It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

PentaCon is not a Hoax

page: 10
7
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Pleading to emotion straw man arguments that have NOTHING to do with the north side claim.

Why were these supposedly the only 2 calls from flight 77 when there were so many from flight 93?



At 9:12, Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, in Las Vegas. She said
her flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the
rear of the plane.


Show me the transcript of Renee May's conversation with her mother.

Did she really count the exact number of hijackers and report this relatively insignificant fact in her known last words to her mother?

As far as Barbara Olson goes; give me a break!

A wife of a Bush cronie and published conservative pundit??

How conveeeeeenient!

The utter ABSURDITY of the Barbara Olson coincidence is fully outlined in this article.

[edit on 15-6-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]




posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 10:50 PM
link   
For the record.....

I believe that Barbara Olson is a VICTIM.

I question the motives and involvement of her husband Ted Olson who has said under oath as a witness in front of the supreme court:

"There are lots of different situations when the government has legitimate reasons to give out false information."

It is well known that in most murder cases of married women that the husband is quite often the culprit and therefore always a suspect by default.

[edit on 15-6-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
If you STILL don't understand the implications of this then I doubt you have the mental capacity to ever understand. Most likely it is just denial.


This is a good example of how to lose an argument, when one resorts to questioning the mental capacity of another.

Is there any point in asking people involved here to keep the discussion civil, and avoid making it or taking it personal?

Please, keep the discussion civil, and by all means please avoid personal attacks of any kind.



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Pleading to emotion straw man arguments that have NOTHING to do with the north side claim.

Why were these supposedly the only 2 calls from flight 77 when there were so many from flight 93?



At 9:12, Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, in Las Vegas. She said
her flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the
rear of the plane.


Show me the transcript of Renee May's conversation with her mother.

Did she really count the exact number of hijackers and report this relatively insignificant fact in her known last words to her mother?

As far as Barbara Olson goes; give me a break!

A wife of a Bush cronie and published conservative pundit??

How conveeeeeenient!

The utter ABSURDITY of the Barbara Olson coincidence is fully outlined in this article.

[edit on 15-6-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]


If one cant answer a question..that makes in a strawman? Why is that ? ..Yet someone can post a link to a site that was put together by a guy named Otho Jewell Vialls who was looney tunes up until the day he dies in 1995!

There were 6 calls from flight 77 actually...yes..much less than the 39 or so from flight 93. Craig..flight 93 was delayed! Those passengers were aware of their fate... 77 wasnt aware until it was too late.

So your saying it was conveinient for this woman to die? Because her husband worked for Bush? How so? You claim she is a victim.... interesting.

Also, have you listened to the Barbra Ong recording?

EDIT TO ADD... as far as the transcript to Renees last call EVER to her mom.... Craig...do you have a transcript of the last time you talked to your mom? Talk about strawmen!!

[edit on 15-6-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Craig...once again your wrong. There were actually in addition to those two calls...4 more calls made to unknown numbers. And one more than never got connected.

Flight 93 was DELAYED... the passengers had heard from loved one about the highjackings... they KNEW their fate!




Barbara Olson allegedly asked what she should tell Chick Burlingame, the pilot, who was allegedly coward in the back of the plane with her AFTER the 2nd tower was hit.

You don't think she would have had a pretty good idea of her fate?

Calls to "unknown numbers" by who? Evidence?

Obviously you have none otherwise you would have posted it.





Hey Craig, show me the transcript of the last phone call you made to your mother! TALK ABOUT STRAWMEN!!


How about a single quote? Quotes and transcripts exist of the other alleged calls. I am not saying that this is proof of anything. Simply that the evidence in support of the official story is flimsy while evidence in support of the north side claim is rock solid.






There you have it... a "victim" as Craig put it... but since its the wife of a "croonie" it must be collateral damage...she was sacrificed for the good of the country!! Why? Well becasue husbands do that.


No because Olson has ADMITTED to the Supreme court that it's OK for the government to lie and because the evidence the plane flew on the north side of the citgo is extremely strong while this particular evidence in support of the official deception is extremely weak.




IS anyone else reading this filth that he is posting?
I guess if you keep repeating the word STRAWMAN... some others will come to your aid and help you with your theory.... which come to think of it... you can't come up with...


I am posting heavily researched and supported facts.

You are posting empty rhetoric and attacks.



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by UM_Gazz

This is a good example of how to lose an argument, when one resorts to questioning the mental capacity of another.


Do you honestly and truthfully believe that I am "losing" this argument?

The question is rhetorical.

Sleep on it.



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Barbara Olson allegedly asked what she should tell Chick Burlingame, the pilot, who was allegedly coward in the back of the plane with her AFTER the 2nd tower was hit.

You don't think she would have had a pretty good idea of her fate?

Calls to "unknown numbers" by who? Evidence?

Obviously you have none otherwise you would have posted it.


Nice choice of words... "coward" in the back. Are you showing off vocabulary skills or trying to be funny? They were forced to the back. Barbra was not aware of her fate until it was much to late... NOT like flight 93.

The evidence i have is the SAME evidence that was presented in the trial of:

United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui
Criminal No. 01-455-A

Prosecution Trial Exhibits

Exhibit Number Description

P200054 Summary of Flight 77 depicting: the identity of pilots and flight attendants, seat assignments of passengers, and telephone calls from the flight.

here is the link if you care to download it:

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...




How about a single quote? Quotes and transcripts exist of the other alleged calls. I am not saying that this is proof of anything. Simply that the evidence in support of the official story is flimsy while evidence in support of the north side claim is rock solid.


I believe the transcripts were from recorded calls. Not personal calls. Do you have any transcripts from the 30+ personal calls from flight 93?


North Side Rock Solid.. North Side Rock Solid....

No it isnt. You had witnesses (3) that agree with you. Yet they state they saw what you are telling them they DIDN'T see! .. what don't you get??!! This is not a strawman argument on my side...you are the one in denial...all you have is 3 witnesses that claimed to have seen the Plane on the North side. After that you have NOTHING.

You claim all the 911 calls were stashed away...yet there have been MANY eye witnesses to the Pentagon being struck by a plane.



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 12:17 AM
link   
I did not report the witnesses that "agreed" with me.

I am not a witness to the plane.

I am a reporter who set out to determine where the eyewitnesses saw the plane fly.

The results are conclusive since all the witnesses agree.

I'm sorry that you refuse to accept where everyone who was actually present on that day saw the plane.

I'm sorry that you are so upset that it conflicts with the official story.

But I did not have a belief about what side of the station the plane flew until all the eyewitnesses who were actually there and can prove it told me the same thing.

The plane flew on the north side of the gas station.



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Per 3 witnesses! Thats all you got Craig. 3 ...that does NOT prove anything. We have close to a hundred that saw a plane slam into the pentagon... You say that they didn't see that.... well... where is your proof to that ?? Of all the witnesses that have come forward ... NONE stated that the plane at the last moment pulled up. NONE! Your theory although interesting and well researched..is baseless.



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Per 3 witnesses! Thats all you got Craig. 3 ...that does NOT prove anything. We have close to a hundred that saw a plane slam into the pentagon... You say that they didn't see that.... well... where is your proof to that ?? Of all the witnesses that have come forward ... NONE stated that the plane at the last moment pulled up. NONE! Your theory although interesting and well researched..is baseless.


3 critical witnesses with ZERO refuting them and another corroborating them up the street.

You are INCORRECT or dishonest in your erroneous claim that "close to a hundred" literally saw the plane hit the building.

Believing/deducing an impact does not count as witnessing it.

You are also incorrect or dishonest in your statement that "none" saw it pull up because that is EXACTLY what Robert Turcios saw.




And he would have had the best possible vantage point of any last moment pull up.



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   
"Close Staff Scrutiny" in the 9/11 forum is not a joke or recommendation... it means we're watching for members insulting or attacking other members.

It seems the "9/11 conspiracy" topic either brings out the worst in people, or brings out the worst people, or both.

This thread is closed... and we have a couple temporary posting bans as a result.







 
7
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join