| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| This forum | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Apr 26 2009, 01:33 PM (1,761 Views) | |
| Craig Ranke CIT | May 1 2009, 06:58 PM Post #51 |
|
Of course we have a completely logical and detailed light pole theory that is discussed in all the presentations and a multitude of threads. The fact that you refuse to pay attention to the info already provided and demand that we hold your hand through this process is further evidence of your intellectual dishonesty and pure desire to spin the information. Read, pay attention, learn, and THEN ask questions. That is how honest truth seeking critical thinkers research information. The light poles were staged in advance., and not downed by a plane or vortex. Light pole on hwy goes unnoticed for years, planted poles wouldn't have been noticed How many witnesses claim they saw light poles get hit by a plane? |
 |
 
|
| mik | May 1 2009, 07:00 PM Post #52 |
|
|
|
|
|
| mik | May 2 2009, 10:46 AM Post #53 |
|
Right, I think I might be starting to understand how this public accusation came about. You do have a lightpole theory, but it is not witness/fact based. In the absence of meaningful evidence, there is nothing wrong with theorising, in fact I'd like to see more of it. You wanted more than a theory, you wanted to prove it, or at least find some meaningful evidence that would support it, fair enough. The problem for Lloyd England, is that your theory, which is not witness/fact based, seems to require his complicity. Some, including me, would now think really hard about how plausible the involvement of Lloyd England was, perhaps you did. So you went back to Lloyd, and recorded an old man trying to remember what occured some years ago. So desperate were you to validate your theory, that you took the confused and ambiguous rambling of this old man, and twisted it into your theory. He is just an old man who got caught up in your theorising. I suspect that you genuinely believe that your video is a confession, or virtual confession as you call it, and that Lloyd is complicit. However, I think you are in serious error, and that you have made a public accusation based on nothing more than your theory, in other words, your imagination. Edited by mik, May 2 2009, 10:51 AM.
|
|
|
|
| SPreston | May 2 2009, 11:02 AM Post #54 |
Patriotic American
|
Do we really need this troll with his venomous accusations wasting our time? |
|
|
|
| mik | May 2 2009, 11:10 AM Post #55 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | May 2 2009, 11:35 AM Post #56 |
|
Well you are not only wrong you are misrepresenting our investigation which is a lie. We told you that Lloyde's account is proven incorrect by the witnesses who unanimously place the plane on the north side. You said we don't have a light pole "theory". I provided a light pole theory and so you said we don't have any witnesses for it and even went so far as to imply that we began our investigation to prove this already stated light pole theory. We did not. We came up with the light pole theory AFTER the all the witnesses told us the plane was nowhere near the poles. Besides admitting he was involved with a "planned" event for the people with "all the money" that was "too big" for him to stop.....we have proof that Lloyde deliberately LIED about his location on the highway to match the witnesses. Minutes before the camera started, when he didn't know he was being recorded, he let it slip that his neighbor took pictures of the cab and light pole up on the bridge. This means Lloyde was aware of his true location and chose to change his story and lie to the camera when confronted with the north side evidence. We have proof of this. This is not difficult for intellectually honest people to understand. It's clear you intentions for posting here are for spin and deception. Members and admins here don't appreciate that and are quite used to it. You are trying to pin YOUR dishonesty off on the members and admins of this forum as if they have reacted inappropriately when it's 100% clear you are not being honest. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, May 2 2009, 11:36 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Lin Kuei | May 2 2009, 11:39 AM Post #57 |
|
Well said... |
|
|
|
| mik | May 2 2009, 11:54 AM Post #58 |
|
Well, if you stand by your public accusation, so be it, but I think its damaging all round. Lets see what happens, lets see how many people pick up this line of inquiry and take it seriously, include it in their analysis, documentaries, discuss it at conferences etc. You clearly have enthusiasm and energy for this cause Craig, and that's great. I think you'll only damage your reputation and credibility with this. Act in haste, repent at leisure.
Oh yes, I'd almost forgotten how this thread started thread,
|
|
|
|
| JFK | May 2 2009, 04:51 PM Post #59 |
|
And we come full circle yet again.  http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=224680&t=1560952 |
|
|
|
| Randi Hunter | May 2 2009, 11:00 PM Post #60 |
|
Why does this "mik" clown remind me of Russell Pickering? |
|
|
|
| mik | May 3 2009, 05:29 AM Post #61 |
|
I googled the name Russell Pickering, but then got side tracked. I came across a couple of other forums where Craig Ranke CIT and his Lloyd Enlgand theory are discussed. It seems that outside this sycophantic forum (JFK?), Craig Ranke CIT is not taken seriously at all, and frankly, has the reputation he has brought upon himself. Sanity prevails. Oh yes, and on one forum Craig Ranke CIT says that Lloyd is "one sharp cookie" and "extremely sharp", I seem to remember him saying something similar on video, you know, there aren't too many people who could sincerely say that, but Craig Ranke CIT is perhaps one of them. Edited by mik, May 3 2009, 05:32 AM.
|
|
|
|
| JFK | May 3 2009, 07:02 AM Post #62 |
|
Strike one. You'd better read the rules. |
|
|
|
| mik | May 3 2009, 07:07 AM Post #63 |
|
No long words? |
|
|
|
| JFK | May 3 2009, 08:37 AM Post #64 |
|
Strike two. |
|
|
|
| Paul Tassopulos | May 3 2009, 10:13 AM Post #65 |
Artists for 9/11 Truth
|
 |
|
|
| mik | May 4 2009, 12:08 PM Post #66 |
|
no sense of humour? |
|
|
|
| JFK | May 4 2009, 12:53 PM Post #67 |
|
Not when it comes to habitual rulebreakers. |
|
|
|
| David C | Jun 20 2009, 11:57 AM Post #68 |
|
(from post #3)
Here's an example of what can happen if the moderators don't control spam. http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=260460&highlight=9%2F11 The moderator allowed the spam because he was against the idea that 9/11 was an inside job. He closed the thread because the debate wasn't going the way he wanted. Unbiased moderation is necessary to control spam and let a debate take its natural course. Here's an example of a very biased moderator. http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1575 He closed the thread because the pro-official version people were losing the debate. It's not always easy to find a place where the moderators don't try to control the direction the debate takes and also get rid of the spammers so the truth will eventually prevail. I think a lot of spammers actally work for the government. They want to make the debate boring so people will lose interest in it and they also want to make the posts that actually contain information harder to come across to reduce the number of people who see them. I agree that moderators must control the spammers on a thread. Here's some stuff about disinfo on forums in case anyone hasn't seen it. http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222 Another thing that objective moderators do is tell people to answer questions put to them when they refuse to answer. The moderator in this thread was obviously very biased (see reply #3). http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1584 The poster refused to answer the question put to him and the moderator did nothing. Here's an expample of extremely biased moderation. http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/49821-cia-cocaine-smuggling.html He wouldn't even let the debate take place as he knew his pro-government people couldn't try to discredit the theory put forth without looking like horse's a---s. Letting the debate take its natural course was out of the question because the truth would have prevailed. If a moderator actually wants the truth to prevail, he will tell people not to duck questions, get rid of spammers, and not do anything to try to control the direction the debate takes. Edited by David C, Jul 31 2009, 12:02 PM.
|
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 20 2009, 12:15 PM Post #69 |
|
I see no examples of a "good" moderator in your post. Why is that David C ? |
|
|
|
| David C | Jun 20 2009, 02:52 PM Post #70 |
|
I basically wanted to say that I agreed that spammers should be controlled if there is to be a serious discussion on a thread. Here's an example of a good moderator I suppose. http://www.carforums.net/showthread.php?t=81380 My post is #8. The moderator didn't try to tie my hands. He just let people say whatever they wanted and the truth seems to have prevailed. I think anyone who reads that thread will end up thinking that 9/11 was an inside job. He did make an ambiguous post though (#6). I'm not sure what he was thinking. This moderator disagreed with me but he didn't try to prevent me from posting. http://www.crimsonpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=82 He let the debate take its natural course. I personally think he knows that 9/11 was an inside job. He tried to discredit the evidence but he wasn't a sore loser when he failed. He didn't delete the thread which happens to me quite frequently when I corner moderators. My first post here is at the top of page 3. http://perspectives.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=62283&forum_id=87&page=1 The moderator didn't even make an appearance in this thread. He just let the debate take its natural course. I have to say he is a good moderator. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
1:05 PM Nov 23
