Mr.Herbert
15th September 2007, 02:10 PM
Seems the loonies are calling other loonies ...loonie. Here the authors of 9-11 review (Jim Hoffman)list the Pentacon with In Plane Site, Loose change and others:
http://www.911review.com/disinfo/videos.html
One of the main defects of the PentaCon is that it only considers four eyewitness statements—ignoring a very large body of eyewitness statements and previous research into the testimony.
Well good ol Lyte is very upset...he wrote an e-mail as posted on ATS:
Jim,
That is a pretty strong characterization for a claim that is firmly grounded in hard evidence. Why won't you address the data we present directly? You do realize that not a single witness in the entire investigative body of evidence directly contradicts the north side claim do you? Why do you blindly trust the mainstream media eyewitness reports without confirming them directly? How many eyewitnesses have you interviewed? We have tried contacting virtually ALL of them and canvassed the neighborhoods for new ones. Since we released this data we have 2 more witnesses that support the north side claim so that totals 6 and nobody we have spoken with has specifically placed the plane on the south side of the Citgo low and level with the ground. How can you patently reject independent corroboration as strong as this? Where is your counter testimony? (sorry but the extremely dubious accounts of Lloyd England and Frank Probst are not sufficient.)
Frankly we don't care if you reject the "flyover" theory but you can not reject the north side claim which has been scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We base all of our claims on 100% investigative research on location and 0% on "speculation". There is nothing "feeble" about the north side claim. Have you ever been to Arlington? Have you ever surveyed the topography at all? Do you understand how a 757 at over 500 mph would be required to approach with a noticeable descent angle due to the steep decline after the Navy Annex? Do understand that the FDR actually depicts this necessary descent angle which contradicts the physical damage and the security video 100%?
video.google.com... (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3752900324142560520&hl=en)
By ignoring the TRUE flight path of the plane you have been missing out on the evidence that proves a military deception. They wanted us to focus on a missile so we would not focus on the flight path.
There was no missile, there was no global hawk, and the passenger jet airliner that flew treetop level over the neighborhoods of Arlington did not hit the building.
If the perpetrators actually crashed a 757 into the building it would be completely contradictory to the entire purpose of the operation for them to not take full advantage of the psychological impact that video footage would give them.
The "honeypot" theory wouldn't even come close to outweighing the benefits they would get from video footage of the event during this black psychological operation of deception.
We are not disinfo and we are not pushing a "hoax". Arabasque's simplistic and naive "debunk" falls flat and doesn't begin to counter what we have presented. We will debate you any time over the phone or on a radio show but hopefully you will objectively look at the data that we present in relation to the anomalous FDR and realize that we are on to something important here.
I respectfully request that you remove us from your "hoax" page and if you refuse I formally challenge you to a public debate or even invite you to civilly discuss the evidence with me privately over the phone.
Sincerely,
Craig Ranke
CIT
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread302551/pg1
http://www.911review.com/disinfo/videos.html
One of the main defects of the PentaCon is that it only considers four eyewitness statements—ignoring a very large body of eyewitness statements and previous research into the testimony.
Well good ol Lyte is very upset...he wrote an e-mail as posted on ATS:
Jim,
That is a pretty strong characterization for a claim that is firmly grounded in hard evidence. Why won't you address the data we present directly? You do realize that not a single witness in the entire investigative body of evidence directly contradicts the north side claim do you? Why do you blindly trust the mainstream media eyewitness reports without confirming them directly? How many eyewitnesses have you interviewed? We have tried contacting virtually ALL of them and canvassed the neighborhoods for new ones. Since we released this data we have 2 more witnesses that support the north side claim so that totals 6 and nobody we have spoken with has specifically placed the plane on the south side of the Citgo low and level with the ground. How can you patently reject independent corroboration as strong as this? Where is your counter testimony? (sorry but the extremely dubious accounts of Lloyd England and Frank Probst are not sufficient.)
Frankly we don't care if you reject the "flyover" theory but you can not reject the north side claim which has been scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We base all of our claims on 100% investigative research on location and 0% on "speculation". There is nothing "feeble" about the north side claim. Have you ever been to Arlington? Have you ever surveyed the topography at all? Do you understand how a 757 at over 500 mph would be required to approach with a noticeable descent angle due to the steep decline after the Navy Annex? Do understand that the FDR actually depicts this necessary descent angle which contradicts the physical damage and the security video 100%?
video.google.com... (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3752900324142560520&hl=en)
By ignoring the TRUE flight path of the plane you have been missing out on the evidence that proves a military deception. They wanted us to focus on a missile so we would not focus on the flight path.
There was no missile, there was no global hawk, and the passenger jet airliner that flew treetop level over the neighborhoods of Arlington did not hit the building.
If the perpetrators actually crashed a 757 into the building it would be completely contradictory to the entire purpose of the operation for them to not take full advantage of the psychological impact that video footage would give them.
The "honeypot" theory wouldn't even come close to outweighing the benefits they would get from video footage of the event during this black psychological operation of deception.
We are not disinfo and we are not pushing a "hoax". Arabasque's simplistic and naive "debunk" falls flat and doesn't begin to counter what we have presented. We will debate you any time over the phone or on a radio show but hopefully you will objectively look at the data that we present in relation to the anomalous FDR and realize that we are on to something important here.
I respectfully request that you remove us from your "hoax" page and if you refuse I formally challenge you to a public debate or even invite you to civilly discuss the evidence with me privately over the phone.
Sincerely,
Craig Ranke
CIT
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread302551/pg1