| 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
| Planted north side disinfo agents......; and manipulated FDR. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 20 2008, 02:08 PM (1,381 Views) | |
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 20 2008, 02:08 PM Post #1 |
|
Caustic Logic erroneously suggests that "6 seconds" are missing from the FDR and that this is too large of an error to be innocent meaning that the 6 seconds were deliberately removed. He also states that he believes it is not a viable possibility that all of the north side witnesses could be mistaken and that they are all deliberately lying. So in essence........he is suggesting that although the event was carried out physically exactly as reported (i.e. 757 hit the building) that all information that fatally contradicts this story was planted ON PURPOSE as disinfo anyway. Clearly there is no real motive for them to risk such elaborate fakery when the plane hit the building as reported and everything was pulled off successfully as planned. Isn't it ironic how to CL, everything that would seem to support the official story is legitimate but everything that contradicts it is dismissed as a deliberate hoax on the part of the perpetrators right down to using a gas station attendant and auto mechanic as deep cover government agents!? Talk about backwards logic! It is a clear desperate effort to spin the information in favor of the official line. Plus he is dead wrong. There is not 6 seconds missing from the FDR. That is a myth created by CL and John Farmer (who has taken his site down and disappeared much like someone else we know who used to post at the old LCF). pilot Rob Balsamo:
Fortunately CL's north side disinfo agent conspiracy theory is not given any credence by a single one of his 757 impact conspiracy theory colleagues and naturally not a single pseudo-skeptic official supporting jref type would ever support such lunacy either so he is completely alone in this one. Think about it! He believes that all dubious and questionable official story witnesses right down to PNAC member Gary Bauer are 100% legitimate and that all witnesses who contradict the official story are government agents! It's classic and it simply shows you how far people are willing to go to cast doubt on the info that CIT and P4T present. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 21 2008, 12:51 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 20 2008, 04:31 PM Post #2 |
|
Isn't this the exact inverse of the position that you take? |
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 20 2008, 04:53 PM Post #3 |
|
Both my position and CL's position prove 9/11 an inside job. If you had to choose between the two which would you say is more logical? "One way to decide which of these conflicting accounts to believe is to use a common principle employed by historians in situations of this type, where some members of an organization or movement say things that support its official line, while other members say things that contradict it. All other things being equal, historians give greater credence to the latter." |
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 20 2008, 09:49 PM Post #4 |
|
Neither is logical in any sense of the word. Though I find it funny that you fault CL for having a bias just like yours, albeit on the other side. Edited by nicepants, Jan 20 2008, 09:51 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 21 2008, 12:28 AM Post #5 |
|
I find it funny that you fault me for having a bias just like yours albeit on the other side. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 21 2008, 06:02 AM Post #6 |
|
Deleted User
|
I'm too tired to deal with this fully tonight, but as someone calling himself Caustic Logic I'd better make an effort to defend the logic of these outlandish claims of mine, as presented by Craig above. FDR: I do not BELIEVE six seconds is missing - Farmer says that based on a system I don't understand and by geo plot placement in two different FDR decodes the last data point was recored over a mile from the Pentagon, stamped 9:37:44 and :45. Usinf prev. speed of 530 mph this would yield about NINE seconds missing before impact. But I'm an idiot with these things so who knows. There, go sample that 'admission' at the PFT forums. I don't know if there's a non-conspiratorial reason for this, but I haven't seen one yet. It deserves a thread of its own. Witnesses: They say it was north of the Cotgo which it wasn't. They're either all simultaneously grossly erred on accident, or they're right and that plane flew over or disappeared since no evidence is consistent with an impact at that angle, or they're lying to put it simply. People love to debate CIT without addressing this core question and I get called out for tackling it and deciding on coordinated dishonesty. Is it really any more outlandish than that same innocent error popping up in brain after brain? I hope we all know it's far less crazy than the lengths required for the witnesses to be correct. But it's just crazy enough no one but me will touch it. I feel like I missed a memo sometimes. So let's see, Nicepants or anyone, which of those three options do you find most plausible, or are there others I missed? 1 The NOC witnesses are right on north path/wrong on impact - flyover proven 2 NOC witnesses all mistaken they saw it south but remembered it north, all independently and innocently 3 Someone told these guys, or they somehow got a hint, that they should say north even tho that's not what they saw If you wanna say 4 The NOC witnesses are right on path AND impact the burden is on you to illustrate how, graphically or explicitly after having studied all relevant evidence. And so that is where we are. I have a bias towards thinking a 757 hit, and make no apologies for that. But I try to be open-minded (yes, I've actually tried even with CIT but that didn't last). So if anyone can illustrate why either my FDR findings or my assessment of the witness situation is in error, feel free. |
|
|
| Terral | Jan 21 2008, 09:20 AM Post #7 |
|
911Truther
|
Hi Craig with CL (Pentagon Reality Check) and the powers that be here mentioned:
So, which disinformation agent should we believe? Craig and his CIT stupidity or Caustic Logic (CL = Pentagon Reality Check) and his Official Cover Story stupidity? BTW, why are banned members allowed to even post here? This place looks like a convention of “Lloyd-bashing,” “the light poles were planted” CIT zombies running diversion for the out-of-control Bushie Administration just like CL. Both of you have theories based upon a complete misrepresentation of the facts that blinds people with endless theories about what DID NOT hit the Pentagon. This new version of Loose Change looks like the proverbial disnifo agent family reunion with the pee-ons down in the trenches and the big chickens running the show. I cannot believe the old Loose Change Admins banned you and Aldo for a thousand very good reasons, but now you and your CIT stupidity is welcomed back into their fold. All we need is for Honway to show up and the disinfo of 20 different theories can start all over again.
So what? Who cares what the Official Cover Story guys have to say? Craig and Aldo do not care what hit the Pentagon at 9:32 AM any more than CL or the people running this place. Right? :0) The Official FAA Timeline Report says “0932 ATC AEA reports aircraft crashes into the west side of Pentagon,” but the FBI-provided FDR evidence says ‘their Flight 77’ was outside Pentagon airspace at the time of the Original Aircraft Crash/Attack!!!! What do the CIT chat-monkeys and their CL disinfo buddy have to say for themselves? :0) How do ANY of you explain the Pentagon Clocks stopping at 9:32 AM?? Oh, you think calling Lloyd a LIAR a thousand times is going to prove what hit the Pentagon at 9:32 AM? :0) The fact is that your CIT TRASH is as worthless as every word out of CL's Official Cover Story mouth, because the “911Truth” is far from BOTH of you. You play this stupid charade over and over again to keep the “911Movement Charade” going, which finds all sides (CIT, CL, Loose Change people) running in place no nearer the “911Truth” than when this DOD Disinformation/Counterintelligence Nonsense first began. The Double Tree Security Video came out in 2006, but does the evidence point to a 9:38 AM original attack, or a 9:32 AM attack?? :0) Here we have Craig worrying about six seconds from PLANTED FBI FDR evidence, when the real first attack took place at 9:32 AM. The Houston Chronicle Report says the Pentagon was first attacked around 9:30 AM, but Craig and his CIT guys want to drag everyone here into their 9:38 AM fantasy anyway. So, what is the real difference between the ‘original attack time’ of the CIT guys and this CL Loyal Bushie Official Cover Story Opertative? Nothing at all! They both preach the same 9:38 AM lie to razzle dazzle these readers into thinking there are ‘two sides’ to every debate, when in fact they are running diversion for the same out-of-control Bushie Administration doing everything to get away with murdering innocent Americans in all these 911 attacks.
LOL! Here the CIT Chat-Monkey is calling the CL Official Cover Story Operative black, because the ‘planted evidence’ grand prize goes to Craig, Aldo and their CIT guys. Trying to get a coherent CIT answer to “What Hit The Pentagon” at 9:32 AM or ANY TIME has proven to be a complete impossibility and I have debated these guys most everywhere. Everyone already knows CL is full of himself, because obviously no real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed anywhere near this location. Go ahead and look through a few pictures (this one, this one and this one, or this one) to realize no 100-Ton Jetliner crashed anywhere near the Pentagon on 9/11 or any other day.
Who is THEM? Craig is working his “the FBI planted the Light Pole evidence” to beat the band, even though we have no evidence of that anywhere. The CIT guys simply call every “Plane/Light Pole” witness a LIAR, as if dozens of people witnessing this tragedy are going to make up stories about the PLANE and LIGHT POLES flying around on 9/11. The fact is that CL (Pentagon Reality Check) has more evidence of a 100-Ton Jetliner crashing into the Pentagon than the CIT guys have for light poles being staged by FBI cronies, because at least a ‘plane’ did hit the Pentagon at 9:36:27 AM using the “North Of Citgo Flight Path.” The problem with BOTH of your stories is the ‘original’ attack took place at 9:31:39 AM when the painted up version of this A-3 launched the Missile to create this damage along the 45-degree angle trajectory path on the “South Of Citgo Flight Path.” These CIT guys have nothing in their theory to explain the ‘damage’ done at 9:32 AM along this 45-degree flight path that connects the dots between the outer Route 27 Cloverleaf, all 5 light poles, the 18 feet diameter entry hole, the internal Pentagon damage AND the rear C-Ring 8 to 10-feet diameter exit hole. We know that a flying object did all this damage and within a split second, because Terry Cohen was sitting in one of the exterior construction trailers just 100 feet from the original E-Ring Impact hole to give this report. The light poles were ALL knocked down during the 9:32 AM missile strike using the “SOUTH of Citgo Flight Path,” which Craig and all of his CIT guys want to completely IGNORE, just like CL and his Official Cover Story nonsense. Therefore, do not try to pretend that CL and the CIT guys are selling different stories, when BOTH are concentrating ALL of their effort on selling the Official 9:38 AM original crash.
Now we get to see CL and Craig come out with pitiful efforts to discredit the “911Truth” of the 9:32 AM original attack and ‘my’ interpretation of THE FACTS that clearly show the Pentagon was attacked not once, but TWICE at 9:31:39 AM AND 9:36:27 AM. :0) CL and these CIT guys represent two sides of the same Disinformation Coin with both sides running in place, while Senor Bushie and all of his inside job terrorists get away with murdering innocent Americans.
Craig calling Logic black is not helping his CIT 9:38 AM “We Do Not Know What Hit The Pentagon” Case at all. This side of the Pentagon Debate considers all the testimony from CL and these CIT guys totally and completely USELESS, but everyone here can decide that for themselves . . .
I cannot imagine a more useless Opening Post pointing fingers at CL, when you should be showing us your evidence for what really did hit the Pentagon at 9:32 AM, according to the real FAA Timeline. Proving CL wrong does nothing to prop up CIT stupidity . . .
Oh, so Craig saying the Official Cover Story is A MYTH proves something. :0) Where is Craig’s evidence for what really hit the Pentagon? Hopefully all of your Opening Posts in this Pentagon Forum are not as pitiful and useless as the one I just answered, because my side of these Pentagon Debates says the CIT guys are among the most blind and ridiculous 911Truth (heh) investigators these eyes have ever seen. You stomp around Washington Blvd calling Lloyd and all the light pole witnesses LIARS, then turn around and base your theories on whatever comes to your CIT deluded mind. You have FBI cronies running around planting evidence, when dozens of people saw the 9:31:39 AM Plane and all the light poles flying around. You pick on CL, because his Official Cover Story nonsense is even more ridiculous than what you have to offer. :0) I see you are member #14, which means these Loose Change boys have let you back into the fold, because they do not care what hit the Pentagon at 9:32 AM any more than you do . . . It is good to see the CIT guys, CL and these Loose Change guys have so much in common . . . GL, Terral Edited by Terral, Jan 21 2008, 09:52 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 21 2008, 09:45 AM Post #8 |
|
No. You claim that any evidence which contradicts the NOC claim (even if it's made by the same witnesses who made the NOC claim) is false, faked, fraudulent, planted, etc. And you fault CL for doing the exact same thing, albeit on the other side. I have not claimed that evidence against the OT was faked, fraudulent, planted, etc. Edited by nicepants, Jan 21 2008, 09:48 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| IVXX | Jan 21 2008, 09:55 AM Post #9 |
![]()
MDCCLXXVI
|
Terral, you want to debate then debate. Drop the name calling. This is your warning. |
![]() |
|
| Reddawn | Jan 21 2008, 11:00 AM Post #10 |
|
Yay, Terral made it! I love reading how everyone else is nuts and then he proceeds to propose the nuttiest theory of all. The old "missile from a painted A-3" story again, huh? Did the missile also contain some kind of cloaking, mind tricking device to convince witnesses they saw an AA 757? Go Terral! |
![]() |
|
| Smiling_Gorilla | Jan 21 2008, 11:19 AM Post #11 |
|
troll
|
Pilots for Truth illustrated why your FDR findings are in error. "In the raw file, the flight path shows the plane traveling at the correct angle to knock over the light poles and pass through the hole in the building" - Calum Douglas Flight 77: The Flight Data Recorder Investigation Files (statement made at 21:16) The FDR data shows the plane on the correct path and angle to hit the poles and impact the building at exactly the point the building is claimed to have been impacted. The physical evidence corroborates the claim that American Airlines flight 77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11/01. The most logical explanation is that which is corroborated by the FDR data and physical evidence, not "witnesses" attempting to pinpoint a location in 3-dimensional space 5 years after the fact, especially the don't corroborate each other. |
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 21 2008, 11:56 AM Post #12 |
![]()
|
Just curious, what was the altitude? What does the FDR say about the descent angle? What about the trailer impact? Here, have a look: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3752900324142560520&hl=en |
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 21 2008, 12:23 PM Post #13 |
|
"The NTSB reports impact time at 09:37:45, the CSV file data runs up until that time for bank angle (and other parameters), the NTSB themselves place the aircraft over Wash Blvd one second prior to that time, and the manufacturer of the FDR says the FDR is built to, and cannot be missing, any more than 0.5 seconds of data as per regulation and standards. UT (poster Undertow) uncovered a similar accident where the data was only missing 0.34 seconds. Well within regulation, as is standard. If the data was missing 6 seconds, why doesn't the NTSB stop the animation 6 seconds from the wall, and how did the CSV file record 1.5 DME? The answer is, because it isn't missing 6 seconds of data. Both Adam Larson (a janitor) and John Farmer (doesnt have a clue what DME is nor ever used one) feel they know more than the NTSB, L3 Communications (manufacturer of FDR), FDR Experts, Aviation Accident Investigators, and Professional pilots. They are completely wrong." |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 22 2008, 02:13 AM Post #14 |
|
Deleted User
|
Hi Terral, hi Red Dawn, good to see not all old hands have abandoned the new ship. Terral, sorry, I couldn't read the whole thing... as in the old days, but thanks for the thoughts.
SG: I'm confused as to what you think I'm trying to say. Some people seem to think I'm with CIT, when nothing could be further from the truth. (Have you seen My Webpage? So let me confuse you just a bit more - I'm not trying too, really, it's just complicated stuff, so please try to follow me here. You cite C Douglas (aka Snowygrouch) a lot, and he is the guy who first got the animation, and has studied it some. I don't trust him generally cause he's a no-planer fraudster, and PFT member - but he DOES rightly say the raw data shows the official heading, and it does. I can read it too and it says 70 degrees magnetic, 60 real. The heading is on - actually slightly off but about right, despite the animation (it's a overlay map rotated 20 deg CCW that creates the animation's NOC illusion BTW). However, and I've learned this trying to argue against them, PFT are right that the altitude, pitch, and bank (even know what these are?) - are all recorded, verifiable, and well off from the impact reality. Bank angle off 13 deg from bldg damage, altitude off by app 270 feet too high, pitch off by about 3 or 4 degreed to clip all the poles and appear level in the CCTV video. The JREFERS who know FDR's have to acknowedge this and have. I do too. The mag heading being about the same that far back just reflects that it was on the same straight line at both points. Now I'm no PFT fan, and the reason the data is so off at the last frame is because it was recorded 1.3 miles BEFORE impact. THAT is the point at issue here, and you haven't refuted it yet. If you'd like to see where I might've gone wrong with the this point, it's explained here. Official impact 9:37:45, 9:37:45's data does not match, therefore data is fraudulent is the PFT thinking. That makes sense in a way, but my opinion is - official time was just set by end of data, even though the actual plane lived on another several seconds, changed its altitude, pitch, bank, and impacted about 9:37:53 or so. 9:37:45's data is correct for that second, but not for impact several sec later. I really do not have a set opinion on why so much data is missing. That's another story. The point is PFT are wrong because they're looking at the wrong data from 1.3 miles back. IMO of course, I'm no expert. had to try that out. These are cool. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Jan 22 2008, 02:29 AM Post #15 |
|
Deleted User
|
Okay, I read your obligatory re-posting of Rob's explanation, then EXPLAINED why 9:37:44's data is off from impact, then invite anyone to explain how that's wrong, and then you just re-post the same non-comprehended xerox message. Fwd: fwd: fwd: What evidence do you have thet the data was ACTUALLY recorded one second or less prior to impact? If its timecode is right and :44 means just that, what evidence other than FDR citations do we have that the impact happened at precisely 9:37:45? 38*51'43" north, 77*4'48 west. Can you find these on a map? I'm challenging this whole construct here, so as soon as you grasp my reasoning and have a rebuttal, feel free to share it. Hint - read the post above this and/or the post at my blog you've already decided is 'erroneous". That is, as soon as you can figure out what the error is, tell me. And nothing about my witness situation summation - so I presume my summary of possibilities is close enough for you, despite my different way of displaying them? And no one else wants to challenge it yet? |
|
|
| Smiling_Gorilla | Jan 23 2008, 11:10 AM Post #16 |
|
troll
|
Again with the animation. Do yourself a favor, when someone says "the animation incorrectly interpreted the FDR data", don't provide a link to the animation and say "this is what the FDR shows". The animation is wrong. |
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 23 2008, 01:48 PM Post #17 |
|
You are wrong. That is not the animation put out by the NTSB that Calum Douglas was referring to. It is an animation created by PFT based off the actual FDR values. If you bothered to take the time to view it you would understand this. Your ignorance and reluctance to even view what is being discussed speaks volumes as to your lack of ability to debate from a knowledgeable or intellectual stand-point. |
![]() |
|
| Smiling_Gorilla | Jan 23 2008, 11:19 PM Post #18 |
|
troll
|
The very first sentence spoken in that video is: "On the left is the NTSB animation." Then they move on to a new animation (they really like their animation software over there, don't they?) that doesn't factor in altitude, then vaguely imply that the plane wasn't lined up properly. They started from what they believe was the point of impact and worked backward based on angle, RoD, and bank, but not including altitude. Also note that if you believe the animation is an accurate representation of the actual data, then you believe AA 77 did not fly north of the Citgo and did hit the Pentagon. Further, it contradicts the "pull up" witness you claim to have. If the plane had pulled up, the RoD would have changed. It's going to take a lot more than flashy little videos with crappy music to convince me, sorry. When you have a real report to present or... *gasp*... are prepared to bring your "evidence" before a real jury, then maybe your beliefs will carry more weight. Calling yourself an Investigation Team does not mean you are conducting a valid investigation. You've already decided what the result of your investigation will be (it's why you formed the "team"). Now you seem to be looking for evidence to back it up. Finally, if your quest is to spread "truth", perhaps you would be best served not attempting to insult those who don't immediately buy what you're selling (and of course, what Pilots for Truth is literally selling for $15.95, but that's another matter). I'd return your attempt at an insult, but being that I'm not a "truther", I would most certainly be banned, which would leave you preaching to the choir. You don't want to only surround yourself with people who already believe you, do you? I know some here do, but you do want to *spread* the message, right? If so, perhaps conducting yourself in a cordial manner would better serve your purpose. |
![]() |
|
| Nevermind | Jan 24 2008, 03:09 AM Post #19 |
|
Oh, you didn't know?
|
If you enjoy "debunking" people here, you'd better lose that condescending tone right now. Just out of curiosity... and I emphasize I haven't read the entire thread so I hope I don't get this wrong...from what I got from your posts SG, you accept the FDR raw data file as accurate and admit the FDR animation is wrong. Right? What's your explanation for the animation not agreeing with the raw file and what's your explanation for the silence and refusal by the NTSB and FBI to answer questions concerning the discrepancy between the animation and raw data? Both have avoided the issue like the plague and continue to pass the buck as to who can answer these questions. Is the NTSB really that incompetent and so afraid to admit they goofed? |
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 24 2008, 02:39 PM Post #20 |
|
Wow. You are being so obtuse. Watch it again: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3752900324142560520&hl=en Yes it opens by showing the discrepancy between two OFFICIALLY RELEASED animations neither of which accurately represent the relevant values in the FDR. It SPECIFICALLY SAYS that this was a scene from PBB chapter 2 and THEN it goes on to say: "HOWEVER.................heading shows a southern approach" and it goes into a P4T animation based off the raw FDR data spelling out each and every fatal contradiction with the physical evidence right down to the lack of required descent angle visible in the security video. It is NOT about the anomalous NTSB animation that shows a northern approach. You are being disingenuous on purpose because you HAVE NO REBUTTAL for this fatal contradiction.
I have no delusions about people like you. There is NO WAY you will change your mind about 9/11 or the truth movement or your unyielding faith in the government's honesty. You are not a regular person who is curious and interested in the evidence. You are simply a member of a strange and small clique of people who are literally obsessed with the 9/11 truth movement will do anything to disrupt, divide, spin, and confuse the information we present regardless of facts, evidence, justice, or truth. |
![]() |
|
| Smiling_Gorilla | Jan 24 2008, 02:51 PM Post #21 |
|
troll
|
I don't accept the FDR data as accurate, as I haven't studied it. I accept the animation is flawed because the people who allegedly did examine the FDR data (Pilots for Truth) said it was wrong. "In the raw file, the flight path shows the plane traveling at the correct angle to knock over the light poles and pass through the hole in the building" - Calum Douglas Flight 77: The Flight Data Recorder Investigation Files (statement made at 21:16) As for why the NTSB and FBI won't entertain questions about it, I have no idea. I don't speak for those organizations, but they probably feel they have bigger things to worry about. As for what you call condescension. It wasn't. What I said is true. As someone who doesn't subscribe to the "inside job" line, I am much more likely to be banned from the forum than someone who agrees with it. I lurked in the other forum long enough to see the over-officiousness displayed toward those who would disagree. In all honesty, Gideon. Had I said what Craig said to me, it's a safe bet that I wouldn't have received a warning. I would've been immediately and unceremoniously booted. That's why I refrained from replying in kind. It isn't about me enjoying debunking people here. It's about making sure all facts are being considered equally. With the fly-over claim, I believe they aren't. We haven't even gotten to the Doubletree video yet, which strongly evidences a plane flying into the building, not over it. If this forum is intended as a place only for people who subscribe to the "inside job" theory, that's fine. Say so and I'll disappear just as quick as I showed up. The reason I'm here is because I have a personal connection to the events on 9/11. I knew people who died that day. I know families of people who died that day. I've been following the claims from both sides and have conducted extensive research into a variety of aspects about 9/11. I've read all three "official" reports and a slew of papers from other relevant experts. I've studied the way the American government operates - what we have done in the past and what we are doing right now. I've seen briefings by those who also brief the DoD. I've seen the various presentations in the "truth movement". I know all about both Joneses, Fetzer (let's not go there), Hufschmid (or there), Barrett, Griffin, Gage, Meigs, Roberts, Greening, the boys from Oneonta, etc. I've seen the names of people I knew inscribed on memorials and "victim lists". I've seen spurious claims thrown around as fact. I've seen indisputable evidence dismissed with nary a wave of the hand. I've seen incompetence and disingenuousness, from both the government and the people. I've seen these things and, to put it bluntly, they piss me off. I'm a New Yorker who lives in a commuter town upstate. I've been to the WTC site before and after the attack. I , as did many others, helped support the rescue workers, recovery personnel, clean up crews, and victims with food, water, medical supplies, transportation, money, and blood. I know what I'm talking about and I came here with the intent of presenting and discussing various topics in a rational manner. You won't see me label anyone as ignorant or intellectually lacking, regardless of whether I may think so, but you will see me defend myself when I am labeled as such. If you interpret that as condescension, then so be it. It's not my intent, but I can't change how you perceive what you read, so I will not try. |
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 24 2008, 03:01 PM Post #22 |
|
You joined this forum right and exploded right away with a condescending, confrontational, and sarcastic attitude which is a clear sign of a duh-bunker, not someone who questions the official line. You do not represent yourself as someone who questions the official story at all. |
![]() |
|
| Nevermind | Jan 24 2008, 03:25 PM Post #23 |
|
Oh, you didn't know?
|
The *gasp* comment is what jumped out at me as condescention. Just don't talk down to people just because you're closer connected the actual events than others. And for those you lost in the attacks, I am truly sorry. As far as being booted for disagreeing with us, that's not true at all. Rarely ever will I ban people. I only ban no-WTC planers and people who deliberately come here to troll and insult instead of discuss and debate the issues. Disagreement is fine and even healthy cause the truth movement does makes mistakes, too. We're all human. All I ask of all our members is they respect one another. We all want a clearer picture of what happened that day. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 24 2008, 08:11 PM Post #24 |
|
Deleted User
|
And this standard is applied evenly to all, correct? Or are there exceptions made for those who come across as 'truthier?' Does Craig's assertions about evidence being weighed differently if it's pro-or-anti-this-or-that extend back to the researchers/discussants themselves? Some evidence around the forum I could cite right now makes a case that some are treated more equal than others. BTW: About 'condescending.' It's hard not to talk down to someone who, from your own honest human perspective, has tossed themselves down a well. It's not dishonest or anything and it's human nature, but it also adds nothing and I agree people should use it sparingly (as you would swearing) and focus primarily on the issues. There are plenty of them. |
|
|
| Nevermind | Jan 24 2008, 09:55 PM Post #25 |
|
Oh, you didn't know?
|
I do my best to be fair in this place. I don't have time to read every single thread. I spend the least amount of time in Pentagon because frankly, I feel their are stronger issues to discuss and the Pentagon chat makes my head spin. If somebody feels I'm being unfair, PM me. I try my best to listen to all sides of an argument when making a decision.
You can also kick somebody when they're down. Doesn't mean you shouldn't try to control yourself. Edited by Nevermind, Jan 24 2008, 09:56 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2









7:21 PM Jul 10