Question For Jarroyo

Question For Jarroyo

Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 05:13 PM

Apr 27 2007, 07:15 PM #1

Jarroyo,

In this thread you stated that Fetzer endorses no plane theories because he references them in his book:
It is most surely that Fetzer believes in Reynold's cartoon planes. Why would he publish it inside his book, identifying himself with said theory, if he did not endorse the believe of "cartoon" planes?
thread here
Not that I disagree with this assertion but now I am curious as to your opinion about the credibility of David Ray Griffin since on page 264 of his new book "Debunking 9/11 Debunkling" he refers to the research of Citizen Investigation Team and specifically the north side claim of the witnesses presented in The PentaCon.

In your opinion does DRG lose credibility because of this or does this help you to support the veracity of the north side claim?
www.ThePentaCon.com

"The attacks of Russell Pickering would be much more convincing if he hadn't attacked and ridiculized the video material before its release. This was neither rational, nor did these pre-emptive strikes enhance his credibility. So as things are at present, his behavior after the release was pretty predictable." -Woody Box
Quote
Like
Share

Jarroyo
Advanced Member
Jarroyo
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 18 2006, 08:16 PM

Apr 27 2007, 07:52 PM #2

Hey, Craig. How's everything going with you guys? Glad to see you around.
Jarroyo,

In this thread you stated that Fetzer endorses no plane theories because he references them in his book:
Yes. And by "endorse" I meant: "give support or one's approval to"
This is a pure fact. He has publicly stated (not specifically but it can be concluded) he supports and/or approves of the theories Reynolds have.
Not that I disagree with this assertion but now I am curious as to your opinion about the credibility of David Ray Griffin since on page 264 of his new book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" he refers to the research of Citizen Investigation Team and specifically the north side claim of the witnesses presented in The PentaCon.

In your opinion does DRG lose credibility because of this or does this help you to support the veracity of the north side claim?
I know you're an honest person, Craig. But this sounds like a way to entice me. I don't know if I'm too paranoid... :D

It feels like you are trying to imply that I frown upon your work. Definitely not. Apart from the way you have handled yourselves, I commend your efforts. And if I was to write a book about 911 Conspiracies, I would definitely talk about your research.

I haven't read the book, and I don't know what he says about the flyover theory. But let's keep this in perspective, Fetzer believes in Beams and stuff, and talks about it in his book. Fetzer's thing is a completely different scenario from Mr. Griffin.

But I won't choose any of the options you provide with your question. If his purpose is to give a scope at every theory on 9/11, like Dylan says he's gonna do. And have a broad view of all the possibilities, drawing a line from what is speculation and what is fact. Then there is no loss in credibility, IMO. Again, I haven't read it yet, so I can't give a solid answer to his reference. And again, the CIT investigation should be mentioned, as it provides with certain data that has to be examined, when analyzing the Pentagon strike.

And neither does David Griffin writing about the north side magically makes it the final indisputable conclusion.

I hope I answered your question.

Take care,

J
Quote
Like
Share

Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 05:13 PM

Apr 27 2007, 09:10 PM #3

To be clear DRG does not reference the flyover theory at all.

He simply talks about the north side claim.

As we have said from day one; it is not necessary to embrace the flyover theory.

The north side claim alone is enough to prove the plane did not cause the physical damage (and therefore that 9/11 was an inside job) so whatever you want to say happened to the plane after that is pretty much irrelevant.

Yes DRG does present "both sides" in his new book but just as Fetzer is clearly associated with NPT in New York DRG is even more associated with "no 757 impact" theories at the Pentagon.

Because of his public position on this issue and because of the fact he included the research of CIT in his book, I think it's safe to say, according to you at least, that he endorses our work.
;)

BTW....I didn't make this thread to be antagonistic but I will admit that I did it to "entice" you! :)

And I will also admit that you have most certainly led me to believe that you "frown" upon our work.

Whether or not you agree with the fact that we chose to defend ourselves against RP's continuous attacks against us and our work BEFORE and after the data was released it was quite clear to me that you too refused to concede that there is truth in the north side claim.

So.....to clarify.......what is your current position on the north side claim?
www.ThePentaCon.com

"The attacks of Russell Pickering would be much more convincing if he hadn't attacked and ridiculized the video material before its release. This was neither rational, nor did these pre-emptive strikes enhance his credibility. So as things are at present, his behavior after the release was pretty predictable." -Woody Box
Quote
Like
Share

Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 05:13 PM

Apr 27 2007, 11:10 PM #4

Here is the passage from DRG's new book that references our research:
    The official story depends on the idea that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon flew past the south side of the nearby Citgo gas station (now called the Navy Exchange).  Only if this is true could the plane have hit the light poles and then struck the Pentagon at the angle that would lead to the so-called exit hole in the C-ring.  However, Pentagon police officer William Lagasse, who was at the Citgo station, has always maintained that he was on the starboard side of the airplane, which would mean that the plane passed on the north side of the Citgo station.  Supporters of the official story were able to dismiss Lagasse's statement by assuming he had simply confused starboard and port.

    Now, however, Lagasse and three other witnesses have all stated on camera that the airplane definitely passed on the north side of the station.  One of these witnesses is Chadwick Brooks, another police officer at the Pentagon.  The other two are Robert Turcios, an employee at the station, and Edward Paik, an auto mechanic at a nearby shop.  Assuming their testimony to be true, it would have been impossible for the airplane to have clipped the light poles at the Washington Boulevard overpass.  For this to have happened, as Richard Stanley and Jerry Russell have explained (in an essay entitled "The Quantum Flight Path"), the plane would have needed to make a quantum leap from one trajectory to another.

  All three of these men, in harmony with their testimony that the plane passed on the north side of the station, say that they did not see the plane strike any light poles, even though one of them, Brooks, had earlier said that he did.

    This testimony is, moreover, supported by an animation, prepared by the National Transportation Safety Board on the basis of the Flight Data Recorder, of the flight path of the aircraft-alleged to be Flight 77-that approached the Pentagon.  It shows the flight path as being to the north of the flight path portrayed in the animation put out by the 9/11 Commission.  Also, according to the analysis of this NTSB animation carried out by Pilots for Truth, the flight path, besides being to the north of the trajectory tht would have been needed to hit the light poles, was also too high.

    This testimony, besides throwing into doubt the testimony of Don Mason and the other people who claimed to have seen the light poles clipped, suggests something even more important:  that the five light poles were staged to provide evidence for the official story.  If so, then we must suspect that other evidence for the official story was also planted.  If any of the evidence is demonstrably planted, in fact, we must doubt the truth of the entire story.
Bold added.
www.ThePentaCon.com

"The attacks of Russell Pickering would be much more convincing if he hadn't attacked and ridiculized the video material before its release. This was neither rational, nor did these pre-emptive strikes enhance his credibility. So as things are at present, his behavior after the release was pretty predictable." -Woody Box
Quote
Like
Share

BillW
Advanced Member
BillW
Advanced Member
Joined: Mar 21 2007, 12:20 PM

Apr 29 2007, 02:33 AM #5

Lyte Trip @ Apr 27 2007, 04:10 PM wrote:The north side claim alone is enough to prove the plane did not cause the physical damage...
That's ridiculous and you know it.

The "claim" is enough to "prove"...?

How stupid do you think we are?

The last time I saw a poll here (STARTED BY YOU) I believe 90% of the people responding didn't believe your claims.

And that's ON THIS BOARD!

Your constant declarations that "it's proven" lost its humor months ago.

*sigh*
Quote
Like
Share

genghis6199
Advanced Member
genghis6199
Advanced Member
Joined: Mar 28 2007, 03:33 PM

Apr 29 2007, 07:53 AM #6

lol. now you're debunking people for examining theories?. fetzer is open to tvfakery, just like a lot of researchers. but he doesn't really study it. anybody researching 911 knows the tv footage is very suspicious. all of it. if they don't , then they haven't looked at it. which makes them pretty bad researchers
Quote
Like
Share

Micpsi
Advanced Member
Micpsi
Advanced Member
Joined: Feb 18 2007, 12:09 AM

Apr 29 2007, 04:18 PM #7

Jarroyo: "Yes. And by "endorse" I meant: "give support or one's approval to"
This is a pure fact. He has publicly stated (not specifically but it can be concluded) he supports and/or approves of the theories Reynolds have."

Bunkum! I have listened to all Fetzer's interviews with Reynolds on GCNLive and he has stated in several of them that he does not ascribe to the no-plane theory. That said, he DOES acknowledge that Reynolds raises issues in his analysis of Flight 175 crash into the South Tower that need addressing by 9/11 researchers (many would respond that they have already done this). This, however, is a far cry from enthusiastically embracing the no-plane theory. You misrepresent Fetzer's position.
Quote
Like
Share

Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 05:13 PM

Apr 30 2007, 02:22 AM #8

The Mark Dice interview made me warm back up to Fetzer a bit.

The no plane stuff is crap but I don't doubt that some sort of advanced/covert/classified/exotic weaponry was used to bring down the towers.

Just like at the Pentagon they used real planes as diversions when the actual destruction was caused with pre-planted explosives/incendiaries/weaponry etc.
www.ThePentaCon.com

"The attacks of Russell Pickering would be much more convincing if he hadn't attacked and ridiculized the video material before its release. This was neither rational, nor did these pre-emptive strikes enhance his credibility. So as things are at present, his behavior after the release was pretty predictable." -Woody Box
Quote
Like
Share

-Raven-
Advanced Member
-Raven-
Advanced Member
Joined: Feb 4 2007, 06:31 PM

Apr 30 2007, 11:55 AM #9

While I respect David Ray Griffin and his research, his passing slight mention of you, Lyte, seems to me to be a slight mention which was prematurely released. Your movie and his book were released at pretty much the same time. I wonder if DRG had seen your movie before he published his book.

I understand many people's wish to find holes in the official story of what happened at the Pentagon. Understand this... Even if a 757 or even if flight 77 hit the Pentagon, the holes in the official story of how that happened are there, and the holes are gaping wide! This whole bit about no plane hitting the Pentagon is a distraction. We shouldn't be asking whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon, but rather... How did the plane hit the Pentagon when it shouldn't have been able to. On this subject, David Ray Griffin has much more than a passing slight mention in his research.

Maybe you could get DRG to comment here and speak for himself, Lyte. Instead of trying to guess (promote) what DRG thinks. Maybe you should stop using David Ray Griffin as an advertising gig like you have tried to use LTW and the Loose Change forum as an advertising gig to promote your silly movie. :P
http://www.ronpaul2008.com

-----------------------------------------------
Quote
Like
Share

Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 05:13 PM

Apr 30 2007, 02:43 PM #10

I wasn't talking to you I was talking to Jarroyo.

1. You are straight up insulting DRG by suggesting he would include evidence in his book that he didn't even see! Of course he saw it you scumbag. Stop trying to tarnish his good name. He talked to us about the details before the movie was released and we had him an advanced copy before his manuscript went to the publisher.

2. I did not speak for DRG. I merely stated the facts as they pertain to Jarroyo's opinion. As if ANY member of this board wouldn't post about DRG including their research in his book.

3. Passing slight mention? He fully references the north side claim and goes into full detail about every witness we have presented so far! What more is required for you to accept it? That IS the smoking gun. That IS the proof that the plane didn't cause the physical damage. Intellectuals, critical thinkers, and the most prominent members of the movement recognize it as valid evidence. Idiotic accusatory birds hellbent on division insist on denying it without any valid basis whatsoever.

4. Like it or not CIT began this onsite investigation with LTW. After The PentaCon was released LTW had us on their radio show for the entire 2 hours to discuss this evidence. Do you think that is because they think it's a "distraction"? I have every right to discuss this information here. What is your contribution to the movement besides denial of evidence that proves 9/11 was an inside job? Why do you have MORE of a right to attack evidence then I do to present it when you haven't done SQUAT for the movement?

5. The north side claim is not a "distraction" it is hard evidence. You are in denial of critical evidence because of your bias and agenda of division. Why don't you focus on proving 9/11 was an inside job and leave people in the movement alone who don't follow your belief pattern? I don't go around attacking you (or anyone) for what you believe. It is a FACT that the overwhelming majority of people in the movement don't believe the plane hit the Pentagon. Stop attacking us and contribute something productive for a change.
www.ThePentaCon.com

"The attacks of Russell Pickering would be much more convincing if he hadn't attacked and ridiculized the video material before its release. This was neither rational, nor did these pre-emptive strikes enhance his credibility. So as things are at present, his behavior after the release was pretty predictable." -Woody Box
Quote
Like
Share

BillW
Advanced Member
BillW
Advanced Member
Joined: Mar 21 2007, 12:20 PM

Apr 30 2007, 06:58 PM #11

Lyte Trip @ Apr 30 2007, 09:43 AM wrote:It is a FACT that the overwhelming majority of people in the movement don't believe the plane hit the Pentagon.
That is a lie and you know it.

In fact, wasn't there a poll HERE on that question?

And, "No Plane hit the Pentagon" got about 10% of the votes.

10% is an overwhelming majority in your deluded world, right Lyte?
Quote
Like
Share

Jarroyo
Advanced Member
Jarroyo
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 18 2006, 08:16 PM

Apr 30 2007, 07:43 PM #12

Lyte Trip @ Apr 27 2007, 05:10 PM wrote: To be clear DRG does not reference the flyover theory at all.

He simply talks about the north side claim.

As we have said from day one; it is not necessary to embrace the flyover theory.

The north side claim alone is enough to prove the plane did not cause the physical damage (and therefore that 9/11 was an inside job) so whatever you want to say happened to the plane after that is pretty much irrelevant.

Yes DRG does present "both sides" in his new book but just as Fetzer is clearly associated with NPT in New York DRG is even more associated with "no 757 impact" theories at the Pentagon.

Because of his public position on this issue and because of the fact he included the research of CIT in his book, I think it's safe to say, according to you at least, that he endorses our work.
;)

BTW....I didn't make this thread to be antagonistic but I will admit that I did it to "entice" you!
I respect Griffin, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with him. No offense, but you sound like a little kid because you were mentioned in his book. As if that would make the rest of the physical and eye-witnesses evidence disappear.
And I will also admit that you have most certainly led me to believe that you "frown" upon our work.
Sorry if I have. I explained my position on my first post.
Whether or not you agree with the fact that we chose to defend ourselves against RP's continuous attacks against us and our work BEFORE and after the data was released it was quite clear to me that  you too refused to concede that there is truth in the north side claim.
I'm not going to get caught up on this "fight" again. You guys know in what way you handled it wrong. And if you don't, then you are just blind.
So.....to clarify.......what is your current position on the north side claim?
I am not 100% sure of what happened.

But what I do know is that there is a physical damage path that cannot be ignored.

And that everyone at the Pentagon saw a plane, a REAL plane and this cannot be ignored.

And that a great amount of witnesses say this plane crash against the Pentagon and this cannot be ignored.

And that your 4 eye-witnesses testimonies contradict each other, to the extent that some would nullify others and that cannot be ignored.

The Pentagon scenario is still confusing and uncertain, there are so many physical damaged and eye-witness testimonies, that 4 witnesses will not nullify everything else.
Quote
Like
Share

Woody Box
Advanced Member
Woody Box
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 26 2006, 06:11 PM

Apr 30 2007, 08:17 PM #13

Jarroyo @ Apr 30 2007, 07:43 PM wrote: The Pentagon scenario is still confusing and uncertain, there are so many physical damaged and eye-witness testimonies, that 4 witnesses will not nullify everything else.
Sorry to disagree here, but compared with the "so many" other eyewitnesses, the pentacon reseach is a quantum leap regarding authenticity, accuracy and consequentiality.
Accuracy*Honesty*Humility = POWER 911woodybox.blogspot.com
Quote
Like
Share

Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 05:13 PM

Apr 30 2007, 08:21 PM #14

The 4 eyewitness testimonies do NOT contradict each other!

That is nonsense.

All place the plane entirely north side of Columbia Pike and/or the citgo station; in other words fatally off the physical damage flight path.

This is the ONLY thing we are claiming is the smoking gun.

In this they are unanimous and definitive.

The fact is that if they are even remotely correct in their placement of the plane it is impossible for them to be also correct in their belief that the plane hit the building.

Bottom line the staged physical damage at the Pentagon is minuscule compared to what they staged in New York.

It is disingenuous to suggest that they staged 3 covert controlled demolitions in downtown Manhattan but that the damage at the pentagon was too difficult for them to stage.

We have never claimed that we have completely figured out all the details.....but we DID figure out the final moments of the flight path which proves the plane did not cause the physical damage.

I'm sorry but the ONLY witnesses that directly contradict the citgo witnesses are Lloyd and Frank Probst.

This fact alone helps to support the citgo witness claims since Lloyd and Frank Probst probably have two of the most ludicrous witness accounts reported!


p.s. Little kid? Clearly this is a noteworthy development that ANYBODY in this forum would mention if it happened to them. He is arguably the most prominent and respected member of the movement. I never said you "had to" agree with him. I was just curious as to your opinion given your strong statements against Fetzer. No need to ridicule me for mentioning this positive development in regards to the acceptance of our research.
www.ThePentaCon.com

"The attacks of Russell Pickering would be much more convincing if he hadn't attacked and ridiculized the video material before its release. This was neither rational, nor did these pre-emptive strikes enhance his credibility. So as things are at present, his behavior after the release was pretty predictable." -Woody Box
Quote
Like
Share

Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 05:13 PM

Apr 30 2007, 08:29 PM #15

Woody Box @ Apr 30 2007, 08:17 PM wrote:
Jarroyo @ Apr 30 2007, 07:43 PM wrote: The Pentagon scenario is still confusing and uncertain, there are so many physical damaged and eye-witness testimonies, that 4 witnesses will not nullify everything else.
Sorry to disagree here, but compared with the "so many" other eyewitnesses, the pentacon reseach is a quantum leap regarding authenticity, accuracy and consequentiality.
Thanks Woody and that is the point.

Nobody else has filmed witnesses on location like this.

In a world wide operation of deception that relies heavily on mainstream media propaganda peddling the official lie...........how on earth could ANYONE in the truth movement accept the published witness accounts at face value?

The only way we can find out the truth is by getting eyewitness accounts ourselves especially since virtually all other data (security videos, FDR, late released images etc) has been vetted by the perps.
www.ThePentaCon.com

"The attacks of Russell Pickering would be much more convincing if he hadn't attacked and ridiculized the video material before its release. This was neither rational, nor did these pre-emptive strikes enhance his credibility. So as things are at present, his behavior after the release was pretty predictable." -Woody Box
Quote
Like
Share

Jarroyo
Advanced Member
Jarroyo
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 18 2006, 08:16 PM

Apr 30 2007, 09:16 PM #16

Do you want to do this again? Seriously, do you want to hear my opinion or do just want to debate all this again?

I mean, we have talked about this 100s and hundreds of times. Do you really need another thread?

Maybe your bets bet should have been a PM if you wanted to hear my opinion.
But if you just needed another excuse to push your thing again, well...
Quote
Like
Share

Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 05:13 PM

Apr 30 2007, 10:19 PM #17

I re-opened the dialog to see if you had softened at all to our research but apparently not.

You're the one that started with the attacks bro.

Little kid?

Lame.

Am I glad that DRG recognized the importance of this data and published about it?

Of course!

Was I out of line to ask your opinion about it in this forum for truthers where every little minuscule new development is discussed in extreme detail?

Hardly.

You responded and now I know that you still insist on focusing on us personally while dismissing the data we present as of minimal importance.

Thanks for your input.
www.ThePentaCon.com

"The attacks of Russell Pickering would be much more convincing if he hadn't attacked and ridiculized the video material before its release. This was neither rational, nor did these pre-emptive strikes enhance his credibility. So as things are at present, his behavior after the release was pretty predictable." -Woody Box
Quote
Like
Share

Jarroyo
Advanced Member
Jarroyo
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 18 2006, 08:16 PM

Apr 30 2007, 10:31 PM #18

Lyte Trip @ Apr 30 2007, 06:19 PM wrote: I re-opened the dialog to see if you had softened at all to our research but apparently not.

You're the one that started with the attacks bro.

Little kid?

Lame.
Why is everything an attack?
You responded and now I know that you still insist on focusing on us personally while dismissing the data we present as of minimal importance.
And you still insist on being close-minded, disregarding every single piece of physical data, nitpicking what suits your needs and make up extravagant theories on how everything was setup.

I explained my position, if you want to twist my words then so be it. I refuse to be sucked into your childish fights again.
Thanks for your input.
Your welcome.

J
Quote
Like
Share

Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 05:13 PM

May 1 2007, 12:56 AM #19

Jarroyo @ Apr 30 2007, 10:31 PM wrote:
And you still insist on being close-minded, disregarding every single piece of physical data, nitpicking what suits your needs and make up extravagant theories on how everything was setup.
Example?

I have only mentioned the north side claim which is NOT a theory.

This is what DRG references and this is the only thing we are calling a smoking gun.

You are once again choosing to ignore the data in favor of focusing on me personally.
www.ThePentaCon.com

"The attacks of Russell Pickering would be much more convincing if he hadn't attacked and ridiculized the video material before its release. This was neither rational, nor did these pre-emptive strikes enhance his credibility. So as things are at present, his behavior after the release was pretty predictable." -Woody Box
Quote
Like
Share

Avenger
Advanced Member
Avenger
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 22 2006, 06:40 AM

May 1 2007, 02:20 AM #20

I am not 100% sure of what happened.

But what I do know is that there is a physical damage path that cannot be ignored.
You're absolutely right. The physical damage can NOT be ignored. Just don't ignore the fact that the physical damage does not make sense.
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Chang ... topic=6158

And by the way, some of those eyewitnesses are obvious plants. If a 757 slammed into the Pentagon, then why would they need fake witnesses?
The nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit. So that's the extent of penetration of the aircraft.
-The first lie
The plane exploded after it hit, the tail came off and it began burning immediately.
-Vin Narayanan, columnist for USATODAY, The Nation's Gatekeeper
Quote
Like
Share


Confirmation of reply: