Craig Ranke

 

If you believe the physical damage can not be caused by NoC, and you believe the plane flew NoC, you MUST believe the plane did not hit.

Quote:

 

You see stink.....you are working off the assumption that all witness accounts should be automatically considered valid unless you have hard proof they were involved. (what that could be I don't know, a notarized document of them admitting it?)

Quote:

 

They bring people in for questioning and the ones whose stories check out and are independently corroborated, and seem genuine and relaxed to the investigator are typically cleared of being suspects.

But the ones whose stories don't add up, or exhibit contradictions, or have curious body language, or are implicated by association or circumstantial evidence, stay suspects whether or not the investigator has proof they were involved.

We most certainly have found enough contradictions and dubious details in the various accounts of Walter, McGraw, Sucherman, Wheelhouse, and England to fairly consider them suspects.

Quote:

 

NoC implicates them as well. There is no way around it.

To suggest otherwise is to deny the true implications of NoC.