charges.

My partner simply observed and mentioned the fact that Madlene Zackhem seemed to have an Israeli accent and was wearing a crucifix which to him was notable and strange.

He did not state this proves anything, and perhaps he shouldn't have emotionally blurted it out like that in a conspiracy forum, but he did and stands by it and I can corroborate his observation, for whatever it's worth.

[edit on 3-10-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITFor instance it is not unreasonable to note how alleged witness Gary Bauer is a christian fundamentalist right wing politician who was a member of the neocon think tank Project for a New American Century and signer of their infamous "Rebuilding America's Defenses" document that lamented for a "new Pearl Harbor".

Is Gary Bauer a suspect in the alleged military deception that occured on 9/11/01 at the Pentagon? You seem to imply this. If you are not making this implication, why is it "not unreasonable to note" that Mr. Bauer was a witness?

If you are asserting his implication FILE A LAWSUIT.

If you are not asserting any implication, why bring him up in this discussion?

The bottom line is... you HAVE implicated him, but you lack the onions to do anything about it, except to continue your internet prattle.

Quite entertaining actually. It brings me back here at least once/week. But then again, ATS is free, and you're counting on internet sales of the PentaCOn and Son of PentaCon...etc. So I guess it makes perfect sense for you to continue to stir the pot, but never take any real patriotic action to bring the "criminals" to justice.

Carry on.





[edit on 10/3/2008 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Is Gary Bauer a suspect in the alleged military deception that occured on 9/11/01 at the Pentagon? You seem to imply this. If you are not making this implication, why is it "not unreasonable to note" that Mr. Bauer was a witness?

He most certainly is implicated!

Not by me, but by the evidence.

Bauer is implicated more than others.

However ALL previously published witnesses are implicated.

Does implication prove they are they all guilty?

Not the last time I looked up the word "implicated"!

If you are asserting his implication FILE A LAWSUIT.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


OK, lets take this step by step.

Why, in your opinion, is it not unreasonable to note that a specifc witness "Gary Bauer" was a signatory to the PNAC?


If it is not "un-reasonable" it must be reasonable...

So, I ask, why is it reasonable to note that GB was a witness to the Pentagon event and a signatory to the PNAC?

Originally posted by darkbluesky


So, I ask, why is it reasonable to note that GB was a witness to the Pentagon event and a signatory to the PNAC?

Are you really this oblivious as you post on this issue?

1. Do you understand how the obvious external motive for 9/11 as a military operation is to maintain global dominance via permanent global war within a war based economy?

2. Do you not understand that the PNAC was formed during Clinton's presidency and included Cheney, Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz, who in essence authored the Bush Doctrine of Preemption under this umbrella?

3. Do you understand how republican president Dwight Eisenhower warned us of the military industrial complex in 1961?

Ike was right

Do you know what war profiteering means?

Do you support the Iraq war?

Does any of this make sense to you or am I talking gibberish?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by darkbluesky


So, I ask, why is it reasonable to note that GB was a witness to the Pentagon event and a signatory to the PNAC?

Are you really this oblivious as you post on this issue?

1. Do you understand how the obvious external motive for 9/11 as a military operation is to maintain global dominance via permanent global war within a war based economy?

2. Do you not understand that the PNAC was formed during Clinton's presidency and included Cheney, Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz, who in essence authored the Bush Doctrine of Preemption under this umbrella?

3. Do you understand how republican president Dwight Eisenhower warned us of the military industrial complex in 1961?

Ike was right

Do you know what war profiteering means?

Do you support the Iraq war?

Does any of this make sense to you or am I talking gibberish?

I understand completely. In fact, it will surprise you to find that I agree with you that there is, and has been a movement in our govt build a M/I complex...its all part of globablization.

However. my specific question is: Do you, or do you not, allege that Gary Bauer was a part of the 9/11 deception at the Pentagon? Yes or No?



[edit on 10/3/2008 by darkbluesky]