His theory is that a "breeze" caused a 737 loaded up with bombs to blow off course to the north side while all the physical damage was staged and the plane blew up and completely disintegrated just prior to impact without causing a crater in the lawn.

But seriously, the reason Ranke is so blunt (which the thinner skinned people take personally) is because he's absolutely right. All of the "classic" CIT "debunkers" like Adam Larson, Arabesque, Jim Hoffman, and Jimd3100 (who is a moderator at prisonplanet and bans anyone on the spot for promoting CIT's work) have never tried to reconcile a north approach with anything other than a flyover, because they know they can't. Their modus operandi has been to try and cast doubt on the veracity of the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. However, even though 4 witnesses is corroboration enough (their original Pentacon video), it was easier for Arabesque and Co., using the fog of propaganda, to convince the speed readers that maybe CIT was cherry picking or engaging in special pleading. As they got not only more visible but also more credible with more and more witnesses, the old CIT "debunkers" have gone quiet. Seen any Victronix or Arabesque posts on blogger lately? Have you seen Sparks talk about how CIT is "bollox?" or "Truthmover" Jules talking about how he's disappointed that DRG, Ed Asner, etc. just haven't looked at CIT as critically as he has? No, they've all gone quiet. Of course, they're still logging in and voting down the comments, but they can't argue the fact that 13 north side eyewitnesses represents mathematical proof that the north side is correct. (I don't know the exact mathematical formula but I certainly remember enough general concepts from "probability and statistics" courses in high school that the chance of all 13 witnesses being wrong is infinitesimally low.) None of them tried to say that maybe the north approach could be reconciled with an impact, because they knew they couldn't.

And what happens when someone tries to be the knight in shining armor for the other side and try to disprove flyover while accepting the evidence to which it points? You make an ass of yourself and completely discredit your credibility as Sarns has done with his Bugs Bunny scenario.