Questions for CIT regarding "Mrs. Hubbard"

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

Questions for CIT regarding "Mrs. Hubbard"
Topic Started: Jan 27 2008, 05:57 AM (513 Views)
bileduct	Jan 27 2008, 05:57 AM Post #1
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Three questions here: 1) During this interview you make no attempt whatsoever to pinpoint the locations on the map that "Mrs. Hubbard" is describing. Why is this? 2) Refer to this exchange at 07:55 - Ranke: So is that going in at an angle heading toward Colombia Pike? Because it wasn't going along Columbia Pike, it came from back there. Hubbard: No, it went this way. Ranke: Ok, ok Hubbard: Because when it hit the Pentagon, the puff of smoke came from up over the top of that house and I thought it hit 395. Ranke: So it had to have come from back the 395 area rather than straight up Columbia Pike. Hubbard: It came this way, it came across, and it went between the house with the grey roof where the umbrella is? And the big house. It went through there, and then it pulled up so that it would miss those trees. And then the next thing I saw was the puff of smoke and heard the sound. "Mrs. Hubbard" seems to be referring to a map or photograph during this interview. In fact, there is the distinct sound of a line being drawn with a pen at 8:04, specifically at the point where "Mrs. Hubbard" seems to be indicating the flight path of the plane. Did "Mrs. Hubbard" draw the flight path of the plane, and if so, why have you not released it? 3) Also, in the exchange above, "Mrs. Hubbard" claims that she thought the plane had hit i395. Your statement "So it had to have come from back the 395 area rather than straight up Columbia Pike." would also seem to indicate that "Mrs. Hubbard" has placed the plane over i395. However, this is the flight path of the plane, shown at 10:00, that is apparently the result of "Mrs. Hubbard's" testimony yet shows the plane nowhere near I395 nor even heading in that direction: How is this image reconcilable with "Mrs. Hubbards" statement when the flight path puts the plane heading north of "Mrs. Hubbards" position and I395 is to the north-east? This presentation of this interview is suspicious for the obvious omissions and the strange conclusions drawn that don't appear to match the witness' testimony. Finally, "Mrs. Hubbard" makes no claim that the plane banked or changed direction (with the exception of altitude) at any time. Given that she thought that plane had hit I395, which lines up with the Pentagon perfectly from her position, this would actually make "Mrs. Hubbard" a... SOUTH SIDE WITNESS.
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Jan 27 2008, 12:25 PM Post #2
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Mrs. Hubbard did not describe a flight path. She could not see the Pentagon, Citgo, or the Navy Annex so she can not be a south or north side witness nor would she have been able to physically see the bank. But like Jamal, Veronica, Cindy, and SGT Brooks she describes the plane as white.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Jan 27 2008, 12:27 PM Post #3
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	No there was no map or pen and she drew nothing. I simply happened to find her when canvassing. I only had the images ready for the critical pre-arranged interviews that were close to the Pentagon. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 27 2008, 12:30 PM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Jan 27 2008, 12:29 PM Post #4
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	No matter how you wish to "interpret" their imaginary flight paths to fit the official story you have to make them reconcilable with Jamal's account. That is what we did. We considered all the witnesses we found and estimated the path based on all the evidence. Please do that and show me what the path you come up with looks like.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


bileduct	Jan 27 2008, 06:50 PM Post #5
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Craig Ranke CIT Jan 27 2008, 12:25 PM Mrs. Hubbard did not describe a flight path. She could not see the Pentagon, Citgo, or the Navy Annex so she can not be a south or north side witness nor would she have been able to physically see the bank. But like Jamal, Veronica, Cindy, and SGT Brooks she describes the plane as white. If "Mrs. Hubbard" has not described a flight path, then why have you elaborately constructed one from her statements? And you are now officially lying. "Mrs. Hubbard" gave you very detailed information of the plane's direction, including houses that it flew between and trees that it flew over. She even stated that she though that the plane had crashed into I395, which is a curious statement to make if the plane was actually northbound. You are becoming very transparent, Craig.
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


bileduct	Jan 28 2008, 01:38 AM Post #6
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Craig?
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Deleted User	Jan 28 2008, 01:50 AM Post #7
Deleted User	No, this can't be a south path witness. As Craig explained once at JREF “We have searched high and low for a witness to go on record contradicting the citgo witnesses north of the station claim. If you can find one let us know.” And he tells me on phone more recently they still haven't found a single south path witness, even after their newest interviews. Not one. Not McGraw, England, Walter, Sucherman, "Veronica," Hubbard, not anyone. All kinds of liars and plants but no one directly contradicts the NOC flight path. Right? It is odd tho... I watched the video and she's sitting there saying "by this house,' etc. but on the screen is just a blank map w/Craig SAYING is was not along Columbia Pike but nothing shown at all. Whenever they fail to plot or locate a witness or their path, people start jumping around suspecting a south path witness. We can be blamed for this, sure, but it's easy enough to put to rest. Just get us a line drawing for each witness after carefully placing them. It looks suspicious that some are and some aren't.
Deleted User


bileduct	Jan 28 2008, 01:59 AM Post #8
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Craig Ranke CIT No matter how you wish to "interpret" their imaginary flight paths to fit the official story you have to make them reconcilable with Jamal's account. And this is exactly where your "flyover" theory falls down. No single eyewitness account is infallible.
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Jan 28 2008, 02:12 AM Post #9
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	I have never used Mrs. Hubbard's statements alone to make a flight path. I used ALL of the eyewitness statements starting with Jamal ending with Robert to estimate a flight path. Go ahead, try it yourself and show me what you get.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


bileduct	Jan 28 2008, 02:15 AM Post #10
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Quote: I used ALL of the eyewitness statements starting with Jamal ending with Robert to estimate a flight path. Answer me this, Craig. Which eyewitnesses described a flight path between "Jamal" and Edward Paik? Edited by bileduct, Jan 28 2008, 02:15 AM.
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Jan 28 2008, 02:19 AM Post #11
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	They all saw a white plane and described it's general location and how fast it was. Think of each as a point for where the plane was rather than a path. That's the only way you can be accurate as we should not expect any human to be able to able to accurately relay an actual flight path with precision. Each witness represents an approximate placement of the plane, not an exact flight path. So go ahead, use each witness as a static approximate placement of the plane and plot a flight path based on all of their statements. That is what we did. That is clearly the only way to accurately create a path at all.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


bileduct	Jan 28 2008, 02:26 AM Post #12
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Quote: They all saw a white plane I didn't ask what colour it was, Craig. I asked which of your witnesses between "Jamal" and Edward Paik described the flight path of the plane. Quote: and described it's general location and how fast it was. Did one of your witnesses also not place the plane over I395? Did another of your witnesses also not put the plane on a path almost parallel with 13th street heading directly towards I395? This has not been reflected in your imaginary flight path, Craig. Why not? Quote: So go ahead, use each witness as a static approximate placement of the plane and plot a flight path based on all of their statements. Did "Mrs. Hubbard" describe a flight path? Did "Veronica?" Did "Cindy?"
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Deleted User	Jan 28 2008, 04:34 AM Post #13
Deleted User	Craig Ranke CIT Jan 28 2008, 02:19 AM They all saw a white plane and described it's general location and how fast it was. Think of each as a point for where the plane was rather than a path. Yes, points on a line, and they are interviewed south-north along that stretch you drew your yellow line up. ... I've been watching the video closer and some interesting patterns are emerging. I have only these questions about Mrs. Hubbard: 1) I understand you were in her home? This seemed to be the house indicated, but all I want to know is was it on that side of that street? 2) She says she was in her den. Did she ever indicate which window she was looking out as she watched this plane? 3) If so, what direction does that window face? 4) Did she ever draw a flight path for you? And if so why not? 5) She seemed to agree with you the path was not right along Columbia Pike. Did you gather any more specific clues about just what direction it WAS going?
Deleted User


Terral	Jan 28 2008, 09:42 AM Post #14
911Truther Posts: 87 Group: BANNED! Member #142 Joined: 01/20/08	Hi Craig with Caustic Logic (old Pentagon RC) and Russell mentioned: Anyone from the old Board knows I am a big CIT critic who thinks all of you are chasing rabbits down the wrong holes. However, I am complying with the tightened rules and I promise to attack the ‘theory’ and not the ‘theorists.’ Quote: Craig >> No matter how you wish to "interpret" their imaginary flight paths to fit the official story you have to make them reconcilable with Jamal's account. That is what we did. We considered all the witnesses we found and estimated the path based on all the evidence. Please do that and show me what the path you come up with looks like. The biggest problem I have with the CIT theories is none of you have generated a real “Pentagon Timeline” (mine is here) to even begin mapping ‘chronological events’ to specific times. I have spoken to you and Russell on the phone at length about this Pentagon Case, but both of you remain silent to my “When?!” queries. Every time I want to know “WHEN??!!” one of your events took place, then the subject gets changed to something else. The Official FAA Timeline says the Pentagon was struck first at 9:32 AM (0932 AM), but ‘your’ investigation is oblivious to 'any' timetable at all. And why are you posting back-to-back-to-back minimal posts just two minutes apart? Quote: Craig 2 minutes later >> No there was no map or pen and she drew nothing. I simply happened to find her when canvassing. I only had the images ready for the critical pre-arranged interviews that were close to the Pentagon. The fact is that people have selective memory of events taking place over six years ago and this lady could not even see the Pentagon like most of your ‘canvassed’ witnesses. Quote: Craig 2 minutes later >> No matter how you wish to "interpret" their imaginary flight paths to fit the official story you have to make them reconcilable with Jamal's account. That is what we did. We considered all the witnesses we found and estimated the path based on all the evidence. Please do that and show me what the path you come up with looks like. No sir. ‘We’ do not make anything reconcilable with Jamal’s account or that of anyone else. We examine ‘all’ the eyewitness testimony evidence and reconcile that with the 'evidence' of what actually took place at the Pentagon. What is the CIT explanation for what really HIT THE PENTAGON at 9:32 AM? We already know the “Official Cover Story” is a LIE, because the FBI-produced Flight Data Recorder evidence (here) places ‘their’ bogus Flight 77 nowhere near the Pentagon at the Official FAA 9:32 AM Crash Time. However, we know the 9:32 AM attack took place along the “SOUTH of Citgo Flight Path,” because the Pentagon damage shows a 45-degree trajectory heading from THE SOUTH. We know this “First Explosion” attack took place at precisely 9:31:39 AM, because that is the exact time that the Quartermaster-calibrated Navy Clock stopped (on the right); along with the Army clock located in the Fire Station outside by the Heliport. However, all of your canvassing has nothing to do with establishing what actually hit the Pentagon at 9:32 AM or any other time, because you guys are standing out in the middle of Washington Avenue without a care for what really hit the Pentagon. Right? :0) Caustic Logic (Pentagon RC on old Board) has you cornered, saying, Quote: CL >> No, this can't be a south path witness. As Craig explained once at JREF “We have searched high and low for a witness to go on record contradicting the citgo witnesses north of the station claim. If you can find one let us know. Craig >> I have never used Mrs. Hubbard's statements alone to make a flight path. I used ALL of the eyewitness statements starting with Jamal ending with Robert to estimate a flight path. Go ahead, try it yourself and show me what you get. What is gained by ‘making a flight path,’ when you have no clue as to ‘when’ any of that took place? What good is a ‘flight path,’ when you have no working hypothesis about what really hit the Pentagon? :0) Please forgive, but I try to use the data of everyone in solving this case, but very little of anything from the CIT boys actually helps anyone at all IMHO. Alan Wallace saw the plane while standing directly in front of the Pentagon to say, Alan Wallace Account: Quote: Alan Wallace >> The plane had two big engines, appeared to be in level flight, and was only approximately 25 feet off the ground and only about 200 YARDS from our location. I later said the plane approached the Pentagon at about a 45 degree angle, but later drawing showed it was closer to 60 degrees. How many people see a problem with this picture? A 45-degree angle from the south is the exact angle from the far Route 27 Cloverleaf shown in green. However, the “North of Citgo Flight Path” is very much closer to a 90 degree ‘straight-on’ attack run NOT part of Alan Wallace’s testimony at all. The Pentagon damage (picture again) is more consistent with Alan’s first ’45-degree’ assessment FROM THE SOUTH and not any other trajectory heading. Perhaps Craig can find people willing to say they saw an airplane flying north, south, east or west on 9/11, but that changes NOTHING about what ‘the evidence’ says hit the Pentagon at 9:32 AM definitely coming from the SOUTH to create this damage. That does not even begin to address the photographic evidence showing a 20-inch diameter object that actually hit the Pentagon. And that does not even begin to address all of the Light Pole/Plane witnesses (keywords: “Lamp Poles”) that saw the PLANE ‘and’ Light Poles flying around. This time I will resist the temptation to attack the ‘CIT theorists,’ but please forgive if I see nothing of value in all your canvassing testimony combined. I will read all of your posts in hope of finding something to explain what really hit the Pentagon at 9:32 AM, so your data can be grafted into the larger Pentagon investigation. PS. Why is it that none of the CIT boys have a reply to "What Really Happened At The Pentagon" on 9/11? Please head over to my thread and point out any problems you see with 'my' theory. Thanks in advance, GL, Terral Edited by Terral, Jan 28 2008, 09:52 AM.



Craig Ranke CIT	Jan 28 2008, 10:36 AM Post #15
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Draw a line from where Jamal saw the plane to where the citgo witnesses saw the plane. Stop expecting any specific witness to be a computer. Think of all of their placements as being approximate and create the best estimation you can using ALL of their accounts. That's what we did. That is scientific, logical, and the most accurate way to interpret this data. Go ahead, do it and show me what you come up with.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Terral	Jan 28 2008, 12:05 PM Post #16
911Truther Posts: 87 Group: BANNED! Member #142 Joined: 01/20/08	Hi Craig: Are you writing ‘to’ anybody at all or just talking? I am trying to take what the CIT guys say seriously, but appear to be having the same problems from our previous encounters. Quote: Craig >> Draw a line from where Jamal saw the plane to where the citgo witnesses saw the plane . . . Well thank you very much. I suppose drawing lines between what all of your witnesses saw will explain what struck the Pentagon at 9:32 AM, according to the Official FAA Timeline. I suppose this is the most coherent CIT reply we can expect. Thanks for all your help . . . GL, Terral



Craig Ranke CIT	Jan 28 2008, 12:16 PM Post #17
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Caustic Logic Jan 28 2008, 04:34 AM 1) I understand you were in her home? This seemed to be the house indicated, but all I want to know is was it on that side of that street? I was not in her home I was on her front porch. Yes it was that side of the street. Quote: 2) She says she was in her den. Did she ever indicate which window she was looking out as she watched this plane? Yes it was the front window. She saw the "tail" of the plane headed towards Edward Paik coming from Jamal. Quote: 3) If so, what direction does that window face? Poe st. Quote: 4) Did she ever draw a flight path for you? And if so why not? Nope. The interview was published in it's entirety. I didn't have images prepared for people I did not know I would randomly find from canvassing. Only for the pre-arranged interviews. Quote: 5) She seemed to agree with you the path was not right along Columbia Pike. Did you gather any more specific clues about just what direction it WAS going? Yes. Jamal, Cindy, Veronica, Edward, and the citgo witnesses. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 28 2008, 12:18 PM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


bileduct	Feb 13 2008, 08:33 PM Post #18
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Craig Ranke CIT Jan 28 2008, 12:16 PM Caustic Logic Jan 28 2008, 04:34 AM 1) I understand you were in her home? This seemed to be the house indicated, but all I want to know is was it on that side of that street? I was not in her home I was on her front porch. Yes it was that side of the street. Quote: 2) She says she was in her den. Did she ever indicate which window she was looking out as she watched this plane? Yes it was the front window. She saw the "tail" of the plane headed towards Edward Paik coming from Jamal. Quote: 3) If so, what direction does that window face? Poe st. Craig, By your own word you have now placed "Mrs. Hubbard" on the west side of Poe Street, inside her house, looking out a window in her den facing towards the east on the morning of 9/11. "Mrs. Hubbard" gave a descriptive account of the plane she saw, including seeing the tail and maroon markings down it's side as well as giving specific clues as to it's direction including houses it flew between and trees that it flew over. Yet the flight path you have produced from her detailed account puts the plane to the west of Poe Street, effectively behind her and completely out of her sight. Am I to believe that CIT has decided that "Mrs. Hubbard" has embellished her account by describing a plane that, according to the CIT flight path, she could not have possibly seen, and if so, why should I now believe her account that the plane was white?
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 13 2008, 09:38 PM Post #19
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	bileduct Feb 13 2008, 08:33 PM Am I to believe that CIT has decided that "Mrs. Hubbard" has embellished her account by describing a plane that, according to the CIT flight path, she could not have possibly seen, and if so, why should I now believe her account that the plane was white? Mrs. Hubbard and Cindy both described the placement of the plane as best as they could given their awkward and difficult perspectives from inside their homes and not being in a position to see the plane approach at all. Neither described the plane as being directly over them so we must allow for a significant margin of error in their exact placements of the plane just as we should for all witnesses due to perspective issues. A jumbo jet at tree top level is not a common sight and would seem close regardless of it's exact placement. This image by Caustic Logic shows you how both flight paths (or any variation thereof) would still be within their line of sight: So, when considering the fact that Jamal and Edward both saw the plane as it approached, and both place the plane directly over them (Edward a bit more so than Jamal) they are infinitely better witnesses as to the exact location of the plane without the perspective handicaps that Cindy and Mrs. Hubbard both naturally had from being inside their homes. I give even more of an explanation for all of this in this thread. Now I have a question for you: Do you believe that Jamal saw the plane? Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Feb 13 2008, 09:49 PM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


bileduct	Feb 13 2008, 10:10 PM Post #20
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Craig Ranke CIT Feb 13 2008, 09:38 PM This image by Caustic Logic shows you how both flight paths (or any variation thereof) would still be within their line of sight: Oh no you don't. We are talking about Mrs. Hubbard here, Craig. Not Cindy. Mrs. Hubbard was facing to the east. NOT to the North as you would try to deceive here with CL's image. Cindy and Mrs. Hubbard DID NOT share the same view. You were there. You HAVE to know this. You have placed the flight path of the plane to the west, BEHIND Mrs. Hubbard and in the complete opposite direction of that she was looking.
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 13 2008, 11:03 PM Post #21
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	bileduct Feb 13 2008, 10:10 PM You have placed the flight path of the plane to the west, BEHIND Mrs. Hubbard and in the complete opposite direction of that she was looking. Nonsense. You have no idea which way she was looking. There is no reason to suggest she could not have been looking north out of her window that faces east.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Bitterman	Feb 13 2008, 11:49 PM Post #22
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08	Am I missing something? We're talking about old Mrs. Hubbard living in her cupboard.......and she only barely caught a glimpse of the tail........and Bileduct has a huge issue with this why? Craig just said he didn't get her to draw any lines on pictures.....he wasn't prepared for her, and he didn't use her info to really decide where the plane was. So again, what's the big deal here? Craig has replied nicely the whole time and has asked questions in reply and none of them have been answered either. Fill me in, what am I missing. Why are we worried about Mrs. Hubbard?
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 14 2008, 12:00 AM Post #23
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Bitterman Feb 13 2008, 11:49 PM Fill me in, what am I missing. Why are we worried about Mrs. Hubbard? Great question. The answer is because they will do anything to muddy up the waters and cast doubt. They are desperate to catch me in a lie or paint a picture like I am somehow being deceptive. But it won't work because I have not been deceptive and logic, reason, and TRUTH is on our side. Nothing Mrs. Hubbard says contradicts the north of the citgo and east of the potomac claims. Hey we need a new acronym! EOP!
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


bileduct	Feb 14 2008, 12:44 AM Post #24
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Bitterman Feb 13 2008, 11:49 PM Fill me in, what am I missing. Why are we worried about Mrs. Hubbard? The point about Mrs. Hubbard is to show that CIT often misrepresent or completely ignore what their own witnesses say. Mrs. Hubbard describes the plane heading towards I395 and yet CIT produce a flight path from her account showing the plane behind her and heading northbound toward the Navy Annex to join up with Edward Paik's account. In another example, I have seen Craig on at least two occasions use Mike Walter's account to support the plane performing a right bank/turn over the Navy Annex (which he desperately needs to support his NOC story), despite the fact that Walter describes a left bank/turn over Route 27.
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 14 2008, 12:49 AM Post #25
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	bileduct Feb 14 2008, 12:44 AM In another example, I have seen Craig on at least two occasions use Mike Walter's account to support the plane performing a right bank/turn over the Navy Annex (which he desperately needs to support his NOC story), despite the fact that Walter describes a left bank/turn over Route 27. Excuse me???? Quote him! He was allegedly on route 27! He does not describe the bank right in front of him. If he did that would STILL contradict the official story. You forget.......I had dinner at Mike Walter's house. He described the bank in detail to me, Aldo, Dylan, and Russell. He describes it as the plane is approaching, NOT right in front of him. Plus how could you really see a bank right in front of you? Back up your libelous claims with facts. Go ahead. Quote him and prove your point with images or retract your baseless attack.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


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


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2