CIT Research Forum -> Mangoose's fallacious rant

Mangoose's fallacious rant, desperation and denial

Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Craig Ranke CIT

Posted: Aug 4 2008, 03:39 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 3,930
Member No.: 1
Joined: 29-August 07

While this mysertious TheLoneBedouin character is handling the pseudo-skeptics for us at the jref forum just beautifully I think this out of control rant by Mangoose should get a direct response from CIT since lemmings there have latched on to it as if he really said something of significance.

Of course Mangoose should really be called Girlyduck since he's clearly too much of a coward to debate us direct. Consider this a challenge goosey. You and me, recorded phone call debate, any time.

In response to TheLoneBedouin stating that the evidence proves a military deception he replied......

QUOTE (Mangoose)

No, no such thing has been proven. Let's take a look at CIT's track record. The original witnesses interviewed for the Pentacon were not unamimously reporting flight paths interpretable as along the "north side" of the Citgo. Some could be classed as "north side" and others could be classed as "south side".

Huh?

You have got to be kidding me. You must not be talking about The PentaCon. They are all definitive north side witnesses which must be why you did not state a name of any alleged south side witnesses. So your post starts out with a bold faced lie to set the tone and stage of everything to follow.

QUOTE

That's the variation to be expected in eyewitness recollections. But as I showed in a number of cases already in this thread, CIT omitted all the "south side" witnesses they interviewed from the body of "valid" evidence because they contradicted the "north side" witnesses.

You have showed no such thing. None of the witnesses we spoke with placed the plane on the south side of the gas station. You are completely making that up and using witnesses who were not in a position to tell and/or admit to not seeing the approach at all!

QUOTE

Their reasoning was explicitly that no witness would report the plane on the "south side" since the "north side" witnesses already establish that the plane was the "north side", so the "south side" witnesses are all liars (and therefore not even to be counted as witnesses). So with that reasoning, no witness could ever be a "south side" witness and as a result, the total number of "south side" witnesses would always be ZERO.

Another lie. That is not our "reasoning" and you have provided no evidence that we have ever stated that it was or said a single thing to correctly lead you or anyone to believe this. You are merely making this false assertion with authority as if it were true.

Our "reasoning" is based on the fact that all independently confirmed accounts who were in a position to tell place the plane on the north side. This is fact. This implicates people and yes it implicates some who are not definitive north or south side witnesses. Yes we have reported suspicious and/or dubious details on some witnesses but NOT because they were allegedly south side witnesses. It's because there are dubious details in their accounts. You are the one jumping to conclusions and making unsupported claims about our thought process as if you can read our minds.

You can't.

QUOTE

Any reasonably intelligent person can see the hasty generalization and circular reasoning involved here. Real investigations collect an adequate and representative sample of evidence and THEN evaluate it to come up with hypotheses (if, say, in the case of a pilot study) or conclusions.

That is EXACTLY what we did.

We did not assert that the plane was north of the citgo until we heard this direct from all of the known (AND some previously unknown) witnesses who were on the station's property.

And if you were a reasonably intelligent person you would understand that EVEN IF you count people we talked with who admit they did not see the approach or the plane in relation to the gas station as south side witnesses an overwhelming majority still put it on the north side. Therefore a reasonably intelligent person would understand that the north side evidence must be valid.

QUOTE

But before the evaluation of the collected evidence takes place, CIT has already expunged people like Zackem, England, McGraw, etc. from the evidence pool by rendering them as non-witnesses for not conforming to the "north side" claim.

Incorrect.

You have no evidence for these accusations. Our Lloyd and McGraw presentations came out AFTER The PentaCon. The quote from Aldo about Zackem was AFTER we had spoken with Edward Paik and the citgo witnesses proving her story false. So once again you are lying about the circumstance, the time line of our claims and evidence release, and simply telling the reader what our thought process was based on this lie and no supporting evidence to back it up.

QUOTE

What was supposed to be a conclusion determined by impartially assessing the evidence has therefore become a premise for determining what can be included as evidence in the first place. That allows CIT to "stack the deck" and create the appearance of unanimity when agreement is far less obvious.

You set up the fallacy and now you are forging ahead based on this deception.

In our investigation ALL previously published witnesses are automatically suspect.

Yes that included Lagasse and Brooks. It wasn't until we interviewed them and confirmed their accounts first hand and ASSESSED ALL THE EVIDENCE that we determined them to be the honest/accurate ones while others remained suspect for various reasons.

QUOTE

Such fallacious reasoning can only be too transparent, so CIT tried to buttress their villification of the "south side" witnesses through ad hominem (Ms. Zackem is a crypto-Joo, Mr. McGraw is a Catholic priest with presumably Opus Dei connections, Mr. England reads David Icke and he possibly is an accomplice in mass murder) and through criticism over details of their recollections.

Sorry but we never called Zackem a "crypto jew" or a jew at all.

Why are you lying?

And McGraw IS a former DoJ attorney turned Catholic priest with Opus Dei connections. He admitted it, we reported it. Funny how the facts are now considered "ad hominem"!.

Also England does read David Icke. Once again....this is a fact that he admitted, not an "ad hominem" attack on our part.

In fact by labeling these facts "ad hominem" you are simply exposing YOUR prejudice in regards to these facts.

QUOTE

What is important about the latter is the blatant double standard (special pleading) at work. Nit-picks like whether Zackem or Sucherman or whoever could see the plane at its final moment crashing into the building with trees in the way, or whether Lloyd England correctly remembered the way the pole went through his windshield, are supposed to support the conclusion that these witnesses are unreliable (= lying) about the plane being on the "south side" path at all.

Nitpick? So reporting details is now "nitpicking" instead of "ad hominem"?

Are you sure it's not both?

YOU are the one suggesting they are unreliable/lying because of this.

We merely reported the facts. Not surprising that you have a problem with it and choose to twist them as a means to focus attention on CIT and away from the evidence proving a military deception.

If the plane was on the south side going perfectly straight at 535 mph there is NO WAY the ANC guys would all describe it banking relatively slowly on the north side like they do OR that all of the citgo witnesses would corroborate them.

This scientifically validated evidence implicates a lot of people. There is no way around it no matter how much you deny it.

QUOTE

And yet if the witness happens to be a "north side" witness, all of a sudden an entirely different, more reasonable attitude is taken. In the case of an observation that George Aman makes that Craig Ranke thinks was not possible, he asks in the video linked in the OP: "Now does this discredit him, does this make you think this is no way he could be an honest person?" If he were a "south side" witness, the presumed answer would be YES since in practice that is how they are regarded.

Prove it.

You are lying about me AGAIN without a shred of evidence to support your assertion.

1. There are no south side witnesses.
2. You will not find a quote where I suggested that a witness is completely discredited because they thought they saw people in the windows.

Stop making things up out of desperation.

You are lying about me personally because you are intellectually bankrupt and you are unable to refute the evidence.

QUOTE

But for someone prized as a "north side" witness, the answer is: "Well, deduction and embellishment is a typical eyewitness tendency for innocent eyewitnesses." So no, he still counts as a valid witness. In the case of some of the other "north side" witnesses, Ranke also says: "You can't expect them to be perfectly accurate and we don't, we know that eyewitness testimony is fallible in many ways and we expect that". And Aldo concurs: "Obviously memory is not going to be 100% accurate on those little finite details they're not computers, they do not have a photographic lens built into their brain or their eyes, they're estimating." But the same benefit of the doubt is never afforded to the "south side" witnesses, who naturally corroborate each other in placing the plane's path more to the south. The mutual corroboration of the "north side" witnesses is of course the inevitable result once the "south side" witnesses are taken out of the equation.

You keep talking about these "south side witnesses" but there AREN'T any!

There is no independent confirmed corroboration of the plane on the south of the gas station which is why you can't produce any OR provide a quote demonstrating how I did not allow these mythical south side witnesses the same benefit.....meaning that I expected them to be perfectly accurate computers.

Prove it.

Back up your accusations because so far you have not provided a SINGLE example for any of your claims.

QUOTE

In addition to hasty generalization, circular reasoning, ad hominem argumentation, and special pleading, we can also add that conclusions were drawn on inadequate data. We can recall that in the initial Pentacon "investigation," only a handful of witnesses were interviewed at all with only 4 or so making the cut, out of the hundreds of people who potentially saw the plane.

Incorrect.

The documentary was about what side of the gas station the plane flew. We presented both known witnesses and 2 previously UNKNOWN witnesses.

Nobody was "cut", avoided, or ignored. Despite repeating it over and over you have provided ZERO definitive south of the gas station witnesses.

Zackem is the best you have and she reneged on her promise to give an interview. She also refused to draw a flight path and admits to NOT seeing the approach AND we have shown how her location was completely covered by trees on 9/11 while it is not now. Plus she admits to falling to the ground crying out of fear. These physical limitations mean that Edward Paik is a much more reliable witness who had nothing blocking his view, saw the approach, AND had no problem discussing his entire experience on camera. Don't forget about Morin either. Morin and Paik corroborate each other with the plane on the north side of Columbia Pike at that point and NOBODY corroborates Zackem. So science, evidence, and common sense all prove her wrong. She doesn't have to be a liar......but the body of evidence proves her wrong.

If you choose her shaky account over Paik, Morin, and all the credible witnesses right on the gas station's property and at ANC it is clear that YOU have the confirmation bias and are not looking at the evidence fairly.

QUOTE

Nor did the physical evidence come into play in assessing the eyewitness evidence. On the basis of the several cherry-picked witnesses who gave "north side" testimony, Ranke and Aldo declared that they have PROVED "beyond any reasonable doubt" that the plane was in fact on the "north side".

Of course the physical evidence was considered. That is what proves the deception! The location of the light poles and the admittedly by the government "counter-intuitive" damage to the building.

We investigated BECAUSE of the physical evidence.

QUOTE

And having established that proof without giving any weight to the "south side" witnesses and physical evidence, they then turned to this evidence and declared it null and void on the basis of that proof that failed to utilize this evidence to begin with.

Once again you are simply proclaiming our thought process without anything to support it. Not a single quote, nothing. YOU ARE FABRICATING AND THEREFORE LYING about what we think.

Plus Zackem and Lloyd are the ONLY witnesses we spoke with that you could remotely consider "south side" yet their accounts are questionable for many reasons and even if they weren't they aren't remotely enough to counter the body of independent evidence we obtained placing the plane on the north side.

QUOTE

In a real investigation, the initial research with only a small sample of witnesses would constitute a pilot study that would lead to a hypothesis that would then be tested with the physical evidence or with a greater sample of witnesses. But instead of developing the "north of Citgo flight path" as a viable hypothesis to be tested with further research, they hastily declared on selective data that they have already achieved an ironclad proof on this matter.

The citgo witnesses are definitive enough but we DID go back and get a greater sample of witnesses! Now it should be painfully clear to any intellectually honest person. There is no way that the ANC witnesses and Sean Boger would describe the plane they way they all did (from different perspectives) if it was on the official flight path and the citgo witnesses somehow miraculously all made the same ridiculously drastic mistake in the exact same way.

Don't you get it? The citgo witnesses didn't see the approach or the bank.

We said it HAD to have banked over the Navy Annex.

The ANC witnesses not only corroborate the citgo witnesses but they prove the bank!

How could we have known about the bank if the north side wasn't true?

How could you think for a moment that they would ALSO make the EXACT SAME drastic mistake as the citgo witnesses.....and that Sean Boger would too from a completely different perspective???

Give me a break!

QUOTE

That brings me to the next fallacy self-evident in the present CIT production, and that is confirmation bias. Once proof has been declared, the proof procedure for a given argument is complete. If such a declaration has been premature and the matter has not actually been proven, then those who falsely claimed the proof are committed to their position regardless of what new evidence has to say (otherwise they would have to admit their error). That will lead them to mitigate any new evidence that detracts from their position and to favor whatever supports their stated position.

We sought out, obtained, and provided the evidence. YOU have done no such thing yet you accept the official story as true based on nothing but pure unadulterated faith.

In fact you are REJECTING confirmed corroborated evidence based on this faith.

It is clearly YOU who has the confirmation bias here.

If the witnesses reported the plane on the south side we would have accepted it.

They did not.

There is not two sets of witnesses. There isn't this group of definitive south side witnesses we have rejected.

That is the entire fallacious premise of your post and you RUN with it completely oblivious to the blatant hypocrisy.

This isn't about CIT yet that is what you want to make it. There would not be 13 north side witnesses if the plane was on the south side. There would not be a debate.

How do you explain their accounts? Do you really think they all made the exact same drastic mistake in in the same way???

There is zero logic in such an assertion and you know it. You are desperate and you will say anything to cast doubt on us personally and avoid the evidence.

QUOTE

I believe that explains why Morin's 2001 statement has been so dramatically distorted by CIT in order to shoehorn his account into a "north side" testimonial when in fact it plainly describes a "south side" flight path.

Distorted how?

See how you work? No quotes, no examples, just bold blanket declarations with NOTHING to back it up.

Morin has ALWAYS placed the plane directly over the Navy Annex. This detail is FATAL to the official path and fits the north side path perfectly. I confirmed with him direct that he meant LITERALLY directly above him and the Navy Annex and that he only saw the belly and that there is no way it was on the south side of Columbia Pike OR that it was going 535 mph.

Nothing had to be distorted.

Morin's account proves the official story false because he definitively places the plane on the NORTH SIDE of Columbia Pike.

Ask him yourself!

I dare you!

QUOTE

And it similarly explains why Roosevelt is hailed in the video as a "confirmed" "honest-to-goodness" flyover witness when 1) CIT has no "confirming" interview conducted with him,

Huh? YES WE DID! Why are you lying?

Did you even view the presentation? Our ENTIRE phone call with him is included where he definitively confirms seeing a silver "commercial airliner" flying away from the building immediately after the explosion.

What don't you get here?

QUOTE

and 2) their interpretation of Roosevelt's statement would make Roosevelt the sole "flyover witness" at their disposal. The special pleading is painfully obvious here.

No it is not special pleading.

Roosevelt would have to be completely lying for the flyover to not be true. The 13 north side witnesses prove a deception and cover up. YOU DO NOT KNOW how many alleged flyover witnesses there were. The 2nd plane cover story was obviously very effective as even Roosevelt simply thought it was a "2nd plane".

Do you believe Keith Wheelhouse and his "shadowing" claim?
user posted image

If so why don't you think there aren't "1,000's" of witnesses to this?

If not then why do you think he made this claim to the press in the first days after the event and to us years later? What do you think the implications of this are?

Think and think HARD.

QUOTE

When talking about the mutual "corroboration" of the "north side" witnesses, Craig Ranke said this: "It's the general details that get corrobarated that we know are the true ones, and that is a scientific process --corroboration. So the more people you get saying the same thing, the more likely it is to be true." And yet when it comes down to the mutual corroboration of almost all his witnesses about the plane impacting the building, corroboration is thrown out the window. Now, all the witnesses who report the plane hitting the building must have been mistaken -- never mind that they corroborate each other. Instead, let's set all that aside for a single witness who could possibly be construed as reporting a post-impact flyover (but who can't "confirm" this in an interview, and remember that this is the basis by which other potential "south side" witnesses like Riskus, Hemphill, etc. are set aside).

Circular logic.

"Potential south side witnesses" are not south side witnesses.

Put all of your "potential south side witnesses" together and they don't put a dent in the massive body of confirmed north side witnesses we have reported.

Between Boger, the citgo guys, and the ANC guys you've got A LOT of data to refute and Hemphill's unconfirmed account added together with Lloyd and Zackem doesn't put a dent in it.

QUOTE

One curious thing about most of the "new" witnesses (Darius Prather, Darrell Stafford, Donald Carter, William Middleton, George Aman, Sean Boger, Levi Stephens) is that they all have one thing in common: they were themselves on the "north side" of the Navy Annex at the time of the attack. This raises another possibility about why they presumably give "north side" accounts of the attack: They unexpectedly saw the plane flying in their general direction, not knowing where it would end up, and that shock of seeing the plane fly towards them stands out prominently in their memory, such that in subsequent recall they place the plane much closer to them than it really was. This is a perfectly normal response to a traumatic event.

Pssstt.......all of the people AT THE CITGO also place it there as does Sean Boger from the heliport tower!

Those are all DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES yet they all say THE SAME THING.

And what about Middleton?

He had yet an even DIFFERENT perspective from all of them and he STILL places it on the north side! In fact I doubt he would have seen it at all on the official flight path. If he did it would have been a mere flash in front of him. But the bank, the slower speed, the location, and the description he gives are FATAL to the official story and corroborates everyone else from ALL perspectives.

Clearly you deliberately ommitted Middleton because he DESTROYS your fallacious point and you know it.

YOU are cherry picking the north side witnesses and removing them from the totality of all of them in order to force a point that you know doesn't hold water.

QUOTE

In any case, it is striking that CIT has oversampled those who were themselves north of the Citgo. And it is similarly striking that many of those who were themselves south of the Citgo (such as Madelyn Zakhem, Lloyd England, Mike Walter, Joel Sucherman, etc.) are either dismissed summarily as witnesses or are misconstrued as being "north side" witnesses (Terry Morin).

Again more lies without ANY quotes or sources to back up your point.

Walter and Sucherman were not in a position to see the gas station or have a vantage point to tell north or south of the gas station.

You are lying.

QUOTE

One final failure of CIT is to consider the consequence of unnecessarily multiplying entities in one's analysis (Ockham's Razor). That was the point of my post yesterday about the physical evidence and the logistics of planning an inside-job Pentagon attack with a decoy jet.

Ahh you mean your argument from incredulity.

Sorry but faulty logic does not refute independent scientifically validated evidence.

QUOTE

All the physical evidence that CIT refuses to accord evidentiary value MUST therefore be explained as having been faked if the "proof" claimed by CIT is valid rather than being a premature conclusion. Because the physical evidence is so vast simply in terms of the amount of things that would need to be planted or faked (each one constituting an opportunity for failure or discovery), one has to suppose that the planners of the inside-job Pentagon attack were willing to accept a ridiculously absurd number of unnecessary risks in setting up an operation that had so much riding on it. In fact, what CIT supposes is a lot of extremely complex planning and faking of evidence in just one particular location that would have only been able to "fool" those viewing from one side of the Pentagon, while not giving any thought whatsoever about what people on the opposite side of the building would have seen (e.g. an explosion, and then a big plane flying away from it). The blindness to this issue is evident even in TheLoneBedouin's comment from earlier today:

Ahh you mean your argument from incredulity.

Sorry but faulty logic does not refute independent scientifically validated evidence.

QUOTE

But...but...but what about all those potential cameras in, say, a person's private apartment in Pentagon City, or in an office building in Crystal City, or in a car on Route 395? How could the FBI, if they were "in-on-it", have possibly known that unbeknownst to them there wouldn't have been cameras rolling elsewhere in the city if the reason they were taking the film was to confiscate evidence of what really happened?

Where is the video?

Doesn't exist.

They knew it would be a surprise and only last a few seconds. They had the 2nd plane cover story as a back up.

Again this is nothing but an argument from incredulity.

Faulty logic does not refute evidence.

QUOTE

That tribby.net video of the mushroom cloud of the explosion taken just seconds after the attack in a private vehicle on Route 395 is a case in point. What if that was a tourist who wanted to get video of the Pentagon while driving past it and he drove past it just seconds before, thereby allowing him to videotape the "decoy jet" flying away after the explosion?

If?

If????

What does this have to do with the evidence?

NOTHING.

QUOTE

Why does CIT seriously think that the planners would have taken this risk or not taken measures to deceive and fool potential witnesses and cameras on the east, south, and north sides of the Pentagon?

Because the evidence proves a deception.

I'm sorry but your hypothetical scenario that DID NOT TAKE PLACE does not change the evidence nor do your lies about us and our thought process and of course the evidence.

Either seek out, obtain, and provide 14 independently confirmed accounts of the plane on the south side of the station or you have not refuted a thing.

Your logic fails, you have no evidence, and you lied.

Now.....care to step up to the plate and have a recorded phone call debate or are you a Girlyduck?

SPreston

Posted: Aug 5 2008, 05:29 PM

Concerned Citizen

Group: Member
Posts: 59
Member No.: 36
Joined: 13-February 08

How about another High 5?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . user posted image

Come on guys give me 5.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . user posted image

We Government Loyalists are so cool.

QUOTE (Mangoose)

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT)

Why hasn't this government loyalist Mangoose gone down there to Arlington County and searched out witnesses to the official south of Columbia Pike and south of the Navy Annex and south of the Citgo Flight 77 flight path? It should be simple. What is keeping the rest of the government loyalist from seeking out bonafide witnesses to the official south flight path? What have they been waiting for?

Is it because they have already been to Arlington County and could not find one single witness to the official southern flight path nor any person willing to lie for pay? Could it be they are just too lazy to go look and it is much easier to make up lies sitting at their computer with a stack of empty Bud-Lites on the floor? Or do they instinctively know there exist no such witnesses, yet their hyper-inflated egos won't allow them to admit they are wrong?

These clowns certainly act like they are all Randi's Kids don't they?

. . user posted image

. . . . .

Craig Ranke CIT	Posted: Aug 5 2008, 09:38 PM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 3,930 Member No.: 1 Joined: 29-August 07	You stole their laughing dog!

SPreston

Posted: Aug 6 2008, 07:12 PM

Concerned Citizen

Group: Member
Posts: 59
Member No.: 36
Joined: 13-February 08

QUOTE

You stole their laughing dog!

Guilty Your Honor ............... and I confess .......

I treated it with contempt also.

......

« Next Oldest | CIT response | Next Newest »

Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.

Learn More · Register Now