Merged - Questions And Comments For Pft From Another Forum... Options

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Yet you are unable to cite a single one who respects you and values your opinion.

I have already made the case that I believe that Paul is essentially such a person, even if he doesn't consider himself to be on a particular side. KP has also expressed his appreciation over in the pit, as have others in the past.

False.

Paul does NOT represent CIT or P4T. Neither does KP or anyone else who is not an official spokesperson for P4T or CIT. In fact that world is limited to 3 people: Aldo, Rob, and myself.

Even if Paul DID choose sides in this discussion (he does not) he has NOTHING to do with the position of either of our organizations.

I'm attempting to present the CIT/PFT side of the discussion. You are certainly a part of that discussion, but you're not the sole voice.

Correct. Aldo and Rob are the only other voices and I can tell you with 100% certainty that NONE of us appreciate you speaking for us or representing us in any way shape or form. Nor do we ant you to "mediate" any discussions with us involved.

I'm well aware that you don't like the way I present the CIT/PFT side of the discussion. I know that you've been asking me to stop. And you have, at times, succeeded in getting me to stop temporarily. Others, on the other hand, think that I do a relatively good job. I hadn't even heard of the pit until Paul told me about it.

You are unable to cite any because none of these "others" support you either.

You are FRAUDULENTLY representing the "voice" of P4T and CIT against our will and I am demanding that you stop.

If you have any decency whatsoever you will agree to stop.

You're right, he didn't. He's explained to me that his position is more complicated. He tries to give everyone their best shot at making their arguments, and this is also what I try to do. Like me, he thinks that this whole discussion is at times fairly dark and like me, he admits that he doesn't understand all of the points. I'm going to try to talk to him more in depth when he has more time.

So now you are speaking for him AGAIN by trying to clarify HIS position while admitting that he does not appreciate it????

Unbelievable!

What a piece of work.

What amazing gall.

The fact that you would speak for others who have outright told you not to is seriously bizarre and demented behavior.

Have you no shame?

I agree. However, I have claimed that some people who are involved in this discussion -do- value my input, however, and you haven't shown any evidence that this isn't true.

"Involved in this discussion"???

So that includes anyone who participates in the forums??

This is utterly amazing.

So you have just AGREED that you can not be an effective moderator if neither side of the discussion respects you or values your input and I have already clearly shown how neither side does particularly since nobody but Aldo, Rob, and myself can speak for CIT or P4T. In fact Aldo and I can't speak for P4T and Rob can't speak for CIT.

Furthermore you can not cite a single individual who is "involved in this discussion" (Paul NEVER debates or discusses the info publicly) who respects you and values your input.

However anyone who is not Aldo, myself, or Rob is not in a position to make the determination one way or the other anyway.

Go away scott75.

We do not want you speaking for us or representing us in any way shape or forum.

We see you as a detriment to our efforts.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Mar 31 2010, 11:18 PM

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Alright, something that's on topic again. Brian believes that "[t]he flyover is impossible because the plane would have had to fly over the freeway at a low altitude."

I don't currently know if:
1- The plane would indeed have had to have flown over the freeway at a low altitude.
2- This would have made the flyover impossible.

How could you possibly not know these things?

Are you demonstrating your ignorance or playing your disingenuous game again?

After daily study on this topic for month after month you still don't realize that the airport is right next to the Pentagon and that the highway is right between them?

(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flyover%20movie/042.jpg)

You still don't understand that low flying planes are over the highway every few minutes of every day of the year?

(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/planepentagon.jpg)
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/landing1.gif)
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/landing3.gif)

Obviously this is FAR from impossible and obviously any plane that flew over the Pentagon as low as described by all the witnesses including Roosevelt Roberts would have to have been "low".

This is beyond tiresome and pathetic.

Just go away.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Mar 31 2010, 11:28 PM

[scott75]

You've made a lot of claims Craig. I'll take this apart piece by piece...

I have already made the case that I believe that Paul is essentially such a person, even if he doesn't consider himself to be on a particular side. KP has also expressed his appreciation over in the pit, as have others in the past.

False.

Paul does NOT represent CIT or P4T.

I never said they did.

Neither does KP or anyone else who is not an official spokesperson for P4T or CIT.

I never said they did either.

In fact that world is limited to 3 people: Aldo, Rob, and myself.

Even if Paul DID choose sides in this discussion (he does not) he has NOTHING to do with the position of either of our organizations.

I or anyone else don't have to be an official representative of anyone to argue for or against a theory that someone or some organization has come up with. I have never claimed to represent PFT and I've made it clear that I've been banned from CIT in various forums, so clearly I'm not representing you and Aldo either.

[scott75]

I'm attempting to present the CIT/PFT side of the discussion. You are certainly a part of that discussion, but you're not the sole voice.

Correct. Aldo and Rob are the only other voices and I can tell you with 100% certainty that NONE of us appreciate you speaking for us or representing us in any way shape or form.

Again, I've never claimed to represent any of you.

Nor do we want you to "mediate" any discussions with us involved.

I'm simply exercising my right to express my views with others. I believe that this sometimes leads to mediation, although I think I personally would like a little mediation when it comes to my relationship with you.

I'm well aware that you don't like the way I present the CIT/PFT side of the discussion. I know that you've been asking me to stop. And you have, at times, succeeded in getting me to stop temporarily. Others, on the other hand, think that I do a relatively good job. I hadn't even heard of the pit until Paul told me about it.

You are unable to cite any because none of these "others" support you either.

I've already cited a few who appreciate my efforts to a greater or lesser extent.

[scott75]

You're right, he didn't. He's explained to me that his position is more complicated. He tries to give everyone their best shot at making their arguments, and this is also what I try to do. Like me, he thinks that this whole discussion is at times fairly dark and like me, he admits that he doesn't understand all of the points. I'm going to try to talk to him more in depth when he has more time.

So now you are speaking for him AGAIN by trying to clarify HIS position while admitting that he does not appreciate it????

I've talked to him since. He may not have thought that my remarks were perfect, but he appreciates that I withheld mentioning something in the above statement. He's mentioned that he'd like to get out of this conversation so your help in this would be appreciated.

This post has been edited by scott75: Apr 1 2010, 12:10 AM

[scott75]

I agree. However, I have claimed that some people who are involved in this discussion -do- value my input, however, and you haven't shown any evidence that this isn't true.

"Involved in this discussion"???

So that includes anyone who participates in the forums??

Anyone who participates in the discussions involving the flyover theory or its variants, yes.

This is utterly amazing.

So you have just AGREED that you can not be an effective moderator if neither side of the discussion respects you or values your input and I have already clearly shown how neither side does particularly since nobody but Aldo, Rob, and myself can speak for CIT or P4T.

You don't appreciate the fact that the belief in the flyover theory or its variants aren't limited to you, Aldo and Rob.

Furthermore you can not cite a single individual who is "involved in this discussion" (Paul NEVER debates or discusses the info publicly) who respects you and values your input.

Paul doesn't want to be involved in this particular discussion between us, so I'll simply end this post by saying that I've already said enough on this subject.

[scott75]

How could you possibly not know these things?

Not only was it possible, it was the true state of affairs. You've simply overestimated my knowledge base on the subject once more. I do remember the issue of planes being around there all the time at that point in time, but I would have had to have been going on more information than that as well as the assumption that the pentaplane headed for Reagan National after the flyover in order to get to the conclusion that the plane must have crossed the freeway on a low altitude. My understanding is that PFT doesn't even go as far as to say that a flyover necessarily occurred, so even if I'd known about the placement of the freeway in relation to the pentagon and Reagan National, that still wouldn't have led me to necessarily assume that the pentaplane would have had to have crossed the freeway after the flyover.

Obviously this is FAR from impossible and obviously any plane that flew over the Pentagon as low as described by all the witnesses including Roosevelt Roberts would have to have been "low".

Thank you.

This post has been edited by scott75: Apr 1 2010, 12:24 AM

[Craig Ranke CIT]

The point is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to be a "mediator" between two "sides" on this issue since neither side respects you or values your input.

This is a FACT that you already agreed to.

One of the "sides" that you are trying to mediate = CIT and P4T, not the supporters of CIT and P4T.

You chose to cite Paul Tassopulos and KP as representing people within the CIT side who allegedly respect you and value your input (without quoting them and while being told not to reference at least one of them).

This has nothing to do with what we were discussing and demonstrates that you are unable or refusing to follow what is being said.

I never said you can't take part in discussions of this issue. It's still a free country. I am stating that you can't effectively mediate a discussion when neither of the sides of the discussion respect you or value your input.

And when you try to represent our position in debate you fail miserably while having a very curious lack of ability to retain the most simple details when informed. Ridiculously simple things like the fact that planes can and do fly low over the highway and that the flyover plane would have been "low".

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Apr 1 2010, 01:08 AM

[scott75]

The point is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to be a "mediator" between two "sides" on this issue since neither side respects you or values your input.

This is a FACT that you already agreed to.

No I haven't. Now it's true that KP and Rob don't exactly think that my value is stellar, but if they thought it was non-existent, I'm sure they wouldn't bother to answer any of my questions. We also both know that there is one person that I know who has supported my efforts with more vigour and who sides with your arguments, but who would like to get out of this conversation, perhaps in part because he'd like to maintain a good relationship with you.

One of the "sides" that you are trying to mediate = CIT and P4T, not the supporters of CIT and P4T.

My definition of the no-plane-crash side includes both the official members of CIT and P4T, but it also includes their supporters.

You chose to cite Paul Tassopulos and KP as representing people within the CIT side who allegedly respect you and value your input (without quoting them and while being told not to reference at least one of them).

I have never claimed that Paul or KP represent CIT.

I never said you can't take part in discussions of this issue. It's still a free country.

I'm glad we agree on that anyway.

And when you try to represent our position in debate

Ahhh... now this is somewhat different. I have made it very clear that I have never tried to represent CIT or PFT. -However-, I -have- tried to represent your stance. I've frequently quoted things that you, Rob and others at PFT and CIT have said in order to better represent the thoughts of those whose theories I support.

you fail miserably while having a very curious lack of ability to retain the most simple details when informed. Ridiculously simple things like the fact that planes can and do fly low over the highway and that the flyover plane would have been "low".

You claim that I'd been informed of this in the past; perhaps this is true. But you haven't shown evidence that this is true. I know I remember hearing from you or your site that planes flew near the pentagon all the time, but that's a far cry from knowing that they flew low over the highway/freeway all the time.

This post has been edited by scott75: Apr 1 2010, 06:28 AM

[Craig Ranke CIT]

No I haven't. Now it's true that KP and Rob don't exactly think that my value is stellar, but if they thought it was non-existent, I'm sure they wouldn't bother to answer any of my questions. We also both know that there is one person that I know who has supported my efforts with more vigour and who sides with your arguments, but who would like to get out of this conversation, perhaps in part because he'd like to maintain a good relationship with you.

So now you are proclaiming that Paul supports your efforts with "vigour" and that he "sides" with us.

When will this end?

It doesn't matter either way. I have been discussing the fact that you can not possibly be an effective "mediator" on this issue and the FACT is that you are NOT trying to "mediate" Paul or any of our supporters.

You have been trying to mediate CIT and P4T against our detractors when NONE of us respect you or value your input in the least.

My definition of the no-plane-crash side includes both the official members of CIT and P4T, but it also includes their supporters.

You are still desperately weaseling out of the context of the discussion (your inability to effectively mediate) by using your own irrelevant "definition". You are NOT trying to "mediate" our supporters. You are forcing your mediation on CIT and P4T against their detractors.

I have never claimed that Paul or KP represent CIT.

But you have inappropriately spoken for both Paul and KP without quoting them. You aren't trying to mediate them. The fact that you keep bringing them into this discussion is abominable.

You are unable to be an effective MEDIATOR between the two sides in this discussion because neither side respects you or values your input. This is a fact.

Ahhh... now this is somewhat different. I have made it very clear that I have never tried to represent CIT or PFT. -However-, I -have- tried to represent your stance. I've frequently quoted things that you, Rob and others at PFT and CIT have said in order to better represent the thoughts of those whose theories I support.

Yes you have FRAUDULENTLY and erroneously tried to represent our "stance" and our "voice" by making claims WITHOUT quoting us. Sure you've quoted us also but more frequently than not you do not quote us while representing our "stance" and our "voice" and misrepresenting our claims. Nobody else tries to do that. This is why I can't stand you. This is why I don't trust you and I don't want you "mediating" ANYTHING that has to do with us. Since the other side is equally distrusting and non-sympathetic to your lame attempts at mediation it is impossible for you to be effective.

Time to give up that role.

You claim that I'd been informed of this in the past; perhaps this is true. But you haven't shown evidence that this is true. I know I remember hearing from you or your site that planes flew near the pentagon all the time, but that's a far cry from knowing that they flew low over the highway/freeway all the time.

Wow.

So you haven't watched NSA? You haven't read the FAQ's on our site or seen any of the multitudes of threads in ALL forums that at one point show an overhead map depicting the location of the highway in relation to the Pentagon and airport?

You are requiring me to provide "evidence" that you have???

Are you unable to use google and pull up a map yourself?

After months and months of continuous discussion for MANY hours a day on this topic if you aren't aware of this simple and basic fact by now there is absolutely no hope for you.

It's this INSANE level of disingenuous denial or else chronic inability to retain the most simple information that makes your input worthless and even damaging.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Apr 1 2010, 10:28 AM

[Craig Ranke CIT]

No matter how many times specific issues are addressed in detail you ignore all previous posts and remain completely ignorant on the matter so you can attempt to play "mediator".

For instance Good keeps continually referencing my alleged "lie" about 737's and 757's landing at both runways at Reagan.

You have gone so far as to CONCEDE to Good that he is correct without lifting a finger to read my responses, think about the relevance (or lack of relevance) of the question, or research the answer for yourself.

This type of negligence amounts to disinfo on your part as you fraudulently represent my "voice".

Brian Good says:

"I've shown how Ranke lied in claiming runway 15 was used by 757s"

And your response is:

No one seems to disagree with you on this, so I'll assume that this is true for now. But pointing out that Ranke made a small mistake doesn't mean that he was trying to be deceptive.

You'll ASSUME that it's true??! THIS is how you typically argue in our favor and why you are an absolute detriment to this discussion.

It's not a lie OR a "mistake" and I have explained this in detail and provided video recorded evidence to support it. Of course you don't bother to demand proof from him that 737's and 757's DON'T land at both runways. He provides ZERO evidence that I was "mistaken" or that I "lied" yet you just accept that I was mistaken without a cursory check into my previous responses.

If you actually cared about retaining the information that we've already gone over ad nauseum you would have read the threads in "the pit" where I participated and realized this already. But apparently you don't care. Apparently your only interest is in meddling in the discussion as a false "mediator" while putting forth lame arguments and whitewashing the baseless attacks of our detractors and allowing the same accusations to keep being asserted even though they have already been debunked many times over.

You continually either play clueless or remain clueless by not bothering to read (or retain) the prior discussions.

This continuous behavior on your part reinforces the lies spewed by Brian Good. It goes like this:

1. He makes bogus accusations.

2. I answer them in extreme detail.

3. He ignores my answers and continuously claims I never answered.

4. I stop engaging in a pointless discussion with someone who refuses to accept my answers.

5. You come around and either play dumb or refuse to read my answers as a means to remain ignorant while you concede points and bring the same questions back to me again in a lame attempt to play "mediator".

Here is where I explained IN DETAIL on December 14th how the entire question of exactly what planes mostly use exactly what runway is COMPLETELY irrelevant to our claims:
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.ph...mp;postcount=81

I made it even more clear here:
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.ph...p;postcount=128

And here:
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.ph...p;postcount=133

Yes he claims it's due to "foreshortening" but he is wrong. I know because I was there and I personally SAW how these planes were landing with 2 different approaches, one closer than the other. ANYONE can go there and plainly see this.

Here's the real kicker: Brian Good has already ADMITTED that 757's use runway 15!

More quick and dirty work says that A319s and A320s and even 757s sometimes take off from runway 15.

So how come you don't know this stuff, Craig, given all your pilot friends. Can't you get some planespotters to help? Why not interview the ATCs?

source

So he concedes the very point that he is STILL to this day (over 3 months later) claiming I "lied" about and that YOU fraudulently conceded I was "mistaken" about! Note how while he concedes it he even tries to suggest that I don't know this (even though it was allegedly my "lie" in the first place) and that I need "planespotters" to help even though I provided video of me on the scene being the "planespotter"!

So both runways are used by planes of ALL sizes. He concedes it and of course provides zero evidence to the contrary even WHILE refusing to accept my video evidence supporting the notion.

But again this entire question of WHICH type of planes mostly use WHICH runway is ENTIRELY irrelevant to our argument anyway! We simply note how low flying planes are constantly in the airspace near the building. This helped facilitate the deception, period.

People don't study which runway the exact types of planes mostly use nor does it matter. PARTICULARLY since planes of all sizes use BOTH runways as conceded by Brian Good.

This is why you are a horrible mediator, terrible debater, and even worse of a "student".

There are only a couple threads where I participated in that forum and I was very thorough. READ the threads and REFERENCE them and stop repeating his bogus arguments as if they haven't been answered and bringing them back to us to have to break down for you in extreme detail like this AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN while you ignorantly concede bogus points to him and keep failing to retain a shred of information that we provide.

[scott75]

...it's true that KP and Rob don't exactly think that my value is stellar, but if they thought it was non-existent, I'm sure they wouldn't bother to answer any of my questions. We also both know that there is one person that I know who has supported my efforts with more vigour and who sides with your arguments, but who would like to get out of this conversation, perhaps in part because he'd like to maintain a good relationship with you.

So now you are proclaiming that Paul supports your efforts with "vigour" and that he "sides" with us.

Craig, after Paul told me that he didn't want to be in this conversation, I've been trying to get him out, but you keep on forcing me to go back to him. Let's just end his involvement in this discussion now.

It doesn't matter either way. I have been discussing the fact that you can not possibly be an effective "mediator" on this issue and the FACT is that you are NOT trying to "mediate" Paul or any of our supporters.

If you don't like the term "mediate", how about we just settle on the idea that I'm trying to understand why various people disagree with each other. A clear example is Hoffman/Legge/Brian Good's views vs. CIT/PFT, but there are others as well.

You have been trying to mediate CIT and P4T against our detractors when NONE of us respect you or value your input in the least.

Let's just agree to disagree on this one, shall we?

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Let's just agree to disagree on this one, shall we?

Absolutely not.

It is YOUR term.

It is what I object to.

Your disingenuous behavior is facilitated under the guise of mediation and is a detriment to 9/11 truth.

[scott75]

Absolutely not.

It is YOUR term.

It is what I object to.

Your disingenuous behavior is facilitated under the guise of mediation and is a detriment to 9/11 truth.

It's just a word Craig. By the way, I do intend to respond to the rest of what you said; because of our somewhat difficult relationship, I doubt it'll be easy, but perhaps it'll be beneficial for both of us if I do. Right now, I think I should get going though.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

It's just a word Craig. By the way, I do intend to respond to the rest of what you said; because of our somewhat difficult relationship, I doubt it'll be easy, but perhaps it'll be beneficial for both of us if I do. Right now, I think I should get going though.

Yep it's just a word and I agree with you that it is an accurate one to describe how you attempt to communicate this extremely important life or death world historical issue. But you are horrible at it and your efforts are detrimental to truth as explained in my last post.

The PROBLEM here is that you use your self-appointed "mediator" status as an excuse to remain ignorant or play ignorant so you can continue to give EVERYONE the "benefit of the doubt" no matter how much they have already established themselves as dishonest or disingenuous.

My last post provides a perfect example of this and it is VERY typical of your M.O.

This is evident by how little substance your posts typically have and how rarely you actually quote and source information. You typically paraphrase and even preface it with something like "I believe Craig has said..." which is almost always an incorrect or watered-down version of my position.

But by replying this way it enables you to avoid going back and reading the threads so you can keep up the impression that you are blissfully ignorant regarding the details of the discussion and what has been already said in the past. It also allows you to quickly reply to each and every little line with one word responses like "Alright" or open ended empty statements like "we'll have to agree to disagree" while making virtually NO effort whatsoever to cite the previous relevant discussions or get to the bottom of the facts. Because the facts expose people like Brian Good and it's clear that your appraoch is to bring CIT and our detractors down to the same level. As if we are just as irrational as they are.

Here's yet another example of this subtly manipulative approach:

Brian continues to absurdly claim that I ran away from debate. Everybody who has followed this discussion knows it isn't true as has been proven by my debate challenge that you inappropriately posted in proving you are aware of it.

Instead of mentioning (and linking) this thread PROVING that I did NOT run from debate this is your repeated response:

As to Craig, as I also mentioned, I think he simply got tired of debating you.

http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.ph...mp;postcount=80

That suggests that I did run from debate when you know FULL WELL that I did not and that the opposite is true.

Since you post on this topic for hours and hours on a daily basis you have no excuse to not be aware of my thread in the "CIT response" forum fully addressing this and linking to ALL of the previous discussions with Brian Good where I allegedly "ran" from debate:

Brian Good fails to accept CIT debate challenge, but vows to continue attacks

Brian Good is the one who failed to accept my challenge to civil debate. This is an established fact.

But as it stands, once again, the facts don't concern you. You don't want to challenge Good on the fact that HE was the one who ran from debate while making it perfectly clear that I did NOT run from debate because you are more interested in playing the role of clueless mediator while floating a false impression of what really went down. If you accurately relayed the facts it would expose the lies of Brian Good and that would not enable you to justifiably continue giving him "the benefit of the doubt".

Just like you failed to appropriately address the irrelevant and false "Craig lied about large planes using runway 15" claim (despite it having been spelled out in extreme detail already) while going so far as to falsely CONCEDE that I was "mistaken" you also falsely conceded that I ran from debate by saying that I "simply got tired of debating". I know for a fact that you know better proving you are dishonest.

The fact is that I did NOT grow tired of "debate", I grew tired of his personal attacks yet STILL agreed to formally debate him in a neutral moderated forum where such attacks are not allowed. I spelled all this out in the OP that I know you read:

He has fraudulently accused us of running away from him in debate when the fact is that I have debated him thoroughly until I simply grew tired of his personal attacks.

That being said if he is able to conduct a civil debate by following the rules laid out in this forum without engaging in personal attacks, pejorative characterizations, and antagonistic sarcasm I will have no problem addressing any "issues" he has with CIT and our work directly in the "ultimate combat arena" under the guide lines that have been laid out there.
Brian Good challenged to debate by CIT

THIS is why I will not post in "the pit". It is clearly unmoderated while libelous personal attacks are obviously permitted.

So instead of quoting me or accurately relaying the facts you have opted to once again mischaracterize my position in a FRAUDULENT manner by insinuating that Brian Good is correct and that I DID run from debate.

This is how you roll scott75.

This is what you CONSTANTLY do and is exactly why I don't trust you and find you to be arguably the most deceptive and manipulative forum troll I have ever had the displeasure to have to deal with.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Apr 1 2010, 05:51 PM

[scott75]

You are NOT trying to "mediate" our supporters. You are forcing your mediation on CIT and P4T against their detractors.

Look, how about we do away with the mediate term, since you seem to be so opposed to me using it. I'm trying to communicate between people who hold opposing views. Clearly, this communication works better when both people feel comfortable talking to me; in your case, it's clearly not the best of fits, but I think it's gotten some results even there.

I have never claimed that Paul or KP represent CIT.

But you have inappropriately spoken for both Paul and KP without quoting them. You aren't trying to mediate them. The fact that you keep bringing them into this discussion is abominable.

Actually, I have quoted KP, just not in regards to his feelings on me; but that's hardly necessary, as he's spoken on this in this very thread. As to Paul, I wasn't aware that he wouldn't want to get into this discussion; you put me in a difficult spot, because, as far as I was concerned, Paul was the ace up my sleeve; it was rather difficult to both stop talking about him even as you were asking where I felt my support was coming from.

You are unable to be an effective MEDIATOR between the two sides in this discussion because neither side respects you or values your input. This is a fact.

I think that this discussion is rather hard to find a mediator for. Perhaps the person who best gets along with various people on both sides would be Paul, but he's not much of a forum poster; this leaves something of a vacuum, which I have at times filled.

Ahhh... now this is somewhat different. I have made it very clear that I have never tried to represent CIT or PFT. -However-, I -have- tried to represent your stance. I've frequently quoted things that you, Rob and others at PFT and CIT have said in order to better represent the thoughts of those whose theories I support.

Yes you have FRAUDULENTLY and erroneously tried to represent our "stance" and our "voice" by making claims WITHOUT quoting us. Sure you've quoted us also but more frequently than not you do not quote us while representing our "stance" and our "voice" and misrepresenting our claims.

Craig, while I may get your points a bit wrong sometimes, I think my mistakes pale in comparison to the mistakes that your detractors make. And despite your view that I haven't learned anything from what you've told me, I have. It's just that there are so many things to learn; it takes a fair amount of time.

Nobody else tries to do that. This is why I can't stand you. This is why I don't trust you and I don't want you "mediating" ANYTHING that has to do with us. Since the other side is equally distrusting and non-sympathetic to your lame attempts at mediation it is impossible for you to be effective.

I maintain that I get along fairly well with the other side, considering the fact that it's clear that I'm a supporter of the flyover theory. In fact, other than Paul, (who doesn't claim to be a flyover supporter but who certainly talks to both sides of the issue), I challenge you to find any flyover supporter who gets along better with the opposition.

This post has been edited by scott75: Apr 2 2010, 04:39 AM

[scott75]

You claim that I'd been informed of this in the past; perhaps this is true. But you haven't shown evidence that this is true. I know I remember hearing from you or your site that planes flew near the pentagon all the time, but that's a far cry from knowing that they flew low over the highway/freeway all the time.

Wow.

So you haven't watched NSA?

I believe I have; I've certainly seen parts of it, and I know that it contains clips from other videos that I have seen. I will assume that it was on there, but you have to remember that seeing a video once doesn't mean that a person will remember everything in it after watching it.

You haven't read the FAQ's on our site

I believe I've read some of them, but the same memory rule applies.

or seen any of the multitudes of threads in ALL forums that at one point show an overhead map depicting the location of the highway in relation to the Pentagon and airport?

Perhaps I've seen some. The thing you're not thinking of is that when people look at things, they don't necessarily pay attention to all the components of the image. Frequently, they are drawn to one aspect or another and disregard the rest. Furthermore, there's also the issue that PFT, for one, doesn't speculate as to what happened to the plane after it reached the pentagon. Given this, the flight path of the plane -after- it reached the pentagon isn't something that's been agreed upon here, atleast.

[scott75]

No matter how many times specific issues are addressed in detail you ignore all previous posts and remain completely ignorant on the matter so you can attempt to play "mediator".

I disagree with that statement.

For instance Good keeps continually referencing my alleged "lie" about 737's and 757's landing at both runways at Reagan.

You have gone so far as to CONCEDE to Good that he is correct

No, I haven't.

without lifting a finger to read my responses,

Ranke, I've read many of your posts, but I'm not going to go searching through your posts to see if you've already responded to x or y point that Brian has made. Ideally, someone who knows the right answers would be able to respond to Brian, but failing this, I do the best I can.

think about the relevance (or lack of relevance) of the question, or research the answer for yourself.

You know what I find ironic? If it wasn't for the fact that I was trying to communicate with both sides, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. You ask me to do research on things that people here already know the answers to, probably backwards? Why? Do you think I have nothing better to do with my time then re-invent the wheel? I'm doing what virtually no one can do, which is getting close to a civil discussion with the vocal opposition. I wholeheartedly agree that Frank Legge or someone like him is better to have a discussion with, but the fact of the matter is that the detractors of the flyover theory generally aren't in forums where both sides can talk, probably because administrators generally tend to boot the side that they don't agree with.

This type of negligence amounts to disinfo on your part as you fraudulently represent my "voice".

I think that, all things considered, I don't do as badly as you suggest.I also think I'm getting better. And if I make a mistake, you know where I can be reached.

[Brian states]

I've shown how Ranke lied in claiming runway 15 was used by 757s

And your response is:

No one seems to disagree with you on this, so I'll assume that this is true for now. But pointing out that Ranke made a small mistake doesn't mean that he was trying to be deceptive.

You'll ASSUME that it's true??!

For the sake of argument, yes. As Aristoteles said, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Seeing as how our relationship isn't exactly stellar, I wasn't about to go ask you whether his statement was true or not. I essentially did I do the best I can with the resources I have. Rob Balsamo has now offered to answer my questions, so if any points are made of -him-, I can ask him whether it's true or not.

THIS is how you typically argue in our favor and why you are an absolute detriment to this discussion.

That's not true. I may entertain certain notions if I don't know where the truth lies, but if I -do- know that Brian's mistaken, or am atleast fairly sure that he's mistaken, I'll challenge his assertion. I note that you haven't quoted me doing any of -that-. I wrote the following to Brian fairly recently, after he'd attacked numerous people, including Balsamo:

You make claims that various people are con-artists, and I know that you think you've presented evidence for it, but I don't agree with you and I think it's clear that I'm not the only person in this forum that feels this way. Given that many in this forum don't agree with you on these assertions, don't you think it might be wise to tone down your rhetoric and focus more on why you believe these things then in simply repeating these claims?

This post has been edited by scott75: Apr 1 2010, 09:45 PM

[scott75]

It's not a lie OR a "mistake" and I have explained this in detail and provided video recorded evidence to support it. Of course you don't bother to demand proof from him that 737's and 757's DON'T land at both runways. He provides ZERO evidence that I was "mistaken" or that I "lied" yet you just accept that I was mistaken without a cursory check into my previous responses.

I already have more than enough disagreements with Brian; when I'm not sure as to the answer of one, and it doesn't seem to be a crucial issue, I can go with a temporary assumption. However, if I get more information, as you've just given me, this changes.

If you actually cared about retaining the information that we've already gone over ad nauseum you would have read the threads in "the pit" where I participated and realized this already. But apparently you don't care.

That's not true. I do care, but the threads are so rife with toxicity, it's hard to stomach more than a bit at a time.

Apparently your only interest is in meddling in the discussion as a false "mediator" while putting forth lame arguments and whitewashing the baseless attacks of our detractors and allowing the same accusations to keep being asserted even though they have already been debunked many times over.

I can easily imagine that they have indeed been debunked many times over. The main issue is that I either haven't been privy to those debunkings or I forgot some of the information after seeing it. The saying "practice makes perfect" applies here. I know that you like to think that all of this is easy stuff, but the fact that people like Jim Hoffman and Frank Legge still don't go for your theory is, in my view, strong evidence that the issues are actually fairly complex.

You continually either play clueless or remain clueless by not bothering to read (or retain) the prior discussions.

This continuous behavior on your part reinforces the lies spewed by Brian Good. It goes like this:

1. He makes bogus accusations.

2. I answer them in extreme detail.

3. He ignores my answers and continuously claims I never answered.

I think what may have happened is that he simply didn't properly absorb and/or understand your answer. I think the same may have happened in my case, although I think that I may be better at it then he is. I think one sign of this is that I support your theories, whereas he doesn't.

4. I stop engaging in a pointless discussion with someone who refuses to accept my answers.

Alright, I can certainly accept that you think that discussing things with him is pointless. And honestly, in terms of you directly discussing things with him, I tend to agree; there's just too much bad blood between you 2. However, there are others (not mentioning any names now) who can talk to both sides. Honestly, though, it's not easy.

5. You come around and either play dumb or refuse to read my answers as a means to remain ignorant

I'm certainly not playing dumb. And I'm fine with reading your answers; the problem is finding them without getting lost in a sea of mutual recriminations. It'd be so much easier if I could just ask you questions when I'm not sure of the answers, but again, there's those problems with our relationship.

[scott75]

Here is where I explained IN DETAIL on December 14th how the entire question of exactly what planes mostly use exactly what runway is COMPLETELY irrelevant to our claims:
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.ph...mp;postcount=81

I made it even more clear here:
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.ph...p;postcount=128

And here:
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.ph...p;postcount=133

Yes he claims it's due to "foreshortening" but he is wrong. I know because I was there and I personally SAW how these planes were landing with 2 different approaches, one closer than the other. ANYONE can go there and plainly see this.

Here's the real kicker: Brian Good has already ADMITTED that 757's use runway 15!

More quick and dirty work says that A319s and A320s and even 757s sometimes take off from runway 15.

So how come you don't know this stuff, Craig, given all your pilot friends. Can't you get some planespotters to help? Why not interview the ATCs?

source


So he concedes the very point that he is STILL to this day (over 3 months later) claiming I "lied" about and that...

Note how while he concedes it he even tries to suggest that I don't know this (even though it was allegedly my "lie" in the first place) and that I need "planespotters" to help even though I provided video of me on the scene being the "planespotter"!

So both runways are used by planes of ALL sizes. He concedes it and of course provides zero evidence to the contrary even WHILE refusing to accept my video evidence supporting the notion.

Thanks for the info. I imagine that he's simply forgotten that there was a point in time when he was agreeing with you. I may not remember everything, but I atleast am able to be fairly unemotional when speaking of issues. This, in turn, can get both sides to explain their case to me, and from there, I can relay back and forth. Craig, believe me, I love it when KP, or someone else who knows their stuff fairly well responds to a post from Brian and I can rest a bit and just watch how it goes. But frequently there's no one else, so I step up to the plate and do my best.