CIT.....Time to call it a day

[Brainache]

I still haven't figured out what the tiny little remote controlled plane with the 1.2kg payload is supposed to have done that day. Did it shoot down flt 93? did it fake the crash site? Was it there to take pictures of Ms McElwain's van? What???

 

[ComsatAngel2017]

The tiny little remote controlled plane is in the thread because it allows TC to post lots and lots of pictures. True, they have absolutely nothing to do with the thread title, but they also allow TC to ignore all the other posts that ask awkward questions.
As others above have posted, I confidently expect him never to post any calculations because either 1) He can't do them or 2) He can and they disprove his case.
I also suggest that posting a clip that states "It nose dived into the Pentagon" as a reply somewhat undercuts his position.

 

[aggle-rithm]

And would you like to talk about when Mike Walter said he couldn't see the actual impact because the trees obscured his view?

So, while it was behind the trees it MISSED the Pentagon?

 

[uk_dave]

The trees were part of the conspiracy.

 

[TC329]

You mean you haven't persuaded her yet?

Is this some kind of sick game to you?

No I don't mean that. If she says the plane she saw doesn't look like that then I would release it just the same. What sucks for you is that she isn't the only person who saw and she isn't the only person willing to discuss it on film.

But you'll learn soon enough........

 

[SDC]

As god is my witness (figure of speech), I beg that please PLEASE may no one accede to the CIT request. These guys can set up their own discussion forum, somewhere else.

Please...

 

[applecorped]

CIT Open Letter to JREF

Hard evidence? You have wasted many peoples times with your wholly unsubstantiated mindless blather. You are immune to logic and reason, you are argumentative and immature. Having said all that I see no reason whatsoever for going to bat for you to get you reinstated. Once again you want JREF's to do your work for you. YOU will have to take the initiative to get yourself reinstated by, perhaps, apologizing. Your arrogance got you in this position, you are the poster child for the troooth movement, full of rage and righteousness but in the end, nothing but smoke and mirrors.

 

[pomeroo]

CIT Open Letter to JREF

The fraud Craig Ranke dishonestly pretends that rationalists refuse to debate him. I established in conversations with Rob Balsamo that the bogus "pilots" will not debate either on the air or in print. The reasons for their refusal have been made abundantly clear in the embarrassing--for the conspiracy liars--exchanges on this forum. I am, of course, in favor of restoring their posting privileges so that we can continue to expose their total lack of intellectual integrity.

I am met with silence whenever I propose that one or more of the Penta-conmen accompany me and another rationalist to interview the cherry-picked witnesses who allegedly describe an impossible flight path. Why the reluctance? We will simply ask them to reconcile their version of events with physical realities. Either they will stick with their memory of observing the plane (incidentally, what plane?) north of the Citgo Station and thereby abandon the idea that it hit the Pentagon, or they will...well, you get the idea.

So, how about it? When can we arrange our day-trip to Washington, D.C.?

 

[Myriad]

CIT Open Letter to JREF

Not up to us members. It's a matter for the mods and admins, as only they are privy to the information on which to base decisions about rules infractions and the consequent suspensions and bans.

I have reported the above post, not as an infraction but as a convenient way of bringing it to the mods' attention.

Respectfully,
Myriad

ETA: Though now that it will be brought to the mods' attention, don't be surprised if the post and its responses get split to Forum Management. I recommend no further responses to the request unless and until that split occurs. It's off-topic here.

 

[EvilBiker]

Nevertheless you have felt compelled to attack the evidence we present and us personally in the comfort of knowing full well that we are not permitted to respond.

What evidence?

I publicly request that you campaign to allow us to post in your forum or that you sign up here to debate us direct.

I doubt you'll get another look in what with a banning order over your head. If Aldo provides proof of identity as the rest of us have done, I'm sure he'll get an account. For how long he'll keep it, considering his temper, well, that's another matter.

Regarding signing up on any of the forums where CIT are accepted, nay, coddled by the forum herders, we know that any view that does not fit in with yours activates the banhammer.

Nothing you have said remotely begins to touch the broad scope of hard evidence we present.

Again, what evidence?

Your retired leader Gravy refused to debate us and every one of you have cowardly refused to as well.

I think pomeroo would disagree with this statement, for one. On top of that, you have probably have nil/(0)/zero/[keine punkte] chance of being received kindly with this sort of upfront statement

I challenge you to allow us in your forum so we can prove to you with hard evidence, sound logic, and pure scientific reasoning that 9/11 was an inside job.

Seriously, when it involves CIT, those words do not compute.

 

[CurtC]

Refused to debate? You had a couple thousand posts here - what was that if not debate?

 

[DavidJames]

Dear JREF
...
Sincerely,
Craig Ranke
CIT

This is exactly what I was referring to post below. This is a game to you guys. A pissing match. Your idea of having fun is debating "JREF". You don't care about what happened on 9/11, it's all about trying to beat "JREF". You are using the deaths of thousands of people as the basis to try and boost for your pathetic egos.

TC329 - Why haven't CIT taken this blockbuster evidence to the authorities or to the main stream media. Craig has claimed he has, but refuses to provide evidence. Why? It's a win / win for him. If he did and they act, he can blow his own horn. If he did and they ignore him he can claim they are covering up. I believe he's full of **** and a pathological liar. I believe all he cares about is trying to get attention among like minded delusional half wits. If he actually did go to the media or authorities his scam would be exposed and he would be exposed as the fraud he really his. What's his latest excuse TC?

 

[EvilBiker]

Refused to debate? You had a couple thousand posts here - what was that if not debate?

79% - repeating previous posts.
15% - calling everybody disinfo.
5% - Aldo hijacking account.
1% - initial posts regurgitated from LCF.

 

[uk_dave]

But you'll learn soon enough........

Why's it taking so long TC?

You came here months ago waving your little video around, but that didn't work.

So now you promise us more of the same. What makes you think that will work?

Did you watch the video I posted about memory? Do you understand just how malleable memory can be?

Flight93 crashed in shanksville.

Talk of drones and sooper seekrit aircraft and witnesses who are easily lead (by you) is not going to be your path to fame and fortune.

Step away from it all and view it dispassionately. Look at it with an open mind. Stop trying to make the facts fit your preconceived notions.

Yes, yes I know you'll consider that statement to be exactly what we are doing, but maybe then you'll understand why we view you the way we do.

You really haven't provided anything to disprove the 'official account'. All you do is take non-expert witness statements of people describing things they have no frame of reference to describe (Height, Size, Speed etc) and you couple this with your own personal incredulity about the crash scene and, by implication, all of those people who attended the crash scene and gathered real, physical evidence and analysed that evidence, and then you top it off with your own hang ups about government and secrecy and power, and then you try to sell this to the world at large.

And yet you can't prove that anything in the official account could not have happened as described. You just latch on to small, insignificant anomalies created by ordinary people and their lack of precision in recalling dramatic events and you see a 'conspiracy', which you're now so emotionally invested in that you're having to go looking for more personal accounts to spin or the conspiracy theory you so desperately want to believe in is going to slip away and you'll go back to being a nobody.

It's all very sad.

 

[nicepants]

I am very open to the possibility that they could be wrong/mistaken.

However due to their location I am open to them being wrong/mistaken on their conclusion as opposed to their placement of the plane.

Do you see the contradiction in your statements above? (Stundied, btw.)
You refuse to be open to the possibility that their placement of the plane could be wrong (even though the 4 eyewitnesses in your video all report different flight paths).

Have you ever once even considered this a possibility or are you too close minded?

Of course.....if it were not for the fact that the plane was recovered from inside the pentagon, where they (and other witnesses) claim it went, then you might have something.

Fact : People in this country are given the death penalty over "the most unreliable form of evidence". Especially when the witnesses corroborate the claims repeatedly.

Eyewitness claims do not refute physical DNA evidence. Do a google search for "DNA exoneration".

If I'm "close-minded" for not believing that they were wrong about impact, what does that make you regarding their flight path claims?

Not one of these witnesses sees the plane wreaking havoc tearing light poles out the ground and throwing them about the highway impaling cars or tearing through trees and a generator. Not one.

...and not one of them saw the plane fly over the pentagon instead of into it. Not one. There is physical evidence of the plane's impact with the light poles, though.

Because I find it impossible for that many people to corroborate the same version if it was a mistake.

So then you must agree that the plane hit the pentagon, since it would be "impossible for that many people to corroborate [the impact] if it was a mistake".

You seem to be giving untrue or invalid reasons for dismissing these eyewitness impact claims, since, if you applied these same standards to your own evidence, you would realize that it too would have to be discarded.

 

[pomeroo]

I was?

So are you calling Mrs. McElwain and Ms. Weyant liars?

I already released Susan's interview in full and uncut. What are you so afraid of Ron?

Think the BBC would be pressured into releasing that info and then expose the small UAV which was at the crash site the moment the plane hit the ground that morning???

Then what would happen to their credibility?

Your deranged fantasy about the virulently anti-Bush BBC being part of your imaginary conspiracy discredited you completely and disqualified you as a guest on 'Hardfire.' Your dishonest extrapolations from confused and inaccurate memories are typical of your evil, fraudulent movement.

To the Official 9/11 Story credibility???

And gasp....dare to think....even your own credibility???????

You're a coward Ron. I call you and the BBC out repeatedly and repeatedly you run like a beaten puppy with your tail between your legs whimpering. If you're so right why don't you make this happen?

You can't "call out" the BBC because they are a worldwide news outlet and you are a lone crank peddling nonsense. They don't know you're alive.

You can't call me out because I've watched you in action. You are simply an uninformed charlatan whose flawed assumptions have been exposed and demolished by the bright and knowledgeable people here.

That all of you braying fools pretend that the people who have dismissed you for incompetence are running from something is a source of endless fascination and amusement. The fraudulent "pilots" don't dare to debate rationalists. They understand that their scam has been shot full of holes. What exactly do you want to debate?

Huh, Ron?

If you have so much faith in your Bush Administration fairy tale and so much faith in your idols Hannity & O'Reilly then why don't make it happen?

Do you realize the tremendous backlash this could have across the 9/11 community if I am proven to be a liar and a fraud?

Your evil movement consists of nothing but liars and frauds, or have you forgotten? The ineducable dunces who grunt their approval of your clumsy fabrications are impervious to the numerous devastating refutations of their cherished myths. You have been exposed often enough right here in this forum.

Have you ever taken a single backward step? Have you acknowledged that the Penta-conmen committed an egregious imposture in pretending to be serious investigators although, in reality, they are merely agenda-driven hucksters? Have you agreed to join with me in resolving the mutually-exclusive claims allegedly made by the frauds' cherry-picked witnesses? Have you ever explained why the tiny handful of outliers who disagree with the vast majority are the ones we should trust?
What specific claims has the Bush administration made about any of this? Why should I give a rat's patoot about Hannity or O'Reilly when I know far more about the subject than either of them?

I'm giving you the opportunity Champ. Step up. Bring it. You and your BBC buddies vs. little old me.

I await your next pathetic excuse Ron and add just another notch to the list of times I have publicly humiliated you, you little con man.

You are giving me the opportunity to waste the viewers' time with your uninformed ravings? How gracious of you! First, however, you might want to provide an example of one of your public humiliations of me. Oh, that's right: there are no examples. You lied again.

The reason I "misunderstood" is because you shot off your mouth. You didn't have to stick your own foot in your mouth, I put mine in your mouth first. Now I know what your excuse will be in advance of your reply.

I don't understand why you would invite me onto a show to confront people who had nothing to do with my accusation but that is your new story and I'm sure you're sticking to it.

The fact is by releasing the completely uncut interview with Mrs. McElwain I have already proven the entire BBC/History Channel debacle to be a total farce. By disproving one single aspect of their version of Historical events I have cast a shadow of doubt over the rest.

But, the truth is, you haven't disproved anything.

I have a lot to say. A lot your friend Mark doesn't want to talk about.

He regards you as unworthy of his attention. He's right.

If you want to embarrass Mark you could.

I doubt that I could, even if I wanted to.

 

[The Big Dog]

TC quotes Pickering? You are citing him as support for your position? I am astonished!

Here is what he says about your pals’ fantasies:

Russell Pickering confirms that “I have witnesses with footage of the area behind the Pentagon at the moment of impact that I have talked to in great detail. They had three cameras running. They SWEAR that nothing flew over the building. So who is right? The video shows that if your imaginary flyover happened the plane would have had to go significantly south. There were multiple people there watching. NOTHING flew over according to them.”

Pentagon researcher Russell Pickering observed of the CIT investigators, “When I watched you guys bending reality in person conjuring up black operations for everything that didn’t agree with you - I saw where this was going. When your partner tipped over and the forums melted down - it was clear what the motives were. But I do have to admit your dissociation from reality has exceeded what I thought possible… Ego is a blinding force - but spreading this as gospel and irrefutable instead of adding it to the body of evidence truthfully and honestly is .........”

TC asks: “Do you realize the tremendous backlash this could have across the 9/11 community if I am proven to be a liar and a fraud?

Yeah, the same tremendous backlash as the Sun rising in the East, or water being wet. If there is one thing JREF and Truthers agree on is that CIT is a farce.

 

[uruk]

CIT Open Letter to JREF

In all the time and oppurtunity they had to present thier evidence before they got banned, they came up zilch and alot of "wait and see". (Did they ever release that unedited interview video they kept braying about? You know, the "Investigator" edition or some such title)

All thier "evidence was cherry picking and wittness leading and a CG video that really hurts thier argument rather than supports it (so I guess you could throw in incompetence too).

They ignored questions, avoided issues and shifted burdens, and lost tempers. They are seen as cranks by thier own community.

Explain to me again why we should allow them back in?

With exception of this thread and a few other forums, the attention they crave is dwindeling. Let it continue on it's path into obscurity.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

PB&J, this guy is one of your star eyewitnesses. A USA Today reporter.

One time he sees the plane hitting light poles another time he doesn't.
One time he sees a graceful bank and pivot and nose dive and another he sees it come in smooth and level.
One time he sees it hitting the Pentagon and another the plane is obstructed by the trees on Route 27.

Hmm. Are you actually suggesting that eyewitnesses may be fallible?

Not one of these witnesses sees the plane wreaking havoc tearing light poles out the ground and throwing them about the highway impaling cars or tearing through trees and a generator. Not one.

"Light Pole Witnesses" Joel Sucherman and Father McGraw are asked about this and both concede they really did not witness the plane doing any such thing on it's way to the Pentagon and merely deduced all of this after the fact.

Not one person witnessed the extinction of the dinosaurs, either. They merely deduced all of that after the fact.

You seem to be putting a lot of weight on the idea that these guys didn't notice poles being tossed around. The fact that a person did not explicitly witness an event does not imply that the event did not happen. It just means it wasn't witnessed first-hand, and that proof that it did happen will rely on other evidence (such as the fact that poles were actually tossed around, that a plane flew low overhead, before slamming into a building, etc.)

 

[TC329]

FACT*** Only if it's the ONLY evidence and ONLY if it is in context with the rest of the evidence. People aren't given death sentences when there is far more overwhelming evidence that contradicts eyewitness testimony of some.

Is there anyone here not full of ******

If all the evidence points to Tom shooting someone with his gun but eyewitnesses come forward and say Bill shot the person then tell me (without lying if at all possible) who will the court and more importantly the jury believe?

especially when the majority of the eyewitness testimony disagrees.

Please present all the interviews of conflicting eyewitnesses here. I expect them to describe the plane tearing through trees and light poles because it has to on the South side of the Citgo station. Obviously people watching the plane approach and ultimately hit the building would have witnessed these events.

I await your evidence.

In fact they would pretty much determine that the testimony that contradicts all the rest of the evidence must then be incorrect.

Or that the evidence that contradicts the eyewitnesses has been manipulated. Oh wait that's not an option in your narrow minded world. No one ever plants or fakes evidence to convict anyone. It has never happened, it will never happen, so there is no precedent for such an outrageous thought.

Sometimes I wish I lived in your little naive worlds with your naive views of humans in general.

We HAVE shown you what is wrong with the evidence. You are using unreliable evidence to dismiss reliable evidence.

You haven't shown anything. You've argued about whether a flyover happened or not.

The North side is the evidence.
The eyewitnesses are the evidence.
You have not discredited any of their statements.
You have attacked CIT and their conclusions but you have not addressed each witness and explain how they are all wrong.

They all corroborate each other.

And you are calling them all liars about everything other than the word "impact".

I won't. I'll even go as far as to say the plane hit the building but if it did then it hit it from the North side of the Citgo station as described by eyewitness again and again.

You can't do that. You say the plane hit the building and the witnesses were either watching a shadow of plane or "misremembering" everything but the impact.