Mike Walter and the Amazing Banking Plane

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

Mike Walter and the Amazing Banking Plane
Topic Started: Feb 14 2008, 03:27 AM (539 Views)
Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 15 2008, 01:05 AM Post #26
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	bileduct Feb 15 2008, 01:00 AM Craig Ranke CIT Feb 15 2008, 12:50 AM you are correct that Lagasse was referring to different trees...... So you agree that your video is dishonest then. Shameful! No. I agree that Domenick made an honest mistake in his video in that ONE simple regard but that the overall point still stands 100%. Mike Walter could not and did not see any alleged impact.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Gideon524	Feb 15 2008, 01:05 AM Post #27
Oh, you didn't know? Posts: 521 Group: Admins Member #4 Joined: 12/21/07	bileduct Feb 15 2008, 12:58 AM Problem is, you are a liar, Craig. Watch your mouth. Show some proof of his lie or put a lid on it right now.



Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 15 2008, 01:08 AM Post #28
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Gideon524 Feb 15 2008, 01:05 AM bileduct Feb 15 2008, 12:58 AM Problem is, you are a liar, Craig. Watch your mouth. Show some proof of his lie or put a lid on it right now. There is no proof Gid because I did not lie. He is twisting my claims out of context.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Gideon524	Feb 15 2008, 01:15 AM Post #29
Oh, you didn't know? Posts: 521 Group: Admins Member #4 Joined: 12/21/07	Craig Ranke CIT Feb 15 2008, 01:08 AM Gideon524 Feb 15 2008, 01:05 AM bileduct Feb 15 2008, 12:58 AM Problem is, you are a liar, Craig. Watch your mouth. Show some proof of his lie or put a lid on it right now. There is no proof Gid because I did not lie. He is twisting my claims out of context. Well then the obvious will state itself because if he doesn't put up or shut up with such an accusation, he will be suspended AGAIN.



Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 15 2008, 01:18 AM Post #30
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Gideon524 Feb 15 2008, 01:15 AM Well then the obvious will state itself because if he doesn't put up or shut up with such an accusation, he will be suspended AGAIN. Ok cool. I would think a longer suspension if not permanent would be in order. Prove your baseless accusation bileduct.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


bileduct	Feb 15 2008, 01:20 AM Post #31
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Craig Ranke CIT Feb 15 2008, 01:04 AM bileduct Feb 15 2008, 12:58 AM You told a good one yesterday, what was it? Oh that's right, you have no idea what direction Hubbard was looking when she saw the plane. Even though she sat there and told you it went between the house with the umbrella and the big house, and pulled up to get over some trees, with you offering the occasional "uh huh" and "ok", and finally adding that it had to have come from back of I395 and not up Columbia Pike... you had no idea what direction she was looking to have seen all of those things. That's evidence of your lying right there, Craig. Shoe fits.... wear it. YOU are the one being deceptive. I stated how just because her window faces east there is no reason to suggest she could only see east. I said I do not know the EXACT direction she was facing and that it doesn't matter because EYES MOVE and human vision is not directionally linear. You are taking my claims out of context and twisting them in a desperate effort to paint me as dishonest. Shameful! You are continuing to be deliberately dishonest. Quote: bileduct Feb 13 2008, 11:48 PM Oh, so she was not looking to the north then? I have no idea the exact direction. Perhaps it was part north part east. "Perhaps" The reason you claim to have no idea what direction she was looking is because you know that you would then be asked to identify the landmarks that she quoted the plane as flying between and over. You won't do this because you know that it will directly contradict your ridiculous flight path. You are purposely playing dumb. You were there when she told you what she saw. It is inconceivable that you now claim complete ignorance to what she was telling you, even though your participation in the recording of her testimony reveals that you had a good understanding of what she was demonstrating to you. Taking testimony out of context is your speciality, Craig. It's probably your finest and most enduring contribution to the truth movement.
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Bitterman	Feb 15 2008, 01:20 AM Post #32
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08	bileduct Feb 15 2008, 12:44 AM The trees you have identified only partially block the view of the Pentagon, which can still be seen to the right of the trees and through them if you look carefully. Easily reconciled. Shameful! That's all you got? "which can still be seen to the right of the trees and through them if you look carefully." ??? That's horrible man......oh god, if you went to court with "oh well you can still SORTA see the building!!!! right??" You'd be laughed out.......like.......that would actually count as evidence to you? Mr. Walters view was and IS a mess, to say the least. He dug his own pit on that one. He went along with it and he's gonna be taking it in the pooper by Bubba in prison eventually. You know why I know Mikey couldn't have seen that plane hit?? Google Earth is your friend. Measured out the distance from Mikes' spot to the Pentagon....... 446 yards. I put it in yards because when I'm out at the range shooting targets with my rifles, I don't shoot past 300 yards with Iron sights. You know, I can barely make out a target 1 by 1.5 feet. So Mikey was looking over a slight hill, through some tree's to where the plane would have been totally covered by those tree's and coving the distance where mike could see the plane until "impact" in less than a second. His testimony is that it hit "very low"........the Pentagon is 5 floors, so the tail section would not have even been in view! When he would have lost it behind the tree's and his view obstructed, his testimony is pretty much bunk. A court would see this. What you're saying is that Mike had superfuckinghuman vision.........he could zoom in somehow and see 446 yards with PERFECT DETAIL? 1/4 of a mile? With perfect detail? 405 Meters? With the detail of a guy who was right next to it? I would call him a liar and a collaborator to conspiracy. I'd go to court too......I'd fucking go and show CIT's video and then this shit would be in full motion. No idiot could look at that evidence and still side with you, especially when you CANNOT PROVE THE PLANE HIT THE BUILDING. All your expert witnesses are freakin' ninjas with ninja vision? You tell me if you can make out any detail like what Mike says on anything as it zooms in and out of your vision at a few hundred miles per hour. An object that you don't even know about until it's RIGHT ON TOP OF YOU? You tell me how that is possible? People have no sense of scale.......
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08


bileduct	Feb 15 2008, 01:28 AM Post #33
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Gideon524 Feb 15 2008, 01:15 AM Craig Ranke CIT Feb 15 2008, 01:08 AM Gideon524 Feb 15 2008, 01:05 AM bileduct Feb 15 2008, 12:58 AM Problem is, you are a liar, Craig. Watch your mouth. Show some proof of his lie or put a lid on it right now. There is no proof Gid because I did not lie. He is twisting my claims out of context. Well then the obvious will state itself because if he doesn't put up or shut up with such an accusation, he will be suspended AGAIN. I have put forth my case regarding Craig's manipulations of Mrs. Hubbard's testimony. Go and listen to her for yourself and then tell me if Craig's claims concerning her are correct. Quote: Mrs. Hubbard did not describe a flight path. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=25823&t=61193 Along with the various claims he now makes to not knowing what direction she was looking in when she was describing the houses that the plane flew between and the trees that the plane flew over. This is deliberate dishonesty. When something isn't convenient to Craig suddenly his memory short circuits and he doesn't remember what was said or what happened.
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Gideon524	Feb 15 2008, 01:28 AM Post #34
Oh, you didn't know? Posts: 521 Group: Admins Member #4 Joined: 12/21/07	bileduct Feb 15 2008, 01:20 AM Craig Ranke CIT Feb 15 2008, 01:04 AM bileduct Feb 15 2008, 12:58 AM You told a good one yesterday, what was it? Oh that's right, you have no idea what direction Hubbard was looking when she saw the plane. Even though she sat there and told you it went between the house with the umbrella and the big house, and pulled up to get over some trees, with you offering the occasional "uh huh" and "ok", and finally adding that it had to have come from back of I395 and not up Columbia Pike... you had no idea what direction she was looking to have seen all of those things. That's evidence of your lying right there, Craig. Shoe fits.... wear it. YOU are the one being deceptive. I stated how just because her window faces east there is no reason to suggest she could only see east. I said I do not know the EXACT direction she was facing and that it doesn't matter because EYES MOVE and human vision is not directionally linear. You are taking my claims out of context and twisting them in a desperate effort to paint me as dishonest. Shameful! You are continuing to be deliberately dishonest. Quote: bileduct Feb 13 2008, 11:48 PM Oh, so she was not looking to the north then? I have no idea the exact direction. Perhaps it was part north part east. "Perhaps" The reason you claim to have no idea what direction she was looking is because you know that you would then be asked to identify the landmarks that she quoted the plane as flying between and over. You won't do this because you know that it will directly contradict your ridiculous flight path. You are purposely playing dumb. You were there when she told you what she saw. It is inconceivable that you now claim complete ignorance to what she was telling you, even though your participation in the recording of her testimony reveals that you had a good understanding of what she was demonstrating to you. Taking testimony out of context is your speciality, Craig. It's probably your finest and most enduring contribution to the truth movement. You made your point. Now stick to the topic or take a break.



Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 15 2008, 01:33 AM Post #35
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	bileduct Feb 15 2008, 01:20 AM "Perhaps" The reason you claim to have no idea what direction she was looking is because you know that you would then be asked to identify the landmarks that she quoted the plane as flying between and over. You won't do this because you know that it will directly contradict your ridiculous flight path. You are purposely playing dumb. You were there when she told you what she saw. It is inconceivable that you now claim complete ignorance to what she was telling you, even though your participation in the recording of her testimony reveals that you had a good understanding of what she was demonstrating to you. Taking testimony out of context is your speciality, Craig. It's probably your finest and most enduring contribution to the truth movement. I said "perhaps" because there is no way that ANYONE could know the exact direction. Within the conversation at the time my point was simply that she would not be limited to ONLY seeing eastward as you had implied because that is the direction her window faced. The landmarks she is referring to are all northeast of her as is the Pentagon. I have never claimed ignorance to this. I have only stated that due to perspective issues it's impossible to suggest that she would be perfectly accurate as to exactly how close or far from those landmarks the plane really was. You have not even come close to proving a lie. Enjoy the jref forum sans Gravy during your time off. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Feb 15 2008, 01:48 AM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 15 2008, 01:35 AM Post #36
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Gideon524 Feb 15 2008, 01:28 AM You made your point. Now stick to the topic or take a break. He is did not prove a lie. He did not even make a case for a lie. He is simply twisting my claims out of context. He built a complex discussion, twisted my claims during it and is twisting my claims of the twisted discussion NOW. HE is the one being deceptive.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Gideon524	Feb 15 2008, 01:37 AM Post #37
Oh, you didn't know? Posts: 521 Group: Admins Member #4 Joined: 12/21/07	Craig Ranke CIT Feb 15 2008, 01:35 AM Gideon524 Feb 15 2008, 01:28 AM You made your point. Now stick to the topic or take a break. He is did not prove a lie. He did not even make a case for a lie. He is simply twisting my claims out of context. He built a complex discussion, twisted my claims during it and is twisting my claims of the twisted discussion NOW. HE is the one being deceptive. I wasn't concurring with him, Craig. I'm just saying, he tried, now he either drops it or takes a suspension. Edited by Gideon524, Feb 15 2008, 01:42 AM.



bileduct	Feb 15 2008, 02:12 AM Post #38
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Craig Ranke CIT Feb 15 2008, 01:33 AM The landmarks she is referring to are all northeast of her as is the Pentagon. I have never claimed ignorance to this. Excellent. Now place them on the map for me, please. I'd like you to point out: A) the house with the umbrella B) the big house C) the trees the plane pulled up over Thankyou for your time.
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Gideon524	Feb 15 2008, 02:26 AM Post #39
Oh, you didn't know? Posts: 521 Group: Admins Member #4 Joined: 12/21/07	Bileduct had this to say in a nice email to his friend, Craig Ranke... Quote: My God, man, you have absolutely no balls whatsoever, you lying, cheating, indignant cunt. You are your pack of merry fuckwits are all fraudulent horsecock swallowers. From Aldo calling people traitors all the way to your seemingly 8 year old sycophant Dom who posts fraudulent videos (which you agreed was fraudulent) and concocts fucking ridiculous theories about 30 foot poles hidden away in white vans. You're a miserable fucking cunt smear whose only contribution to life in general is to stir up a bunch of brainwashed dumbfucks with your ridiculous assertions of conspiracy. You don't have a single witness that can prove any of the bullshit you spin, no matter how you spin it. Much like yourself, I was a conspiracy theorist at one point and one day I finally woke up to the bullshit I was being fed by arseholes such as yourself. This happens to most people I know, except for the ones that marry themselves to their theories but they don't have the balls to admit that they were wrong or they still wanna keep selling those $15 DVDs. I truly hope that you have a moment of clarity one day and realise how much horsecock you're feeding to people, and maybe you'll feel a little ashamed of yourself. I might consider you to be a human being on that day but until then you are nothing but a complete fucking joke of a lifeform whose contribution to the truth movement is, and let's be charitable here, highly fucking comical at best. Go fuck yourself, cocksmoker. Much love. bileduct PS. Are you going to cry to the admins again, you attention whore? PPS. More hugs and kisses. Folks, this a place of intellectual discussion and civil disagreement, not an elementary playground. This kind of PM is highly immature and serves no purpose other than to inflate one's ego rather than reach a respectful understanding. It also illustrates one's lack of responsibility and one's apathy to respecting those who disagree with you in order to concentrate on the larger task, debating the issues like civil human beings. In English, if you wanna fling shit, go play in a monkey cage. Goodbye, bileduct. Try again when you grow up. Please learn to play friendly, children. I don't like having to be a prick. Thread closed. Edited by Gideon524, Feb 15 2008, 02:31 AM.



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


« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2