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: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Aldo and I answered differently to this question:



You stated a possibility to the generator being rigged with explosives, "possibly". Did you compare the damage done to this generator, and if so, is the damage consistant with that of explosives?


What do you mean by "compare" the damage? Obviously we didn't recreate the scene once with an airplane and once with explosives.

So in that sense....no we haven't.

But obviously we HAVE stared at the image like everyone else and have not ruled out the possibility that explosives were used for any particular reason.

Bottom line it's an odd question and we fully admit that we can only hypothesize how the damage was caused.

We have never suggested we can literally prove how it was caused just like the notion that explosives were used to create the damage can not be DISPROVED.




posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I'm glad to know that we have people protecting our country from the inside that use ignorance as deductive reasoning. I don't even feel that I should be humorous or sarcastic about it, but it's the only thing that subsides the anxiety that it caused.


Originally posted by Flyingdog5000
Look at all the cases of people wrongly imprisoned based on "eyewitness testimony" that have been released after review of the physical evidence such as DNA. The physical evidence in this case is overwhelming in support of the 757 flying into the building at an oblique angle after passing to the south of the CITGO station. The only way to contravene this evidence is to ignore it.


My neighbor took a # in my yard (Psychotic guy who's ex wife lived in my house while I was in Germany) and used the overwhelming evidence that "Dogs take #s in yards, not people" He said this after I confronted him about it, because another neighbor happened to be looking out the window while he was doing it.

Where's the dog #? In other words, where's the 757? That would be overwhelming evidence.



...
I didn't know you can't say the S word on ATS.... Haha.

[edit on 8/6/07 by Kokasion]



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Weak spot? You have got to be kidding! People have been questioning the anomalous damage and lack of debris etc since day one. [...] MILLIONS of people throughout the world questioned the physical evidence at the Pentagon.


Millions of people are miseld idiots who read misleading webites instead of investigating for themselves. Of course, this is WHY your video stands any chance, and why I know this line of argument will not let me win with the CT crowd. But you've looked up close. You know the hole is 90 feet wide, not 16. You know you're peddling BS, confirmed by your witnesses. I'm just letting you know I know, whether anyone ese here buys my case or not.

You are bluffing, Craig, which is the reason for the bluster.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Craig: What were your suspicions on seeing this anomolous and indeed curious evidence?




Pathetic explanations IMO.

Or maybe it was moved and partially pre-fabricated in advance and then finished off with explosives.


As if the generator trailer was the first thing that ANYONE looked at. Again; the generator trailer and light poles were probably the most convincing but compared to the lack of debris,
You mean lack of debris outside the building the plane had just crashed INTO? What about the debris inside? Planted?

columns blown OUTWARD where the right engine allegedly hit,

Wrong. Wedge one collums 15-17 AA were removed (don't tell me you trust the ASCE?). "Columns 16" at Right engine entry point is limestone facade, once horizontal, that fell at this angle. 15 + 17 probably the same.
ETA: I mean not limestone, but something horizontal that fel after the columns there were removed. 17 anyway. "column 15" I'm still not sure on...

curiously small hole before collapse,

Please cite for me in your opinion just how small?

undamaged windows where the vertical stabilizer would have hit,

Near where it would have hit - they were some tough ass windows.

extremely odd c-ring "exit hole"

Alright that one's a bit odd, but hardly the most relevant.

etc we already had serious questions that were not answered simply by looking at the generator trailer.

Your questions being why does it obviously seem to have been "partially pre-fabricated in advance and then finished off with explosives." Hnn! Looks like no plane to me! Let's go see what the eyewitnesses said!


The damage to the generator trailer in their own backyard is literally NOTHING compared to the damage they staged in downtown Manhattan.

Are you implying that the plane impacts/damage there was faked too? Becuase most of that damage came from collapsing skyscrapers. I don't think that explains the Pentagon...


[edit on 8-6-2007 by Caustic Logic]
edit to add and spelling

[edit on 8-6-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aldo Marquis

Let's take a moment to reflect what a 757 traveling at 530 mph would look like.

www.pentagonresearch.com...

Imagine the engine ripping through the fence shown in that video. Now imagine it hitting that section of the fence at the Pentagon.

Would it be more likely or less likely to only bend down/knock out 3 posts, and lay down a 8-10 ft section of fence, while leaving all the other posts in tact with their barbed wire and holders still intact?

or...

Would it it be more likely or less likely to hit the fence and rip out the whole section of fence and barbed wire, completely obliterating more posts?


Fair question. This occurred to me too. I guess it depends on the type of fence, the strength of the poles, etc...



How do you know that sections of fence around the generator trailer, leading to the other two trailers were not removed? after all, they were finishing their "renovations" to the Pentagon leading up to 9/11. We know satellite photos show the fence or some sort of barriers in place around the 7th www.pentagonresearch.com... how do you know they weren't removed exposing the trailers, giving the apearance they were taken out by a 757?


Could be for the fence - knowing an attack was coming, they'd want to fake out a plane, and removed this section for some "innocent reason, and when the fakery happened and that was touted as the engine path, the witnesses who removed the fence there for "innocent reasons" were compeeled to remain silent about this remarkable coincidence. You guys may be onto something.

But the generator itslef...


Now let's imagine the force of this engine AND wing hitting this generator trailer.

Would it be more likely or less likely to only rip the top of the trailer moving it a few feet to the right?

or...

Would it it be more likely or less likely to hit the trailer flipping it, obliterating it, sending it toward the Wall of the Pentagon?

Here is a video of the NASA plane crash of an airliner at a much slower speed:

video.google.com...

Did you ever watch the video of the trailer on fire before it was put out and left the damage you see? If not you should. Look at the damage, it reflects the thin metal sheet of the trailer MELTING into a an even bend. So the plane did not cause that, the resulting FIRE DID.


Actully you're right. The only way an engine would do that kind of shaping itself is if it was dropped - sorry to seem misleading there and thanks for the remider. The curve is not engine damage, but melting. There prob was damage, some major bending or something, but mostly it slid I'd guess and the initial damage is invisible after the melting. Would it tip? Maybe. If so that's on bit of fakery they did wrong.


Let's not forget the plane was on the North side of the Citgo, so it COULD NOT have been what damaged the trailer.


Blanket answer and wrong IMO. Some witnesses claim or imply they saw it there and you guys are convinced is what you mean.
ETA: And with prior bias counter to the facts on the ground IMO

spelling edit - sorry if I missed any you get what I mean...


[edit on 8-6-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by Aldo Marquis

Let's not forget the plane was on the North side of the Citgo, so it COULD NOT have been what damaged the trailer.


Blanket answer and wrong IMO. Some witnesses claim or imply they saw it there and you guys are convinced is what you mean.
ETA: And with prior bias counter to the facts on the ground IMO


Thank you for at least conceding the above points. That IS respected.

As for the above comment...

You really have to step outside of the box my friend. NO ONE knew exactly where the plane came in and we relied on the ASCE report and other researchers establishing the light pole path.

If you'd like I can show you media renderings of the same dive path. I can show you National Geographic's Seconds From Diaster where they not only show the DC flight path but also place the plane on the North side as well.

Let me show you another account of a genuine witness:


www.intermind.net...
My Boss's girlfriend then showed up down stairs and said that she saw the airliner crash into the Pentagon. She had just turned on the TV when she heard a loud rumbling noise and looked out the window of her hotel room on the 7th floor. She said that she could see the airliner at eye level as it dove in at about a 45 degree angle. The plane then went behind the trees and the office building to the north of us, then a huge fire ball emerged behind them.
www.intermind.net...


Go back and look at how many people had it in a 'dive'. According to the official trajectory it would only be a in a slight down attitude, almost completely level. Most people had it in a dive. Genuine witnesses did because that's what it did. Planted witnesses did because they wanted to blend the two stories and not sound fishy.

I know you and Craig are at odds. I would recommend opening a phone dialog with me. I would love to explain everything and these forums prevent that. They put us at each other's throats and both of us feel we have something to prove in front of an audience.

I am extending the olive branch, are you willing to accept it?



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic


How do you know that sections of fence around the generator trailer, leading to the other two trailers were not removed? after all, they were finishing their "renovations" to the Pentagon leading up to 9/11. We know satellite photos show the fence or some sort of barriers in place around the 7th www.pentagonresearch.com... how do you know they weren't removed exposing the trailers, giving the apearance they were taken out by a 757?


Could be for the fence - knowing an attack was coming, they'd want to fake out a plane, and removed this section for some "innocent reason, and when the fakery happened and that was touted as the engine path, the witnesses who removed the fence there for "innocent reasons" were compeeled to remain silent about this remarkable coincidence. You guys may be onto something.



No I honestly think the hole section was fabricated. They Bent some poles down, snipped a few links in the standing fence, perforated or scored the tarp enough that it simply just dropped.

I think the fence leading away from that toward the trailers and the cars could have been removed. That would have started the impression that they were working on removing the fence or parts of the fence. I honestly think that the large portion leading towards the Generator trailer could have been removed and the removers would have been none the wiser.

But the section where they created the hole would have to have been done by the operatives.

Look at what people said, Caustic.

Truck bomb or a bomb went off. I bet people on 27 may not have even seen the plane or at least did not see it hit, they saw trailers blowing up.

Then two of the most dubious witnesses who established the Southside flight path in the ASCE report were Pentagon renovation workers!!!

Who would have been the most likely candidates for planting explosives in the Pentagon to simulate the attack? That's right, Pentagon renovation workers. They didn't reinforce it for an airplane man. Think about it. That is disinfo, to get you sucked in to rationalizing the "counter-intuitive" damage. The wall was reinforced for a TRUCK BOMB. It was "blast resistant", not 757 resistant. Just that section, from wingtip to wingtip. Think about it. They blew up trailers IN FRONT of the exact section and they more than likely BLEW OUT the wall by placing explosives behind it. So the extra reinforcement was to support or HOLD the poorly simulated plane shape.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by Aldo Marquis]

[edit on 8-6-2007 by Aldo Marquis]



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Thanks for noticing that I respond to logic. And thanks for having some.

I've said my piece for now. I only add that the generator is ONE of many such issues. People need to look it up for themselves rather tha let experts on either/any side decide for them.

Depends what the olive branch means. Odd how right after I think I've hit a solid blow, I get assurances that I haven't, and offers for e-mails and phone calls off to the side. Sorry if that sounds paranoid or ticks anyone off to notice it. Been a lot of that in the last couple of days tho. So no thanks. Call me crazy...

Don't worry I'm done for the afternoon anyway.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aldo Marquis
Look at what people said, Caustic.

Truck bomb or a bomb went off. I bet people on 27 may not have even seen the plane or at least did not see it hit, they saw trailers blowing up.

Not familiar, sorry... it's usually not like that tho when I finally track it down. Lots o distortions.


Then two of the most dubious witnesses who established the Southside flight path in the ASCE report were Pentagon renovation workers!!!

The ASCE report is not the place for witnesses. PENREN people is who they were talking to as they did their report. they didn't just canvass the whole pool of people who were there that day. In fact I thought all their four were Penren.

Pentagon people! Shady! But it happened AT the Pentagon. So it stands to reason.
They were in a gret position to plant bombs and lie about the plane! Or alternately, at the right place to see the plane hit and explode. Depends on how you look at it.

Now Re: PENREN and the renovations and where the plane hit - I prob agree with you guys this is more than coincidence that this section was where it went down. It's all in what hapened there that we disagree.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Weak spot? You have got to be kidding! People have been questioning the anomalous damage and lack of debris etc since day one. [...] MILLIONS of people throughout the world questioned the physical evidence at the Pentagon.


Millions of people are miseld idiots who read misleading webites instead of investigating for themselves. Of course, this is WHY your video stands any chance, and why I know this line of argument will not let me win with the CT crowd. But you've looked up close. You know the hole is 90 feet wide, not 16. You know you're peddling BS, confirmed by your witnesses. I'm just letting you know I know, whether anyone ese here buys my case or not.

You are bluffing, Craig, which is the reason for the bluster.




You have got to be kidding!

It's so obvious you are trying to throw strong rhetoric back at me like I do to you but yours is empty and mine slices right through to the heart of truth.

Peddling BS? Confirmed by witnesses? Bluffing??????


Please do elaborate because that is the most hollow load of verbage I've ever heard anyone DARE spew.

The most relevant thing "confirmed by witnesses" is the north side, sir.

Of what "bs" you speak I haven't the foggiest.

As far as bluffing goes you are clearly reaching. I claim NOTHING beyond that which I have proven or can back up.

You are ambiguously trying to cast doubt about me to people who read this and it is deceptive.

Are you really going to decline a phone conversation with Aldo?

If you do that is EXTREMELY questionable and dubious behavior imo.

What are you afraid of?

So let me guess.....you all of the sudden think I am peddling disinfo because I said "small hole".

Well it IS small whether or not they badly simulated damage within the wing span of a 757. Sure....it KIND OF fits but.......





That doesn't change the fact that there was no damage from the vertical stabilizer or no vertical stabilizer to be found.

Not to mention there is no hole for the right engine!



Instead we've got columns blown up and OUTWARDS!

And then once you get into the foundation it's over.

Clearly no 757 hit that building as they claimed it did.

The physical damage REQUIRES the right wing to be tilted up. The ASCE report also states that all damage was limited to the bottom two stories.

That means the left engine HAD to have dug into the foundation of the building. (and also the lawn if it came in straight and perfectly level like in the dubious security video)

The ASCE report even depicted the left engine digging into the foundation here:




So where is the foundation damage?




Explain or concede.






[edit on 8-6-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

You mean lack of debris outside the building the plane had just crashed INTO? What about the debris inside? Planted?


Funny how you link to rense for that information just like THE PENTAGON DOES!

You do know that there was no photographer linked to those images until us conspiracy theorists forced Russell Pickering to out Leo Titus right?

You do know that the government referred people to rense for the photos right?

How could you actually insinuate that it is questionable whether or not they could have planted a small handful of parts in an office or two of this brand spankin newly renovated pentagon wedge?

The small handful of parts that are mostly NOT positively identifiable are right here:


link to full sized image
Wow. Amazing. Incredible. How could they possibly have pulled that off?






columns blown OUTWARD where the right engine allegedly hit,

Wrong. Wedge one collums 15-17 AA were removed (don't tell me you trust the ASCE?). "Columns 16" at Right engine entry point is limestone facade, once horizontal, that fell at this angle. 15 + 17 probably the same.
ETA: I mean not limestone, but something horizontal that fel after the columns there were removed. 17 anyway. "column 15" I'm still not sure on...


Uh-huh. "still not sure". That's because there IS NO RIGHT ENGINE HOLE!




curiously small hole before collapse,

Please cite for me in your opinion just how small?


Explained/acknowledged in prior post.




undamaged windows where the vertical stabilizer would have hit,

Near where it would have hit - they were some tough ass windows.


Yep. Tough. Blast proof to be precise. But certainly NOT 757 proof!




extremely odd c-ring "exit hole"

Alright that one's a bit odd, but hardly the most relevant.


WHAT??? Hardly the most relevant?!

How does an extremely curious/suspicous/ridiculous/cartoonish/anomalous/extremely obvious and significant piece of physical evidence all the sudden become low on the "relevance" scale?

Talk about selective consideration!

Even Russell Pickering admits that this was faked!

You are so wrapped up in your 757 impact conspiracy theory that you can't even concede that?

Wow.





etc we already had serious questions that were not answered simply by looking at the generator trailer.

Your questions being why does it obviously seem to have been "partially pre-fabricated in advance and then finished off with explosives." Hnn! Looks like no plane to me! Let's go see what the eyewitnesses said!


Huh? You mean questions like......"my that physical damage sure looks "counter-intuitive" and fishy on many levels. Given the fact that there was barely any plane debris and all video of the event was sequestered and given the fact that the towers and building 7 were clearly controlled demolitions we should probably embark on an on site investigative effort."

Gosh....how could we possibly have the mental fortitude to think on those levels?




The damage to the generator trailer in their own backyard is literally NOTHING compared to the damage they staged in downtown Manhattan.

Are you implying that the plane impacts/damage there was faked too? Becuase most of that damage came from collapsing skyscrapers. I don't think that explains the Pentagon...


The collapses were SIMULATED/STAGED with explosives and real plane impacts were used to fool people. You don't believe that?













[edit on 8-6-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

(mod edit to reduce size of large image)

[edit on 10-6-2007 by pantha]



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 10:28 PM
link   






RB211:


No foundation damage even though it allegedly slid on it's belly








Look how bizarre the Purdue engineers made this animation.

-No Engines
-No Right wing up, left wing down
-Sliding on belly (which would make sense with the official story, but where is the damage to the foundation???)

[edit on 8-6-2007 by Aldo Marquis]

[edit on 8-6-2007 by Aldo Marquis]

[edit on 8-6-2007 by Aldo Marquis]



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   
EDIT: I said 3 posts were knocked out or bent down at the fence. It was only one or two.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by Aldo Marquis]



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Two things we have in common Jack [ed - Craig - habit]
1) we're both seeking the truth
2) we get on each others' nerves to no end.
Therefore I think I should not come on here and flame you like that. Otherwise, I'm on the record.

But re: your responses:

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You have got to be kidding!

No, but that was just me laying it down as I see it. My opinon. Can't be proven. Could be illustrated, but again with the nerves. So just regarding what I've said already


It's so obvious you are trying to throw strong rhetoric back at me like I do to you but yours is empty and mine slices right through to the heart of truth.

Correct and incorrect. I really do think you're bluffing, and that your overal case is BS.


Peddling BS? Confirmed by witnesses? Bluffing??????


Please do elaborate because that is the most hollow load of verbage I've ever heard anyone DARE spew.


BS: see above: no plane hit. IMO this is BS. You start with questionable no hit 'suspicions' and then just so happen to find some witnesses that confirm it. Prior bias. Skews outcomes. Proof of anything, no, but another weakness as you seek to make the case that their accounts necessitate what you were looking for in the first place and pretenf they forced you to this realization. Bluffing: My opinion. Maybe you really do think you've got it. I shouldn't accuse you of lying, which bluffing is a category of I guess.


The most relevant thing "confirmed by witnesses" is the north side, sir.

Yeah, I git it. Somehow it's still not confirmed for me and for many others, but say it's proven all you like.


Of what "bs" you speak I haven't the foggiest.

Sorry for any ambiguity. again, see above.


As far as bluffing goes you are clearly reaching. I claim NOTHING beyond that which I have proven or can back up.

You are ambiguously trying to cast doubt about me to people who read this and it is deceptive.


Perhaps I am reaching. I'd not expect you to admit it if true. And doubt is our friend, which is why I cast it about. A thin scattering where I don't know much, a good pouring where I know my stuff and feel it's needed.
ETA: I'm not being ambiguous or deceptive, just arguing my way and ignoring your eyewitnesses. I stick to what I know.


Are you really going to decline a phone conversation with Aldo?

If you do that is EXTREMELY questionable and dubious behavior imo.

I don't know. I'm bad on the phone - just got a U2U from him, will see.
Been a lot going on lately, but that's my own doing, right?
I'm not afraid, just reluctant.
I'll be in touch.

And the tech points:

Well it IS small whether or not they badly simulated damage within the wing span of a 757. Sure....it KIND OF fits but.......

Okay, no 16-foot hole nonsense. Just checking.


That doesn't change the fact that there was no damage from the vertical stabilizer or no vertical stabilizer to be found.

There's a 16 foot hole (the main one in Loose Change) on the 2nd floor. 77' / 5 = about 15 feet per floor, a 757 tail height minus landing gear is about 40 feet - plus angle - so all but the upper tip, ten feet at most, seem to have entered floor 2, destoying column 14AA there. The one you said in a post was intact, was a dangler at best after impact. Cause the vertical stabilizer hit it and the fuselage destroyed part of the floor slab there.


Not to mention there is no hole for the right engine!

I'm about the only person around who has figure this one out. Dick Eastman and the ASCE and you agree. I do not. There is so a hole, meaning facade, wall infill, and columns all gone.
Look again at "columns" 15-17. Different sizes, shapes, and uneven spacing of "still attached" top ends. Also note the top ends seem to join the building at different levels, almost as if some facing or floor slab was missing - or hanging down at a 45 degree angle.
ETA: Perhaps from the columns beneath them being removed?




Instead we've got columns blown up and OUTWARDS!

Please explain upward and outward. I'm seeing down and straight compared to facade in general.


And then once you get into the foundation it's over.

Clearly no 757 hit that building as they claimed it did.

The physical damage REQUIRES the right wing to be tilted up. The ASCE report also states that all damage was limited to the bottom two stories.

That means the left engine HAD to have dug into the foundation of the building. (and also the lawn if it came in straight and perfectly level like in the dubious security video)


Agreed. (ETA: or darn close anyway) This is a point I do not have a ready answer for but would guess it was just above the floor slab at first and after breaking free of the exploding plane, would not have enough mass to do anything but skid over the floor. If there is damage, it'd be at the edge whe the plane was intact. True I'm not seeing that, but at least you know to look on the left for those spots. You're yards ahead of other Pgon "researchers" there.


So where is the foundation damage?

Explain or concede.


Okay so you stumped me on one point. Sorta.
I'll have to concede for the moment.

Add'l responses will have to wait till later. Thanks for the sparring!



edit for spelling and whatnot as noted

[edit on 8-6-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 8-6-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 8-6-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Jun, 9 2007 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Sparring?

This isn't jujitsu practice.

This is about global justice.

You conveniently skipped the c-ring exit hole.

Listen BRO.

I don't care how "good" or "bad" you are on the phone.

We are talking about pure HONEST communication without the hindrance of ego or forum limitations/rules.

How in the name of God/Buddha/Mohamed/whatever could you possibly be "reluctant" to that unless you have something nefarious to hide/protect?

And don't get your narcissistic panties in a bunch. We will offer that to ANY honest individual who is willing to discuss this incredible world wide deception from the heart.

Consider it an open invitation to anyone who is willing. Just send one of us a u2u.

Clearly we have forced you to concede or ignore many important and relevant points concerning your precious physical evidence trail.

Why don't you man up and put the pieces of the puzzle together?

Come on CL or whatever your real name is.

I have a suggestion. How about if you graduate out of anonymous blogger status and join the realm of honest truth/freedom fighters?

Forget about your blog/ego, call Aldo, announce your real name, renounce your absurd 757 impact conspiracy theory, and help us expose this insane deception that enables permanent global war and the perpetual death of innocent civilians on a daily basis?

Hmmmmmm?

How about that for a short term plan/commitment?



posted on Jun, 9 2007 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Btw.....

You don't ever "get on my nerves".

I love kittens.

Sometimes they annoy me a little......but I love them.



posted on Jun, 9 2007 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Ok, so we see that four people claim that the plane went north of the Citgo.

How many witnesses do you have that say the plane flew over the pentagon?

How many witnesses do you have that say the poles were planted and/or blown up in the middle of heavy traffic?

Without these, or physical proof of the above, what exactly are you basing your fly over and bombed out light pole theories?

Do you have any evidence at all for your other claims, or is it entirely speculation/fantasy?

If it is entirely speculation, why is it included in your "documentary"?

Why didn't you just stick to the facts?

Just because you got something in triplicate, does not make it true.

The facts remain that the majority of witnesses and ALL of the physical evidence go completely against your theories.



posted on Jun, 9 2007 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Yawn.

Quadruplicate.

The "majority" of witnesses do not contradict them.

see this thread

In fact you can not cite a single ONE that directly contradicts them.

You might be able to find a VERY small handful that indirectly contradicts them.

I'll let you figure it out for yourself and post them.

Good luck.



posted on Jun, 9 2007 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
I'm just letting you know I know, whether anyone ese here buys my case or not.


Well i for one seriously believe that you have a case


Ive read all yours and nicks threads and am following them and several things standout:

1.) Your arguements do sound plausible, they are very well written und are logical. Even for someone like me who has not followed the 9/11 drama (no planes, holographic projectors etc) or researched into it, has been able to follow and understand what your going on about.

2.) I find it intresting that in every thread about this it is said that Jack Tripper aka Craig Ranke, johndoex and others keep continuisly saying : "We have no time on the Internet, phone us , email me to get your facts, visit our forum...", yet they keep posting in your threads as you keep digging towards the truth. It does look like they are getting cornered and know it and are trying everything to minimise the damage because they also have financial stakes to this.


Please be aware that this is my personal opinion just from reading every thread in the pentacon forum and in the 9/11 forum posted from and about the information offered by nick and Caustic, i personally have absolutly no opinion about what really happened, its just intresting to see how the different characters involved in this drama here come across when posting



posted on Jun, 9 2007 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fett Pinkus

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
I'm just letting you know I know, whether anyone ese here buys my case or not.


Well i for one seriously believe that you have a case

Thank you, it's good to know someone is still paying attention .


Ive read all yours and nicks threads and am following them and several things standout:

1.) Your arguements do sound plausible, they are very well written und are logical. Even for someone like me who has not followed the 9/11 drama (no planes, holographic projectors etc) or researched into it, has been able to follow and understand what your going on about.

Really? I was hoping so but it gets esoteric/tedious at times.


2.) I find it intresting that in every thread about this it is said that Jack Tripper aka Craig Ranke, johndoex and others keep continuisly saying : "We have no time on the Internet, phone us , email me to get your facts, visit our forum...", yet they keep posting in your threads as you keep digging towards the truth. It does look like they are getting cornered and know it and are trying everything to minimise the damage because they also have financial stakes to this.


Yes, we are lucky to have them here wasting their time. Craig of course is here full-time, Aldo's here now too, but with JDX that's exactly it. I guess that's more than luck. I get bout the feeling you do sometimes that they feel cornered. Had thot that was just my ego maybe, and I'm sure Craig will loudly deny this of course, and who knows? But yeah... it comes on thicker as I dig deeper.

So...
Good job making this part all bold:


Please be aware that this is my personal opinion just from reading every thread in the pentacon forum and in the 9/11 forum posted from and about the information offered by nick and Caustic, i personally have absolutly no opinion about what really happened, its just intresting to see how the different characters involved in this drama here come across when posting


And to this guy at least I'm coming through loud and clear. Thank you for the refreshing entry Pinkus.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join