Another CIT "witness" thrown under the bus

[Bobert]

Ok I really cant keep score of all of the witnesses that the CIT has thrown under the bus but please if you are keeping score add Scott Cook to that list!
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=503&view=getnewpost
As it turns out the new evidence regarding the C-130 flight path proves that Scott Cook's account is blatantly false and there really is no possible way he could be simply mistaken by this much.
NOW HE IS A SUSPECT!!!!
:crazy:
Knowing what we know today we are forced to admit we were initially wrong about Scott Cook and that he is most definitely a suspect as part of the propaganda meant to merge the two stories of the flyover with the C-130 for cover similar to what we also know that Keith Wheelhouse did with his "shadowing" claim but in a different way.

Keith and Scott's accounts gave two different and important perspectives to work as cover for the flyover and both were very much disseminated and well known stories by researchers and others.

Maybe not so strangely the website where he hosted his story and pictures of his office and stuff is now down. Of course we'll make sure that Scott Cook is not forgotten.

[911files]

Poor Scott, I was wondering how long it would take CIT to figure out he was a NWO operative. Yes, Scott was the one who recruited me to the NWO back in 2007 during my visit to the area. No harm in letting that out now. I just wish Keith could have remained undercover a little longer though.

[T.A.M.]

Wait til Craig finds out that Aldo is really an NWO disinfo agent planted as his friend to spread the lies.

TAM;)

[Galileo]

It looks to me like Craig Ranke is just an honest researcher. It is not his fault the witness lied. What would you rather have Craig do, continue to use a witness that has been discredited?

[911files]

It looks to me like Craig Ranke is just an honest researcher. It is not his fault the witness lied. What would you rather have Craig do, continue to use a witness that has been discredited?

:dl:

Oh no, you did not just say that.

[T.A.M.]

It looks to me like Craig Ranke is just an honest researcher...

That is truly priceless. Ranke is the furthest thing from an "honest" anything. He makes Steven Jones look like an honest scientist, and that is saying something.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

:dl:

Oh no, you did not just say that.

I'll let you have it as a stundie, if you want it. I submitted last month.

TAM;)

[Galileo]

That is truly priceless. Ranke is the furthest thing from an "honest" anything. He makes Steven Jones look like an honest scientist, and that is saying something.

TAM:)

Ranke is a friend of mine. He is very honest and a good researcher. You think it's funny that someone would investigate the Pentagon. That make you an enemy of truth and an enemy of science.

[A W Smith]

It looks to me like Craig Ranke is just an honest researcher.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/pollquestions38-80:youandthe911truthmove
77. Please name the three theories promoted by TM members that you think have been most damaging in terms of public perception of the movement. Rank them from most to least damaging.
1) No plane at Pentagon, 39%
2) No planes at WTC, 32%
3) Pod theory, 14%

[911files]

Ranke is a friend of mine. He is very honest and a good researcher. You think it's funny that someone would investigate the Pentagon. That make you an enemy of truth and an enemy of science.

Oh and it just gets better and better.

:dl: :dl:

[Sparky]

Ranke is a friend of mine. He is very honest and a good researcher. You think it's funny that someone would investigate the Pentagon. That make you an enemy of truth and an enemy of science.

This statement tells me all I need to know about you. You obviously have no idea what the word "science" means.

Ignore time.

[Caustic Logic]

Wait til Craig finds out that Aldo is really an NWO disinfo agent planted as his friend to spread the lies.

TAM;)

According to my secret files, it's actually the other way around. Aldo is just a brain damaged dupe (got the medical records here), attached to make it look like 'hey, if two people think this stuff is true, it can't be private insanity like most lone nut researchers...' poor sucker.

[Pinch]

Ranke is a friend of mine. He is very honest and a good researcher. You think it's funny that someone would investigate the Pentagon. That make you an enemy of truth and an enemy of science.

Oh my lord. Are you serious? Ranke is a lying sack of ***** along with the rotund one, Alpo. Intellectually challenged and about as dishonest as the day is long, anyone who calls any of those tree fort denizens a "friend" needs to have their head examined.

Likewise, anyone who looks at Ranke and calls him a "good researcher" has no freaking idea what the word "research" means.

Case in point: Ranke wants to interview Witness A because Witness A has claimed they saw AA 77 pass south of the NEX service station and impact the Pentagon. Witness A is either aware of the twisted way Ranke and Alpo take selective quotes and gerrymander them into some sort of Bush Derangement Syndrome Anti-9/11 tale or simply does not want to engage in any discussion about "that day" Witness A therefore a) refuses to meet with Ranke, et al and/or b) does not return phone calls or emails. Ranke and crew then declare Witness A's account/experience invalid/fake/a lie and calls Witness A a government operative/spy/whatever. Without ever even talking to them.

You call *that* a "good researcher"? Get your head examined.

[1337m4n]

Agrees with CIT's predetermined conclusion = infallible witness
Disagrees with CIT's predetermined conclusion = "plant"


Do I have this right?

[boloboffin]

Agrees with CIT's predetermined conclusion = infallible witness
Disagrees with CIT's predetermined conclusion = "plant"


Do I have this right?

That is some serious researchiating there.

[nicepants]

It looks to me like Craig Ranke is just an honest researcher. It is not his fault the witness lied.

It would appear that you and the CITers don't understand that there is a difference between lying and being wrong. The witness could have said he saw a missile...doesn't mean he's lying, it just means he's wrong.

Do "honest researchers" start their investigation with a pre-determined conclusion, ask eyewitnesses leading questions, then reject any evidence that disagrees with their pre-determined conclusion?

What would you rather have Craig do, continue to use a witness that has been discredited?

That's what he does with the north of citgo eyewitnesses who discredit themselves!

[mark4mark]

Agrees with CIT's predetermined conclusion = infallible witness
Disagrees with CIT's predetermined conclusion = "plant"


Do I have this right?

That about sums it up...

[dtugg]

Agrees with CIT's predetermined conclusion = infallible witness
Disagrees with CIT's predetermined conclusion = "plant"


Do I have this right?

It goes more like this:

If part of a witness's statement can be twisted to support the fantasy that part of the statement is regarded as 100% accurate. Anything else (like them saying the plane hit the Pentagon) is discarded as an exageration or being fooled by the massive "military deception."

Any witnesses whose statements can't be twisted to fit the fantasy are government plants.

[AJM8125]

It looks to me like Craig Ranke is just an honest researcher. It is not his fault the witness lied. What would you rather have Craig do, continue to use a witness that has been discredited?

Ranke is a friend of mine. He is very honest and a good researcher. You think it's funny that someone would investigate the Pentagon. That make you an enemy of truth and an enemy of science.

And to think all this time I thought he is just merely insane.

[beachnut]

Ranke is a friend of mine. He is very honest and a good researcher. You think it's funny that someone would investigate the Pentagon. That make you an enemy of truth and an enemy of science.
He acts like an idiot who has delusions for you to believe. When you stop drinking the Kool-aid of 911Truth you may learn to avoid being fooled by idiotic ideas from the worse researcher in the history of the universe.

The RADAR data makes Ranke a liar and a fraud. Ranke says the RADAR is fake, but Ranke is the fake. Your friend makes up failed conclusions with doltish ease.


The big proof he is pushing stupid for those that lack knowledge – he has no Pulitzer Prize. You get Pulitzer Prizes for the kind of conclusions Ranke makes up if they were true. The evidence Ranke has to ignore proves his ideas are lies. And those lies are so dumb it is pathetic anyone believes them. Lucky for Ranke you like his delusions; thus he has a market for his delusions. You are posting in a skeptic forum and have no clue Ranke is the king of dirt dumb ideas on 911.

[Obviousman]

ranke is a friend of mine. He is very honest and a good researcher. You think it's funny that someone would investigate the pentagon. That make you an enemy of truth and an enemy of science.

that's gold!!!!!!

[X]

Agrees with CIT's predetermined conclusion = infallible witness
Disagrees with CIT's predetermined conclusion = "plant"


Do I have this right?



More like the following:

"A few random, out-of-context and misinterpreted quotes support our notion that an airliner never hit the Pentagon.

"Therefore, we conclude no airliner hit the Pentagon.

"Thus, it is patently obvious that anything proving or anyone witnessing such an event is either lying, planted, or both."


I think they've realized that it's easier to believe their idea if they refuse to acknowledge the evidence against it.
They just haven't realized that the rest of us have figured out their approach.

[double_o]

You gotta love CIT's "logic":

But Scott Cook seemed genuine particularly since his extremely detailed account completely contradicted the RADES data by having the C-130 cross the river to the Tidal Basin before veering away north.
Yes. the only reason they thought he's genuine is because he is contradicted by the radar data.

[chillzero]

Keep it civil please, and also - keep your posts on topic, and not personalised against a member. If you disagree with someone, discuss it, don't just mock.

[jhunter1163]

Getting pretty crowded under the CIT bus. It's a short one after all...

[911files]

Getting pretty crowded under the CIT bus. It's a short one after all...

They bought a bigger bus.

[Alt+F4]

Well, neither Scott Cook or Lloyd have been thrown under the bus since CIT accusations carry no weight in the real world. It's similar to accusing Chelsea Clinton of the Lindberg baby kidnapping.

[kookbreaker]

They bought a bigger bus.

A clown car is not a bus.

[A W Smith]

Ranke is a friend of mine. He is very honest and a good researcher. You think it's funny that someone would investigate the Pentagon. That make you an enemy of truth and an enemy of science.


Let me show you the science of C.I.T. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias)

[scissorhands]

Of course we'll make sure that Scott Cook is not forgotten.

Cue online stalking and libel.

[A W Smith]

Has Scott Cook been added to the enemy's of CIT page yet?:rolleyes:

[Bobert]

:dl:

Oh no, you did not just say that.
Galileo's post is further proof that the CIT CULT is a CULT.

[Bobert]

WOW I cant help but post this because it just illustrates how completely F'd in the head Ranke is.
Here he is referring to a prominent poster here at JREF.
Rumor has it that he is a stroke victim so I don't like to make fun of the disabled but I think the more likely truth is that he's the unfortunate by-product of military experiments on enlisted.
Poor sick little man (Ranke).

[roundhead]

It looks to me like Craig Ranke is just an honest researcher. It is not his fault the witness lied. What would you rather have Craig do, continue to use a witness that has been discredited?


The minute you said honesty on here, you lost most everybody.


Craig is a patriot.

If there were more like him, we wouldnt be spending billions playing in others back yards, and would be a heck of a lot better off as a nation for it.

[dtugg]

The minute you said honesty on here, you lost most everybody.


Craig is a patriot.

If there were more like him, we wouldnt be spending billions playing in others back yards, and would be a heck of a lot better off as a nation for it.

LOL. Why don't you go back to the tree fort and tell your cult leader about how you defended him on the GL site.

[JamesB]

WOW I cant help but post this because it just illustrates how completely F'd in the head Ranke is.
Here he is referring to a prominent poster here at JREF.

Poor sick little man (Ranke).

Well I am an officer, they don't perform experiments on us. Well, not that I know of at least.... :jaw-dropp

[beachnut]

WOW I cant help but post this because it just illustrates how completely F'd in the head Ranke is.
Here he is referring to a prominent poster here at JREF.

Poor sick little man (Ranke).
He is talking about my stroke; Has he seen my golf game?

I would be honored to be enlisted but pilots had to have a degree and be officers so I skipped the hard work and settled for ROTC and two years of being a butter-bar; if I had been 2 years earlier they had 1.5 year lts so I could have spent less time being a 2lt.

Even a stroke victim can see CIT have nut case ideas; my aunt had a stoke and she thinks they are nuts.

Poor CIT calling their own witnesses liars and making up lies.

[Bobert]

Maybe Ranke is the one that they performed experiments on .

[chillzero]

Thread closed due to lack of on topic discussion despite warning.