Victoria Ashley's critique of CIT

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!

Pages:
1
2
3

Victoria Ashley's critique of CIT
Topic Started: Sep 13 2009, 08:12 PM (1,370 Views)
Craig Ranke CIT	Sep 20 2009, 01:16 PM Post #51
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	What's hilarious is how scott is acting as if he was completely oblivious to the truthaction forum. As if he had no clue that it existed at all. Even if that was the case (yeah right) he has no excuse for not having tried to contact Hoffman and Ashley via email to forward his self proclaimed goal to "heal wounds" of the truth movement on this important issue that he has clearly immersed himself in. THEY attacked us unprovoked. We did not have anything against them until THEY publicly accused us of being liars and frauds. So to come here bringing their arguments to us while defending THEIR motives reveals a backwards agenda from his stated "healing wounds" approach since he claims that he agrees with us and thinks they are wrong about this. Now that I have pointed out this contradictory behavior his attempt to create a thread at truthaction is laughable and clearly a deliberate effort to avoid the discussion all together. As if they would be sympathetic to him as a new poster directly challenging them. He was basically committing instant suicide by mod to avoid the discussion since there is a very prominent existing thread at the top of the forum regarding Hoffman's interview with Wolsey where they BOTH directly label us "disinfo". If scott really intended to discuss the issue with them he would have recognized the sensitivity of going there at all and chosen to practice traditional internet forum decorum by first getting his feet wet by introducing himself while posting in the existing thread rather than doing a cannon ball in the pool as the obnoxious late-comer to the party. So transparent.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Paul Tassopulos	Sep 20 2009, 07:01 PM Post #52
Artists for 9/11 Truth Posts: 252 Group: Members Member #975 Joined: 12/18/08	This is the latest work by Roger Morris (received just now) titled Trickle Down. Craig Ranke CIT Sep 20 2009, 01:16 PM What's hilarious is how scott is acting as if he was completely oblivious to the truthaction forum. As if he had no clue that it existed at all. Even if that was the case (yeah right) he has no excuse for not having tried to contact Hoffman and Ashley via email to forward his self proclaimed goal to "heal wounds" of the truth movement on this important issue that he has clearly immersed himself in. THEY attacked us unprovoked. We did not have anything against them until THEY publicly accused us of being liars and frauds. So to come here bringing their arguments to us while defending THEIR motives reveals a backwards agenda from his stated "healing wounds" approach since he claims that he agrees with us and thinks they are wrong about this. Now that I have pointed out this contradictory behavior his attempt to create a thread at truthaction is laughable and clearly a deliberate effort to avoid the discussion all together. As if they would be sympathetic to him as a new poster directly challenging them. He was basically committing instant suicide by mod to avoid the discussion since there is a very prominent existing thread at the top of the forum regarding Hoffman's interview with Wolsey where they BOTH directly label us "disinfo". If scott really intended to discuss the issue with them he would have recognized the sensitivity of going there at all and chosen to practice traditional internet forum decorum by first getting his feet wet by introducing himself while posting in the existing thread rather than doing a cannon ball in the pool as the obnoxious late-comer to the party. So transparent. Hey, Craig. I know you challenged Mr. Hoffman to a debate. I’ve been trying to figure out what’s going on with this whole thing. To me, this conflict is just an unclear, grueling, and torturous maze of negative internet chatter right now. As it stands now, I think it’s a detriment to all participants and the movement. That could all be turned around though. I think the solution might be to split the work into 2 facets here. First, a diplomatic solution: I recommend internet “safe zones” be established where people agree to adhere to a professional “code of conduct” and participate with the intention of working things out between all people involved. Second, an adversarial solution: I believe that we all should be developing methods to create, participate in, and broadcast clear, concise, and promotable forum debates. If presented properly it could be a great “show”, presentation of research, and a great PR vehicle for the 9/11 Truth Movement, I think. These are my first 2 runs at this concept on the new forum I’m making: http://s1.zetaboards.com/artists4911truth2/topic/1757071/1/ http://s1.zetaboards.com/artists4911truth2/topic/1757813/1/ These are just prototypes and initial efforts on doing something like this. Anyone is welcome to take these concepts, adapt, and run with them as they see fit. I just hope it helps some people and the situation here. Edited by Paul Tassopulos, Sep 20 2009, 07:35 PM.



Headspin	Sep 20 2009, 08:07 PM Post #53
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	Paul Tassopulos Sep 20 2009, 07:01 PM titled Trickle Down. "Lighten Up" would have been a better title
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


scott75	Sep 20 2009, 10:58 PM Post #54
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	Hey Headspin :-). You're a sight for sore eyes around here, lol :-)
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


scott75	Sep 20 2009, 11:17 PM Post #55
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	Craig Ranke CIT What's hilarious is how scott is acting as if he was completely oblivious to the truthaction forum. As if he had no clue that it existed at all. Even if that was the case (yeah right) It was indeed the case. The forum isn't actually all that large. Craig Ranke CIT he has no excuse for not having tried to contact Hoffman and Ashley via email to forward his self proclaimed goal to "heal wounds" of the truth movement on this important issue that he has clearly immersed himself in. I've already explained that I had emailed Hoffman in the past concerning an unrelated matter and gotten no response. As a general rule, when I don't get a response from someone I don't even know, I don't try again. I think you are mistaken to focus on Hoffman and Ashley alone. While they may be the strong voices within the truth movement against the flyover theory, they are certainly not the only ones. As I have also mentioned in the past, I -have- engaged with someone of this nature, someone which you and others at both PFT and CIT have engaged as well; Q24. Craig Ranke CIT THEY attacked us unprovoked. We did not have anything against them until THEY publicly accused us of being liars and frauds. So to come here bringing their arguments to us while defending THEIR motives reveals a backwards agenda from his stated "healing wounds" approach since he claims that he agrees with us and thinks they are wrong about this. I wasn't there when it all happened, but no one here or elsewhere has contradicted you on this. I've been attacked by members at PFT, CIT and loose change. I'd say that it was unprovoked, but I imagine that you'd say differently. Does this mean that I think that you guys are malicious? No. Perhaps Hoffman et al thought that you guys were indeed liars and frauds without first ascertaining whether his assertion was correct. -You- have certainly attacked me enough without ascertaining whether your assertion is correct. So where, exactly, is the difference? Despite all the attacks on my person, however, I still agree with the flyover theory. I've agreed with it for quite some time and I've defended it for quite some time as well. What I don't agree with is the constant jumping to conclusions regarding the motivations of those who disagree with x or y view. Craig Ranke CIT Now that I have pointed out this contradictory behavior his attempt to create a thread at truthaction is laughable and clearly a deliberate effort to avoid the discussion all together. What draws you to that conclusion? Craig Ranke CIT As if they would be sympathetic to him as a new poster directly challenging them. Craig, I'd never been there before. Even so, I -did- express temerity as to what I should say. I even said so before posting there, asking people here what I should say. I waited to see what people would say here, but after receiving no response for some time, I decided to forge ahead alone. Craig Ranke CIT He was basically committing instant suicide by mod to avoid the discussion since there is a very prominent existing thread at the top of the forum regarding Hoffman's interview with Wolsey where they BOTH directly label us "disinfo". You might have told me that before... Craig Ranke CIT If scott really intended to discuss the issue with them he would have recognized the sensitivity of going there at all and chosen to practice traditional internet forum decorum by first getting his feet wet by introducing himself while posting in the existing thread rather than doing a cannon ball in the pool as the obnoxious late-comer to the party. So transparent. I agree that I am rather transparent. But apparently not transparent enough :-p. I'm generally not one to beat around the bush; this has gotten me into trouble in numerous forums, as you know full well. Perhaps there is room to finesse my technique. But that's a far cry from these allusions to my being deceptive that you're making.
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


scott75	Sep 20 2009, 11:34 PM Post #56
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	Paul Tassopulos Hey, Craig. I know you challenged Mr. Hoffman to a debate. I’ve been trying to figure out what’s going on with this whole thing. To me, this conflict is just an unclear, grueling, and torturous maze of negative internet chatter right now. As it stands now, I think it’s a detriment to all participants and the movement. That could all be turned around though. I agree. Paul Tassopulos I think the solution might be to split the work into 2 facets here. First, a diplomatic solution: I recommend internet “safe zones” be established where people agree to adhere to a professional “code of conduct” and participate with the intention of working things out between all people involved. Sounds fine to me... Paul Tassopulos Second, an adversarial solution: I believe that we all should be developing methods to create, participate in, and broadcast clear, concise, and promotable forum debates. If presented properly it could be a great “show”, presentation of research, and a great PR vehicle for the 9/11 Truth Movement, I think. These are my first 2 runs at this concept on the new forum I’m making: http://s1.zetaboards.com/artists4911truth2/topic/1757071/1/ http://s1.zetaboards.com/artists4911truth2/topic/1757813/1/ I just registered :-). Paul Tassopulos These are just prototypes and initial efforts on doing something like this. Anyone is welcome to take these concepts, adapt, and run with them as they see fit. I just hope it helps some people and the situation here. Sounds good to me...
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


Paul Tassopulos	Sep 20 2009, 11:46 PM Post #57
Artists for 9/11 Truth Posts: 252 Group: Members Member #975 Joined: 12/18/08	scott75 Sep 20 2009, 11:34 PM I agree. Sounds fine to me... I just registered :-). Sounds good to me... Hey, scott75. Nice to meet you. Great. Thanks. Edited by Paul Tassopulos, Sep 20 2009, 11:48 PM.



JackD	Sep 20 2009, 11:59 PM Post #58
Posts: 263 Group: Members Member #253 Joined: 01/31/08	back to OP: why is Hoffman & wife who seem like passionate 9/11 truth advocates (based on the website i saw at WTC7 research or something like that)... so anti-flyover? Seems incongruous -- totally on board with demolition, a lot of good work there, but then insisting on AA 77 pentagon strike? that's a very 2004 position -- back in the day when it seemd that Pentagon story might be a "honey trap" to 'trick the truth movement' that day has passed. so why cant Hoffman re-evaluate the Pentagon evidence? seems kind of like Rus Pickering.
Posts: 263 Group: Members Member #253 Joined: 01/31/08


Avenger	Sep 21 2009, 01:09 AM Post #59
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: . . . Other witnesses they interviewed indicate a different flightpath consistent with where "it should be". i.e. Father McGraw, Mike Walter, and Lloyd the cabbie to name three. However Mike Walter is a reporter for USA Today and therfore a "plant", I find that to be unreasonable. Father Mcgraw is a priest and has ties to the Vatican and is a former DOJ attorney and is therefore "compromised", I find that to be unreasonable, and Lloyd the cabbie, doesn't jive with Laggasee's [sic] flight path and therefore is "in on it", Lloyd England can not be counted as a south of CITGO witness. He has now placed himself along the NOC flight path, even though photographic clearly shows otherwise. Even though he said his neighbor was up on the bridge and took pictures. Still he insists he was far north of his actual location. Father McGraw said something about sensing a plane overhead, before looking up and seeing it hit. He would have to have some pretty fast eyes. Mike Walter has given two completely different flight paths. Quote: I find that to be unreasonable. I was simply asking for any explanation for how this Mr Birdwell could have almost died from jet fuel in his lungs if the plane these witnesses are all seeing didn't hit the Pentagon? Don't know. But, I do know that April Gallop and her son did NOT almost die from jet fuel. I also know that they were not killed by a passenger jet or the ensuing fireball, even though they were directly in the supposedly path of this plane.
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08


scott75	Sep 21 2009, 10:44 AM Post #60
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	Avenger Quote: . . . Other witnesses they interviewed indicate a different flightpath consistent with where "it should be". i.e. Father McGraw, Mike Walter, and Lloyd the cabbie to name three. However Mike Walter is a reporter for USA Today and therefore a "plant", I find that to be unreasonable. Father Mcgraw is a priest and has ties to the Vatican and is a former DOJ attorney and is therefore "compromised", I find that to be unreasonable, and Lloyd the cabbie, doesn't jive with Laggasee's [sic] flight path and therefore is "in on it", Lloyd England can not be counted as a south of CITGO witness. He has now placed himself along the NOC flight path, even though photographic clearly shows otherwise. Yep; I think his case is rather sad; I have frequently felt that there is a part of him that wants to tell the truth, while the other part tries to hold him back. In terms of the cover up, I think his story is pretty weak. And assuming he truly wanted to cover up the truth, why on -earth- did he agree to talk with CIT so long as well as preserve the taxi cab and then show it to CIT's Craig Ranke, so that he could determine that the back seat wasn't gouged, further undermining Lloyd's account of events? Avenger Even though he said his neighbor was up on the bridge and took pictures. With his car, which he had parked. When asked why Mike (his neighbour) was there, he even admits he has no idea. Furthermore, when Lloyd speaks of Mike's house in his car, after leaving it, it sounds to me as if he harbours some resentment towards it; like a man afraid to bite the hand that feeds him but still resentful towards him. I'd love to know who, exactly, this Mike works for. I have theorized as to whether he might be something like Lloyd's handler... Avenger Still he insists he was far north of his actual location. I think that anyone who has seen the photographic evidence of where he was discounts the idea that he could have been in a position to see the North of Citgo flight path. Even defenders of the official story have in essence stated that Lloyd was mistaken here. I'm personally fine with the idea that he might have been mistaken, but I saw CIT's video on Lloyd, and the tenacity with which he sticks to the absurd idea that he wasn't where it's clear he actually was speaks to me of a man who is afraid to admit the truth. Avenger Father McGraw said something about sensing a plane overhead, before looking up and seeing it hit. He would have to have some pretty fast eyes. I seriously don't trust that guy. Was CIT able to videotape him? Avenger Mike Walter has given two completely different flight paths. I notice that Walter mentions that he saw the belly of the plane; I'm trying to remember if the plane turned twice; once, to go further north to take the north of citgo approach, and then another bank in order to hit the pentagon. If so, he could have seen the belly on the first bank. Avenger Quote: I find that to be unreasonable. I was simply asking for any explanation for how this Mr Birdwell could have almost died from jet fuel in his lungs if the plane these witnesses are all seeing didn't hit the Pentagon? Don't know. Did some investigating as to who claimed Brian Birdwell almost died from jet fuel in his lungs. From an article in the West Point United States military academy: Quote: Once they stabilized Brian, they transferred him to George Washington Hospital where...the best, cutting edge burn doctor in the U.S. The doctor told him that had he not gone to Georgetown first, he probably would not have survived because of the jet fuel in his lungs. Note above, there's a part of the text that's missing; it goes "they transferred him to George Washington Hospital where...the best, cutting edge burn doctor in the U.S." Looking at what follows after the "...", I think it would be logical to assume that the preceding part of the sentence would have mentioned the -name- of the alleged doctor. Since I doubt that Birdwell almost died of jet fuel, seeing as no plane crashed into the building, the question becomes, what's the real story here? Did the alleged, apparently name removed doctor find something sooty in his lungs, possibly due to the diesel tank that exploded, and -assume- it was jet fuel? Or did this alleged doctor, whose name wasn't mentioned, make this up? Update: I did some more digging, and I think I've found the doctor in question. From an article from a blogger who interviewed him and his wife: Lt. Col. Birdwell When I got to Georgetown, Dr. Williams was the attending physician in the emergency room. We found out later that Dr. Williams had spent two years over at the Washington Hospital Center Burn Unit. So from the perspective of emergency room treatment, I had the best doctor with the best training at the right hospital at the right time. I think the "best doctor with the best training" bit is the part that most suggests that they're one and the same doctor. Avenger But, I do know that April Gallop and her son did NOT almost die from jet fuel. I also know that they were not killed by a passenger jet or the ensuing fireball, even though they were directly in the supposedly path of this plane. Good point. Nicely done. Edited by scott75, Sep 21 2009, 11:33 AM.
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


Avenger	Sep 21 2009, 11:56 PM Post #61
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: Yep; I think his case is rather sad; I have frequently felt that there is a part of him that wants to tell the truth, while the other part tries to hold him back. In terms of the cover up, I think his story is pretty weak. And assuming he truly wanted to cover up the truth, why on -earth- did he agree to talk with CIT so long as well as preserve the taxi cab and then show it to CIT's Craig Ranke, so that he could determine that the back seat wasn't gouged, further undermining Lloyd's account of events? Saw it as an opportunity to place himself where the NOC witnesses said they saw the plane? Quote: I think that anyone who has seen the photographic evidence of where he was discounts the idea that he could have been in a position to see the North of Citgo flight path. Even defenders of the official story have in essence stated that Lloyd was mistaken here. Not mistaken. Lying. He knew he was on that bridge. How could he not know he was on the bridge if he knew his neighbor was there taking pictures?
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08


scott75	Sep 22 2009, 05:49 PM Post #62
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	Avenger scott75 Yep; I think his case is rather sad; I have frequently felt that there is a part of him that wants to tell the truth, while the other part tries to hold him back. In terms of the cover up, I think his story is pretty weak. And assuming he truly wanted to cover up the truth, why on -earth- did he agree to talk with CIT so long as well as preserve the taxi cab and then show it to CIT's Craig Ranke, so that he could determine that the back seat wasn't gouged, further undermining Lloyd's account of events? Saw it as an opportunity to place himself where the NOC witnesses said they saw the plane? You know, your theory actually makes me think of one that I'd been thinking about a bit. Because the thing is, at the beginning, before the official interview, I believe, but the audio was going, he actually said he was up on the bridge; later, he tried to work it that he was on -another- bridge, but Craig pointed out that that was the only nearby bridge. It seems he only changed his story after he realized that his viewpoint wouldn't concord with all the north side witnesses. To make a long story short, I think that perhaps he thought that he'd give Craig a tourist trip as it seems he did the first time, and things would carry on as usual. Avenger scott75 I think that anyone who has seen the photographic evidence of where he was discounts the idea that he could have been in a position to see the North of Citgo flight path. Even defenders of the official story have in essence stated that Lloyd was mistaken here. Not mistaken. Lying. Yes, it seems clear enough to me that he must have been lying, but official story supporters and atleast one Hoffmanite (Q24) insisted that he simply made a mistake. Regardless, I know of no one who is buying his theory that he, the bridge, and the light poles were on a North of the Citgo path :-p. The one thing I don't think that CIT adequately explored is what the consequences would be if Lloyd were to straight out confess what truly happened. Avenger He knew he was on that bridge. How could he not know he was on the bridge if he knew his neighbor was there taking pictures? I agree, but it's one thing to persuade me, and another to persuade disbelievers in the no plane impact theory...
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


Avenger	Sep 22 2009, 10:31 PM Post #63
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08	scott75 Yes, it seems clear enough to me that he must have been lying, but official story supporters and atleast one Hoffmanite (Q24) insisted that he simply made a mistake. Regardless, I know of no one who is buying his theory that he, the bridge, and the light poles were on a North of the Citgo path :-p. Lloyd England offered no such theory. Or any other theory. You say it's clear to you he must have been lying, then you turn right around and say he offered some crazy theory which he did not. He offered a crazy story about being lined with the north of CITGO flightpath, nowhere near the bridge. The comments he made about the bridge were comments he made earlier, when he didn't know he was being recorded. Here, maybe this video will clear up your supposed confusion concerning this issue. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4770996865659781278#docid=-2566545024420063718 Or you can watch Eye of the Storm, where he does make the comment, "That's not the bridge..." And then Craig interjects that there's only one bridge. Lloyd agrees saying, "I know, but that's not where I was." http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4770996865659781278#
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08


scott75	Sep 23 2009, 05:36 AM Post #64
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	Avenger scott75 Yes, it seems clear enough to me that he must have been lying, but official story supporters and atleast one Hoffmanite (Q24) insisted that he simply made a mistake. Regardless, I know of no one who is buying his theory that he, the bridge, and the light poles were on a North of the Citgo path :-p. Lloyd England offered no such theory. Or any other theory. You say it's clear to you he must have been lying, then you turn right around and say he offered some crazy theory which he did not. He offered a crazy story about being lined with the north of CITGO flightpath, nowhere near the bridge. Lloyd didn't label his version a theory or a story; I'm the one who put in the term 'theory', just as you put in 'story'. However, after considering the matter, I agree that story sounds better. And he -does- say at one point that 'history' is 'his story'. Avenger The comments he made about the bridge were comments he made earlier, when he didn't know he was being recorded. Yep, that's what I said :-). Avenger Here, maybe this video will clear up your supposed confusion concerning this issue. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4770996865659781278#docid=-2566545024420063718 This all came out in the video you bring up next. I've not only seen Eye of the Storm, I've actually transcribed certain parts of (it required going over the same bits over and over again to get those parts :-p). Avenger Or you can watch Eye of the Storm, where he does make the comment, "That's not the bridge..." And then Craig interjects that there's only one bridge. Lloyd agrees saying, "I know, but that's not where I was." http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4770996865659781278# I know.
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3