Interview w/cab driver Lloyd England in: "The First Known Accomplice?"

[Beau]

Craig, you do realize that you quoted yourself, not DonaldJHunt, in the above post? So you are sort of contradicting yourself here.

 

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Craig, you do realize that you quoted yourself, not DonaldJHunt, in the above post? So you are sort of contradicting yourself here.

Well I realized that I edited it to only include my quote after I posted it but yes......I meant to correct myself there.

Bottom line.....to whatever degree it is deductive reasoning or linear deductive reasoning is pretty immaterial here because it is valid evidence proving a military deception and that is EXACTLY what we need to expose the 9/11 fraud.

 

[Ruth]

because it is valid evidence proving a military deception and that is EXACTLY what we need to expose the 9/11 fraud.

If you concentrate on the footsoldiers you'll never find the 'mastermind'. Its kind of like isolating a piece of spider's web and saying "this is a piece of evidence", and if I pull this apart, or follow it, it will lead automatically to the spider. Not necessarily, there are many other 'threads' out there that should theoretically do the same thing. Besides, the spider can 'move' - is a dangerous predator - is capable of "camouflage (via confusion and distraction), where as, "the evidence" can't move easily, can easily be tampered with or hidden, and very easily leads a person down only one track.

That's not to say that what you are doing isn't useful, just remember it may be only one thread of a "web" you are investigating, without being able to see where the real spider is, and what it is doing within (let alone who it is). This is how many 9/11 investigators become 'unstuck'. They may not be able to see the spider, but it can sure as hell see them!!! You can bet on it.

 

[Beau]

Bottom line.....to whatever degree it is deductive reasoning or linear deductive reasoning is pretty immaterial here because it is valid evidence proving a military deception and that is EXACTLY what we need to expose the 9/11 fraud.

Well, it's kind of confusing. First you say you aren't relying on either linear or deductive reasoning and now you say that it doesn't matter (which is kind of like saying you ARE using either of the mentioned forms of reason since your conclusion have been formed from them).

So, do you disagree with Joe when he wrote:

I don't think we can get to the bottom of it by relying on linear deductive reasoning.

I don't mean to be picky or a devil's advocate here, but it seems you are avoiding the point Joe made above.

 

[ark]

There is nothing linear or deductive about this reasoning.

Well......I see it as deductive reasoning but not linear since we have more than one line of evidence proving a deception with the light poles.

Yet it still linear in each line. You may call it "multilinear", but it is still in the linear family. Non-linear reasoning is something else. It contains "spontaneous jumps" to appearently not logically connected issues, issues that originally seem to be not related to the main issue, but AFTERWARDS prove to be the only way to understand the phenomenon. Only afterwards comes the Eureka! How could we possibly not see it before!

While the control system can easily control the linear thinking of the masses, for instance through computer simulations, and lead it in any direction the controllers wish by implanting false clues here and there, the control system can't so easily deal with non-linear thinking that uses almost infinite pool of data - the whole PATTERN available to our intelligence.

 

[anart]

Yet it still linear in each line. You may call it "multilinear", but it is still in the linear family. Non-linear reasoning is something else. It contains "spontaneous jumps" to appearently not logically connected issues, issues that originally seem to be not related to the main issue, but AFTERWARDS prove to be the only way to understand the phenomenon. Only afterwards comes the Eureka! How could we possibly not see it before!

While the control system can easily control the linear thinking of the masses, for instance through computer simulations, and lead it in any direction the controllers wish by implanting false clues here and there, the control system can't so easily deal with non-linear thinking that uses almost infinite pool of data - the whole PATTERN available to our intelligence.

Exactly. Non-linear 'thinking' might allow us the chance to view the 'opera' from not only the viewpoint of those who directed it, but those who wrote it - instead of viewing it from the perspective of someone sitting in the audience.

That is, arguably, where we are - we are audience members, and as audience members, we see what we are allowed to see - we see linearly. The only way the full truth of what happened that day will ever be revealed to those of us in the audience is to see it from the viewpoint of those who 'wrote it' - and to do that, we must no longer think as audience members think - we must see it in a non-linear manner and that necessitates, among other things, creativity and networking. It's interesting that one thing psychopaths always lack is creativity. That necessarily includes basic creativity of thought, which means they tend to be blind to the capacity and potential of those of us in the audience. That detail may end up making all the difference. fwiw.

 

[Laura]

I can think of a lot of reasons that an old cab driver would lie and those reasons can be conscious or unconscious. We have to remember that being old does not automatically translate to being "good." Nasty rotten young people turn into nasty, rotten old people.

I've also been thinking about this light-pole business a bit and yeah, I can see how planting that kind of evidence could be one of the tricks that conspirators would play. The whole thing was set up with all kinds of false clues that lead nowhere, and that was deliberate.

If you want to get a good idea of how sick some of these head games can be, just read about what the military did to Paul Bennewitz - how they drove him crazy playing with his head, planting stuff, setting things up one way and then another because he was getting too close to the truth. So, that was way back when. I'm sure they have refined their methods.

But still and all, unless the masses of people can integrate into their reality the idea that human beings exist who are not quite human, who can DO such things, cold-bloodedly and deliberately, there will never be enough support to DO anything about it.

Let's face it, the Bush gang and their handlers have the masses of people by the short hairs. They are the military -industrial complex, and they control the judiciary, law enforcement, have tons of stuff to blackmail anybody with (due to illegal wiretapping and mail tampering), and so on. So, what is anybody able to really do? Again, unless and until they become aware of pathological humans and what WILL happen if they do NOT do something pretty soon, they are not going to do anything. They will always think to themselves: "If I just wait, maintain a low profile, work my job, keep my mouth shut, contribute to this or that political solution, things will get better." They have been raised on so many false platitudes that they will never figure out that they are literally facing their death until it is too late.

Unless, as I say, the information about psychopathy can be spread as far and wide and compellingly as possible. We need a paradigm shift in our understanding of different types of human beings; we need to be viscerally aware that there are many human predators and how to spot them. Once that is achieved - and it's already a pretty big job - then people will automatically see the signs when the note the symptoms. And then they will KNOW what's up, and what's likely to happen.

 

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Bottom line.....to whatever degree it is deductive reasoning or linear deductive reasoning is pretty immaterial here because it is valid evidence proving a military deception and that is EXACTLY what we need to expose the 9/11 fraud.

Well, it's kind of confusing. First you say you aren't relying on either linear or deductive reasoning and now you say that it doesn't matter (which is kind of like saying you ARE using either of the mentioned forms of reason since your conclusion have been formed from them).

So, do you disagree with Joe when he wrote:

I don't think we can get to the bottom of it by relying on linear deductive reasoning.

I don't mean to be picky or a devil's advocate here, but it seems you are avoiding the point Joe made above.

Thanks for helping to clarify.

I wasn't avoiding the point, it simply became clouded in the debate about how to label the reasoning involved in presenting the hard evidence that proves that light poles were staged. (which Joe has at least agreed is "likely").

But yes.......I absolutely disagree with Joe's statement.

However....I suppose that depends on exactly what he is suggesting "it" is that we are getting to the bottom of.

I have no delusions that we know everything about how this operation was carried out or that we ever will.

For me......getting to the "bottom of it" simply means proving the official story a deliberate staged deception.

Period.

There are many facets of this complex operation that, if proven, will succeed in exposing the overall deception.

Staging of the light poles and/or the plane on the north side most certainly is one of them.

The good news is that we already have evidence enough to prove these things.

The bad news is that people are still refusing to accept it or insisting on minimizing the relevance of this groundbreaking evidence.

Or even worse; they are deliberately covering it up as has just been done by Dylan Avery.

 

[Craig Ranke CIT]

because it is valid evidence proving a military deception and that is EXACTLY what we need to expose the 9/11 fraud.

If you concentrate on the footsoldiers you'll never find the 'mastermind'. Its kind of like isolating a piece of spider's web and saying "this is a piece of evidence", and if I pull this apart, or follow it, it will lead automatically to the spider. Not necessarily, there are many other 'threads' out there that should theoretically do the same thing. Besides, the spider can 'move' - is a dangerous predator - is capable of "camouflage (via confusion and distraction), where as, "the evidence" can't move easily, can easily be tampered with or hidden, and very easily leads a person down only one track.

That's not to say that what you are doing isn't useful, just remember it may be only one thread of a "web" you are investigating, without being able to see where the real spider is, and what it is doing within (let alone who it is). This is how many 9/11 investigators become 'unstuck'. They may not be able to see the spider, but it can sure as hell see them!!! You can bet on it.

I get your point but we are not concentrating on the "footsoldiers".

We concentrate on the hard evidence proving a deception and that evidence just so happens to implicate Lloyd.

We have said many times that he might very well be a victim of coercion or manipulation and we have never held him responsible for the operation.

But if the evidence implicates somebody hard enough as a direct link to the perpetrators.....this can NOT be ignored.

Frankly....I don't think it's possible to find the spider.

And even if we do we'll simply find out quite soon that we are infested with them and that killing one does nothing.

But positively identifying the web is what we CAN do.

Once that is done....making the people aware should be as easy as calling the exterminator (note how I said "should") and then we can have the entire infestation wiped out at once.

There is no one culprit.

We need to rebuild the republic from scratch.

 

[Craig Ranke CIT]

There is nothing linear or deductive about this reasoning.

Well......I see it as deductive reasoning but not linear since we have more than one line of evidence proving a deception with the light poles.

Yet it still linear in each line. You may call it "multilinear", but it is still in the linear family. Non-linear reasoning is something else. It contains "spontaneous jumps" to appearently not logically connected issues, issues that originally seem to be not related to the main issue, but AFTERWARDS prove to be the only way to understand the phenomenon. Only afterwards comes the Eureka! How could we possibly not see it before!

While the control system can easily control the linear thinking of the masses, for instance through computer simulations, and lead it in any direction the controllers wish by implanting false clues here and there, the control system can't so easily deal with non-linear thinking that uses almost infinite pool of data - the whole PATTERN available to our intelligence.

Fair enough.

Again..... I have no delusions that we have uncovered how the entire operation was carried out or that this is even possible.

Focusing on the big picture is commendable and important......but it's the long route to exposing the deception and we simply don't have the time.

We are talking the short route by focusing in on fatal contradictions and proving them with hard evidence.

What happens when that is accepted by the masses I do not know and frankly sometimes I wonder if that is the perpetrators goal in the first place.

It's a horrible thought but certainly I am not the first one to entertain it.

But if I were resolved to that belief I couldn't do what I do and I would simply be forced to go back to blissfully living in the matrix.

 

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Unless, as I say, the information about psychopathy can be spread as far and wide and compellingly as possible. We need a paradigm shift in our understanding of different types of human beings; we need to be viscerally aware that there are many human predators and how to spot them. Once that is achieved - and it's already a pretty big job - then people will automatically see the signs when the note the symptoms. And then they will KNOW what's up, and what's likely to happen.

Agreed.

Although it's not evident this is happening, I have faith that we are moving in that direction and that a mass awakening is not only possible but inevitable.

 

[Laura]

Craig, have you watched "Evidence of Revision," all five parts?

 

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Craig, have you watched "Evidence of Revision," all five parts?

Nope.

I'll check it out.

 

[Laura]

Craig, have you watched "Evidence of Revision," all five parts?

Nope.

I'll check it out.

Thanks. When you have watched it, let me know. Would like to discuss a few things on there that probably relate to the 911 issue with you.

 

[goshawks]

Being both an ex-aero-engineer and ex-USAF, I would like to introduce an additional viewpoint to the above discussion. (if this has already been covered elsewhere, have mercy - I'm new here...)

If you look at the third photo of the initial post, there is an aerial view of the front of the Pentagon plus two proposed flight paths. Note the rough angles of the flight paths where they intersect the building face.

Now, go to your article "Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon - And Neither Did a Boeing 757" at http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/sott/ATS_article.php

Around 2/3 of the way down that column, there is an 'impact map' of the damaged area of the Pentagon section. If you take a centerline on the impact 'tunnel', it appears to be roughly 30-35 degrees off of a normal to the wall (I don't have a measuring device right now...). This is a physics-based record of the flight path of the impacting object. Based on what I know about aircraft, this angle is what should be projected back out over the first photo above. No transport-class aircraft, cruise missile, or UAV has the capability to vary flight path angle more than minutely over the photo-shown distance at 400-500 knots. Take a look at the video of the 767 trying to bank into the WTC tower. Over a much longer distance, it still could not 'pull' to the centerline of the building. Even a front-line fighter jet could not change that flight path angle more than a few degrees in a 9-G 'pull'. Transport-class aircraft are rated at 2.5Gs. So, what you see in the 'impact map' IS the flight path during the photo view distance.

Now, compare the 'impact map' angle to the two proposed flight path angles. I find that the "North of Citgo Witness Flight Plan" line seems to be roughly 30-40 degrees off of a normal to the wall. The "Official Impact Flight Path" line appears to be roughly 70-80 degrees off of a normal to the wall. Note which one is closer to the above map angle...

Hence, there is a high probability of 'monkey business' of some sort around the sheared light pole. (With the caveat that I am 'eyeballing' the angles, of course...)

I hope this helps the discussion.