PentaCon is not a Hoax

(props on countering no-WTC plane theories BTW - saw Killtown chased out the door - I just ignore that stuff it's so stupid REAL people would never post that if their brains was working)

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Sparring?

This isn't jujitsu practice.

This is about global justice.

That's it - and we disagree wildly about how to get there. Or we may even agree all in all, but differ greatly on the issue of what evidence can wake people up.

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?

Duh! I don't owe you #, buddy. Nice attitude there. Nefarious? Maybe I'm just afraid I'm wrong, or will be made to look so, or just get all nervous from a harsh tongue-lashing. It's not necessarily something I enjoy, conflict and drama. Maybe I feel I need to do more homework on your arguments? At the moment I'm not up to it.
Look, we haven't agreed yet. We aren't coming to any rapproachment on the core issues on phone or elsewhere. Call it a hunch. Why drag the fight to another level? Feeling out of your element?
What the hell is up with this talk it out stuff anyway? You made your video, I don't believe your theory. I say my thing, you say yours. Am I hurting sales/spreading of your truth by casting doubt? Well I'm sorry the doubt is sticking so bad. Maybe you should look into why.

So yeah, I'll do the call when I'm ready. Soonish. Let's not set a date just yet.

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.

Just watch the takers line up, man.

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

I conceded one for the moment. The others tomorrow now.

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?

Adam J. Larson. It's a couple clicks away, always has been. So I'm not honest if I choose to have a screen name too? I'm calling BS on my government and on some of the most prominent people leading the "Truth" movement at the same time. I better damn well have a good case and I stand by it.

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?

Nope, maybe, done, fat chance, and good luck. I will not latch onto an increasingly "insane" deception when the realitic deception I've known from day one is of more concern to me personally. However nutso it really was, I agree with your final analysis there of what 9/11 means and hope it can be exposed. But with so many distractions/false leads/red herrings/etc. on top of native and engineered fear/groupthink/patriotism it'll be a hard long time coming. IMO. Call me a defeatist psyop now if you like. Facts is facts and we're looking dumber all the time to a lot of people. Possible allies. PentaCon is part of that problem in some eyes if not yours, so maybe the thing about putting egos and projects on hold runs across the board. Just a thought.

Till then, I have my opinions, you have yours.

Aldo was talking truce it seems, about saving me the time of fighting you guys. How generous. But honestly I could use the saved time, as I'm sure could you. I'd love to promise not to step on your toes any longer, but can only offer a temporary truce. I have poor impulse control.

I'll address the rest of your phys ev points tomorrow, if necessary to avoid charges of copping out. Then that's it.

Then when I'm ready, yeah, we'll have a chat. I know Aldo or woever will be in it to win it, and I'll just drink a beer or two first to relax and be open and go with it. Whatever. I'll tell you just about what I have been, tho I'll be more versed in your points by then and more prepared than I am.

If you still want the call, 'cause then it's truce off at least for that timeframe.
Anyway, I am mellowed.
Have a good Saturday man.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Yawn.

Quadruplicate.

The "majority" of witnesses do not contradict them.

As usual you attempt to dismiss what you would rather not hear. Great job CherrypickingInvestigationTeam, Go Team!

I am talking specifically about your claims that the plane flew over the pentagon and your claims about the light poles.

911research.wtc7.net...

about 89 : The amount of eye witnesses I gathered who stated they saw an object crash into the Pentagon. The vast majority of the still available ones.

No amount of yawning will make the the evidence of a plane crashing go away.

You don't have a single piece of evidence that the plane flew over or that bombs were used on the light poles.

Nor have you adequately explained how they planted the bodies in the pentagon.

You claiming something hardly counts as evidence.

Yawn, indeed. Nothing to see here folks, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.


BTW, should we discount your earlier theories about a moved taxi, or is that still one of your smoking guns? Will there be a Pentacon 2: The mystery of the moved taxi

[edit on 9-6-2007 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Then when I'm ready, yeah, we'll have a chat. I know Aldo or woever will be in it to win it, and I'll just drink a beer or two first to relax and be open and go with it. Whatever. I'll tell you just about what I have been, tho I'll be more versed in your points by then and more prepared than I am.

If you still want the call, 'cause then it's truce off at least for that timeframe.
Anyway, I am mellowed.
Have a good Saturday man.

In my experience, both outside of ATS and reading the posts of Rob and Craig, they might want the phone call because they lean towards being insulting and rude as their first response to addressing the points. They can record the calls of them calling you names, insulting you, referring to you as a keyboard commando or an little kitten, then play back the recordings on their sites to make you look bad and to make them look macho. Nobody is going to bother downloading a 30 minute call anyway, so what do they care what's said. They'll claim they "won" the debate no matter what's said on the phone call.

A debate that's documented in writing and photos is a different story. It's there for all to see, and it gives each person time to think, research, and defend their arguments in a well thought out, non-emotional fashion.

There's nothing to be gained by a phone call with people who've already shown themselves to act like playground bullies when they don't like what other people say. There's nothing nefarious about your motives if you prefer not accept their invitation to fight on their turf.

Originally posted by LeftBehind

You don't a single piece of evidence that the plane flew over or that bombs were used on the light poles.

Nor have you adequately explained how they planted the bodies in the pentagon.

You claiming something hardly counts as evidence.

Yawn, indeed. Nothing to see here folks, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

LeftBehind thanks for your post. Apparently you have been left behind in the information stream. Based on 40 years as a pilot, mechanic, aircraft construction and design, and some accident investigation it is my considered opinion that no Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon. I base that opinion not only on the entry hole size which was barely big enough for the Predator or other RPV that entered but the complete and total lack of parts either outside or inside the Pentagon. Not to mention the total imossibility of a hijacker flying the alleged profile presented in the tabular record of the alleged FDR. As far as any bodies 'planted' in the Pentagon I doubt that story. I don't think there were any bodies allegedly from Flight #77 found in the Pentagon. I know its tough playing catch up when you have been 'left behind' and if there is any specific information I can help you with please let me know.

As to the overfly; yes, there could have been an overfly or it could have been a holograph. (Oh, wait!!! Spare me!!! It couldn't have been a holograph, too many people saw it. )

Thanks again for the post and please accept my condolences for being left so far behind.

Originally posted by johnlear
Based on 40 years as a pilot, mechanic, aircraft construction and design, and some accident investigation it is my considered opinion that no Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon. I base that opinion not only on the entry hole size which was barely big enough for the Predator or other RPV that entered but the complete and total lack of parts either outside or inside the Pentagon.

Thats the problem really Its your considered opinion and nothing else, just because you say it is so doenst mean that it happened like you said it did.

There is alawys 2 sides to a story, its better to look at both and then decide whats right.

Originally posted by Fett Pinkus

Thats the problem really

Its your considered opinion and nothing else, just because you say it is so doenst mean that it happened like you said it did.

Yes, you are correct,

There is alawys 2 sides to a story, its better to look at both and then decide whats right.

Yes, I did that and decided that what's right is that no Boeing 757, (except possibly in holographic form) ever came near the Pentagon much less crash into it. It is not that this scenario is unlikely: it is totally impossible.

Thanks for your post.

Originally posted by johnlear

As to the overfly; yes, there could have been an overfly or it could have been a holograph. (Oh, wait!!! Spare me!!! It couldn't have been a holograph, too many people saw it.

)

Thanks again for the post and please accept my condolences for being left so far behind.

And please accept my condolences for your being bat-poo insane.

While it could have been a holograph/magic spell/leprechauns in disguise, there is zero evidence to support such a hypothesis.

There is a large body of evidence, including bodies, airplane parts, and eyewitnesses that point to a plane crashing right into the pentagon.

There is zero evidence for a hologram or a flyover.

So please save the condesencion for when you actually have something other than your opinion to back up your fantasy.

I understand that it's just your opinion and we should take it as such. However that's no reason to talk down to someone when you have nothing to back up your opinion, and we refuse to take it as gospel.

Sorry that I prefer actual evidence over your respected opinion.

[edit on 9-6-2007 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by LeftBehind

And please accept my condolences for your being bat-poo insane.

You need to try and express yourself without calling me names, if thats possible? Thanks.

There is a large body of evidence, including bodies, airplane parts, and eyewitnesses that point to a plane crashing right into the pentagon.

Incorrect. There is no evidence of any bodies from #77 which has been independently verified. Other than a landing gear and small piece of an engine (which could have easily been placed on scene) there is no evidence of a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon. For instance we have not seen any picture of the wing plank/fuselage or empennage/stabilizer sections which would have been impossible to destroy, would have been very large and would have been very convincing evidence of a Beoing 757 crash into the Pentagon. Your dismissal of holographs indicate a complete lack of knowledge or familiaity with that type of techonology. You might well consider Arthur C. Clarke's comment, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

But thanks for your post.

Originally posted by johnlear

You need to try and express yourself without calling me names, if thats possible? Thanks.

No problem, let's make a deal, you don't make attempts at humor involving my screen name and me being left behind, hilariously clever as it was, and I won't call you insane.

Incorrect. There is no evidence of any bodies from #77 which has been independently verified.

Who exactly would you accept as independent? The CIT, or you perhaps?

The bodies were identified by their DNA, you can't deny that.

Your dismissal of holographs indicate a complete lack of knowledge or familiaity with that type of techonology. You might well consider Arthur C. Clarke's comment, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

And your dismissal of the physical evidence indicate a complete lack of knowledge of critical thinking.

There were plane parts, even if there were not enough of them for you. There were zero predator parts found.

Of course this is off topic, maybe someone can provide some evidence that backs up the flyover, bombed light pole thoery? The theory that this thread is about.



[edit on 9-6-2007 by LeftBehind]

Based on 40 years as a pilot, mechanic, aircraft construction and design, and some accident investigation it is my considered opinion that no Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon.

It's also based on not whether you win or lose but how much you stir the pot. Sorry but you said that yourself.

Incorrect. There is no evidence of any bodies from #77 which has been independently verified.

And theres also no evidence it was a Hologram.

Other than a landing gear and small piece of an engine (which could have easily been placed on scene) there is no evidence of a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon.

The moment you get proved wrong you can say it was a hologram or a it planted there. You know why you can say that and noone else can? Because you're John Lear.

I have an idea. Go over to the jref forums and register under John1942.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic


Duh! I don't owe you #, buddy. Nice attitude there. Nefarious? Maybe I'm just afraid I'm wrong, or will be made to look so, or just get all nervous from a harsh tongue-lashing. It's not necessarily something I enjoy, conflict and drama. Maybe I feel I need to do more homework on your arguments? At the moment I'm not up to it.
Look, we haven't agreed yet. We aren't coming to any rapproachment on the core issues on phone or elsewhere. Call it a hunch. Why drag the fight to another level? Feeling out of your element?
What the hell is up with this talk it out stuff anyway? You made your video, I don't believe your theory. I say my thing, you say yours. Am I hurting sales/spreading of your truth by casting doubt? Well I'm sorry the doubt is sticking so bad. Maybe you should look into why.

So yeah, I'll do the call when I'm ready. Soonish. Let's not set a date just yet.

I didn't offer to talk to you, I really have no desire. But Aldo did. I know for a fact that it would not be a "tongue-lashing". Aldo doesn't want to talk to you so he can argue with you. Aldo is the head researcher of CIT and he knows all the details about all the witnesses by pure memory. He offers to talk to everyone that researches this stuff or is interested or has questions about the information we have obtained because you can get in much more detail over the phone then in the forum. It's simply how he rolls. It's merely a way to extend the invitation to open and honest communication without the burden of performing in the forum. It's a way to demonstrate his legitimacy, knowledge, and honest intent through a sincere discussion. You have been interested in enough in our work that he simply extended that invitation. Believe me....Nick is WAY off base and Aldo has no desire or intention to record the call and turn it back on you. Notice how you have never seen us post a "debate" call between us and anybody.

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?

Adam J. Larson. It's a couple clicks away, always has been. So I'm not honest if I choose to have a screen name too? I'm calling BS on my government and on some of the most prominent people leading the "Truth" movement at the same time. I better damn well have a good case and I stand by it.

Ahhh good for you! You definitely get a point in my book for that. I thought you were anonymous.

You obviously don't have a good case against us which is why you took down your article.

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?

Nope, maybe, done, fat chance, and good luck. I will not latch onto an increasingly "insane" deception when the realitic deception I've known from day one is of more concern to me personally. However nutso it really was, I agree with your final analysis there of what 9/11 means and hope it can be exposed. But with so many distractions/false leads/red herrings/etc. on top of native and engineered fear/groupthink/patriotism it'll be a hard long time coming. IMO. Call me a defeatist psyop now if you like. Facts is facts and we're looking dumber all the time to a lot of people. Possible allies. PentaCon is part of that problem in some eyes if not yours, so maybe the thing about putting egos and projects on hold runs across the board. Just a thought.

Till then, I have my opinions, you have yours.

The PentaCon is only part of the problem to people who are stuck on a particular theory and haven't researched the facts or have a personal axe to grind with us. The fact that you concede things and make changes and do not hide your real name are all points in your favor of being an honest truth seeker. No matter if you are a misguided one.

Aldo was talking truce it seems, about saving me the time of fighting you guys. How generous. But honestly I could use the saved time, as I'm sure could you. I'd love to promise not to step on your toes any longer, but can only offer a temporary truce. I have poor impulse control.

I'll address the rest of your phys ev points tomorrow, if necessary to avoid charges of copping out. Then that's it.

Then when I'm ready, yeah, we'll have a chat. I know Aldo or woever will be in it to win it, and I'll just drink a beer or two first to relax and be open and go with it. Whatever. I'll tell you just about what I have been, tho I'll be more versed in your points by then and more prepared than I am.

If you still want the call, 'cause then it's truce off at least for that timeframe.
Anyway, I am mellowed.
Have a good Saturday man.

Again......Aldo does not want to talk to you to "win" or fight. He knows his facts. He simply believes that if you really are an honest truth seeker that talking with him will be very effective in opening your eyes.

CL,

Columns 15-20 were intact. They were blown UP and OUT from the base. It is insane to suggest that the right engine went through that.

Why is there no continuity to the "wing damage" when it tilted up it's right wing?. It looks as if the facade simply fell off in this section:




The biggest smoking gun besides the undamaged foundation and the no tail section damage is column 14AA.




THIS reduces the size of the "fuselage hole". It is clear that the two windows were blown out.

Would it be more likely or less likely to leave a segment of column hanging in the middle of the "fuselage hole". That makes it about what 18 ft?

The plane allegedly entered the Pentagon under an angle of 45 degrees, thus the effective horizontal lengths become

length_eff = length/cos(pi*45/180)

effective diameter engine: 11 feet
effective width fuselage: 17 feet
effective distance between the center of the fuselage to center of the engines: 30 feet
effective span 757-200: 176 feet

Now go look at the size of the hole that the second plane left in WTC2.

Think people.





[edit on 9-6-2007 by Aldo Marquis]

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Yawn.

Quadruplicate.

The "majority" of witnesses do not contradict them.

As usual you attempt to dismiss what you would rather not hear. Great job CherrypickingInvestigationTeam, Go Team!

I am talking specifically about your claims that the plane flew over the pentagon and your claims about the light poles.

The north side claim is proof. I am not interested in engaging in a circular discussion with an OCT supporter in this forum. If I want that I'll go to jref.

911research.wtc7.net...

about 89 : The amount of eye witnesses I gathered who stated they saw an object crash into the Pentagon. The vast majority of the still available ones.

Same ole ignorant linking to witness lists that you haven't bothered to analyze. We know for a fact that many of those 89 people could not even see the pentagon and some weren't even witnesses to the event at all!

We can and have proven it.

No amount of yawning will make the the evidence of a plane crashing go away.

You don't have a single piece of evidence that the plane flew over or that bombs were used on the light poles.

Nor have you adequately explained how they planted the bodies in the pentagon.

You claiming something hardly counts as evidence.

The witness testimony we present IS evidence! Confirmed accounts filmed on location hold WAY more weight then unconfirmed 2nd hand media accounts. Posting links to witness lists that includes people who weren't even witnesses is NOT evidence. What we present most certainly is.

We have never claimed explosives were used to bring down the light poles. That is ludicrous.

The bodies in the Pentagon were from Pentagon employees who were killed in the building. You can not prove the chain of custody of the alleged passenger dna wasn't compromised. Nobody can know for sure where it really came from. The north side claim proves it did not come from the Pentagon.

BTW, should we discount your earlier theories about a moved taxi, or is that still one of your smoking guns? Will there be a Pentacon 2: The mystery of the moved taxi

Exactly! Look how long ago we were questioning Lloyd's absurd account! Over a year and half ago! Sure enough after personal interviews with Lloyd, tours of the VDOT to physically examine the same style poles, and of course final confirmation from ALL witnesses at the citgo station......we have PROVEN that our initial suspicions about Lloyd's accout were 100% justified. Updated thread here:
Lloyd The Taxicab Driver: The Mystery of the Undamaged Hood.

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Then when I'm ready, yeah, we'll have a chat. I know Aldo or woever will be in it to win it, and I'll just drink a beer or two first to relax and be open and go with it. Whatever. I'll tell you just about what I have been, tho I'll be more versed in your points by then and more prepared than I am.

If you still want the call, 'cause then it's truce off at least for that timeframe.
Anyway, I am mellowed.
Have a good Saturday man.

In my experience, both outside of ATS and reading the posts of Rob and Craig, they might want the phone call because they lean towards being insulting and rude as their first response to addressing the points. They can record the calls of them calling you names, insulting you, referring to you as a keyboard commando or an little kitten, then play back the recordings on their sites to make you look bad and to make them look macho. Nobody is going to bother downloading a 30 minute call anyway, so what do they care what's said. They'll claim they "won" the debate no matter what's said on the phone call.

A debate that's documented in writing and photos is a different story. It's there for all to see, and it gives each person time to think, research, and defend their arguments in a well thought out, non-emotional fashion.

There's nothing to be gained by a phone call with people who've already shown themselves to act like playground bullies when they don't like what other people say. There's nothing nefarious about your motives if you prefer not accept their invitation to fight on their turf.

Nonsense. You are way off base.

1. Aldo offered the invitation to talk with CL on the phone. Not me or Rob.

2. I do not act like a "playground bully". Yes I strongly defend myself against unjustified/uninformed attacks. Clearly the existence of this thread proves I was completely right to do so with you. I suggest you leave the accusations alone since you are the admitted provocateur in this discussion.

3. Aldo has no intentions of recording the conversation or even arguing with CL at all. I am quite certain of this and I am quite sure he would go so far as to make that promise publicly which would prove him a liar if he went back on that promise. He even said it was an "olive branch". Aldo simply knows his facts and prefers to talk with interested researchers over the phone.

What's with the constant flip flop of attitude about us?

Originally posted by Fett Pinkus

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.

I take issue with this absurd, incorrect, and ignorant conspiracy theory.

I have NEVER said I don't have time to post here. I am NOT Rob.

I have my own forum here dedicated to the data we present if you haven't noticed.

Minimize the damage because of a "financial stake"?? You have got to be kidding! I guess you forgot what this is about. 9/11 truth/permanent global war/social justice/perpetual death etc.

Apparently you ALSO haven't noticed how both Nick AND CL have fully admitted to attacking us without valid reason.

Didn't you read the OP of this thread? Didn't you notice how CL actually took down his admittedly poor hit-piece against us?

Are you living in an alternate reality?

OF COURSE we have increased our presence as a result of these unwarranted attacks! OF COURSE we will defend ourselves when necessary!

And look what happened! They fully admitted they were wrong.

Seriously.....how could you have missed that?

As usual you attempt to dismiss what you would rather not hear. Great job CherrypickingInvestigationTeam, Go Team!

Go anonymous provocatuer go! Remember I am a real person. You are just an anonymous "poster" on a 'infamous to some, famous to others' conspiracy board.

I am talking specifically about your claims that the plane flew over the pentagon and your claims about the light poles.

Our claim is the plane was on the North side.Do you understand?

Our hypothesis is the poles were staged and the plane flew over. It had to have if it was on the North side. And it was.

The flyover is actually more of an alternative. Either the plane hit or it flew over. That damage and debis pattern is irreconcilable with a 757 impact, let alone one piloted by Hani Hanjour.

about 89 : The amount of eye witnesses I gathered who stated they saw an object crash into the Pentagon. The vast majority of the still available ones.

No amount of yawning will make the the evidence of a plane crashing go away.

Yeah go back and analyze those again.

I am working on a list in our forum showing you how they are not genuine impact witnesses. Get their location and POV (point of view) and see if they have one. You are confusing the way people speak and the way journalists dramatize people's accounts by connecting "the impact" to them seeing the plane.

You don't have a single piece of evidence that the plane flew over or that bombs were used on the light poles.

We've NEVER said bombs were on the light poles since our trips. And even well before our trips. Maybe posed as an alterative. But, that is a lie or a mistake on your part. And believe me, we have more evidence than you know and more than you ever will be able to refute. You can't even dispute the evidence we have now.

Have you been there before? In the area? If not, I suggest you go there and take a look at the area. Drive down the highways. You'll see the potential for this being concealed if not confusing people with accounts of a second plane/jet.

Nor have you adequately explained how they planted the bodies in the pentagon.

They did not have to plant any bodies. There was no evidence of any. No seats, no luggage. NO PHOTOS OF DEAD PASSENGERS.

You claiming something hardly counts as evidence.

We aren't claiming anything other than what the genuine witnesses claimed. The plane is on the North side of the Citgo, one seeing it pull up on it's way to the Pentagon. The witness Robert told me specifically:

"I know what an American Airlines looks like, it has colored stripes running down the side, but I don't know what that wwas supposed to be."

Yawn, indeed. Nothing to see here folks, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Yeah pay no attention to him guys. Remember we're the real people who set out to put an end to the debating.

BTW, should we discount your earlier theories about a moved taxi, or is that still one of your smoking guns? Will there be a Pentacon 2: The mystery of the moved taxi

Absolutely not. Technically speaking the cab and pole WERE moved there. My belief in that thread is that the cab and pole were staged.

It also shows how intuitive some of us are and how some of us are paying attention to details. Shows we were on the right track. But right you'd rather blatantly ignore the fact that the police officers and citgo employee are there EVERYDAY. They drive up to that gas station. They look at the Pentagon (two work there). They were looking or facing TOWARDS the Pentagon. But you'd rather believe a crazy, improbable to impossible story from a cab driver with a David Icke book sitting on the seat of his cab.

Keep in mind...

THIS WAS WELL *BEFORE* OUR FIRST TRIP TO ARLINGTON AND CONTACT WITH LLOYD ENGLAND!!!!!!!

Thanks for pointing it out. :u

[e

[edit on 9-6-2007 by Aldo Marquis]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


The north side claim is proof. I am not interested in engaging in a circular discussion with an OCT supporter in this forum. If I want that I'll go to jref.

Please don't attempt to dismiss what you don't want to hear, this is a place for discussion, not monologues.

The north side claim is not proof of a flyover.

Three of your own witnesses say that they saw the plane hit the pentagon, and yet you use them as proof that a plane did not hit?

So by your own logic you claim that 3/4 of your witnesses are wrong on the plane hitting the pentagon.

Why should we believe your witnesses in one example and yet discard their testimony in another?

That is brazen intellectual dishonesty. You cannot use your witnesses as proof of both the north side, and a flyover claim. The witnesses testimony in 3 out 4 cases is mutually exclusive.

So please which part again are your witnesses lying about? The north side flight path? Or the plane hitting the pentagon?

We know for a fact that many of those 89 people could not even see the pentagon and some weren't even witnesses to the event at all!

We can and have proven it.

By all means share this proof of yours that all 89 witnesses are wrong and that only your special hand picked four are right.

The witness testimony we present IS evidence!

Your right, it is lock solid clear cut evidence that a plane hit the pentagon, by your standards.

We have never claimed explosives were used to bring down the light poles. That is ludicrous.

Then please explain to us your non ludicrous theory about how they were planted there in traffic at the same time the plane came in, with no one noticing.

I'm sure you can find at least one person who saw this. No?

The bodies in the Pentagon were from Pentagon employees who were killed in the building. You can not prove the chain of custody of the alleged passenger dna wasn't compromised. Nobody can know for sure where it really came from. The north side claim proves it did not come from the Pentagon.

Then why did they match up with the DNA of the passengers families? I cannot prove that the DNA wasn't compromised, however, neither can you prove that it was planted there or somehow tampered with.

Again, thanks for proving that your claims are based on speculation.

Please explain again how three people who saw the north side route, and also saw the plane hit, prove that the plane didn't hit.

That's quite the logical leap.

Originally posted by johnlear


Incorrect. There is no evidence of any bodies from #77 which has been independently verified. Other than a landing gear and small piece of an engine (which could have easily been placed on scene) there is no evidence of a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon. For instance we have not seen any picture of the wing plank/fuselage or empennage/stabilizer sections which would have been impossible to destroy, would have been very large and would have been very convincing evidence of a Beoing 757 crash into the Pentagon. Your dismissal of holographs indicate a complete lack of knowledge or familiaity with that type of techonology. You might well consider Arthur C. Clarke's comment, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

But thanks for your post.

Yes the bodies have been independently verified by the DNA testing companies, most of which are independent. And there is more than a few scraps of pieces left not to mention it would have been absolutely impossible to have plant them there in front of thousands of people. And how would it be impossible to destroy those things? We have seen test footage of planes being flown at the same speeds into concrete leaving absolutely nothing what so ever behind but dust.

And so you have some evidence of some examples of holograms used in this way?

Thanks.

Originally posted by nick7261

There's nothing to be gained by a phone call with people who've already shown themselves to act like playground bullies when they don't like what other people say. There's nothing nefarious about your motives if you prefer not accept their invitation to fight on their turf.

Not nefarious, no, but I really I can't think of a good reason to decline, or trying not to. Well, Aldo - I've heard he gets actually banned and stuff for being harsh, but so far all's cool. Maybe it'll even be productive. In fact it will be to some extent by definition. I mean what've I got to loose? If they "win," I still have my side of what that means. And I doubt I'll be convincing Aldo of anything, so why bother thinking of it as a fight? It's all for any who see nefarious motives in me where, to help clarify where I'm coming from and why.

Thank you tho for helping me remember my choices and stuff. I got it.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Fett Pinkus

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.

I take issue with this absurd, incorrect, and ignorant conspiracy theory.

Of course... it' not really about the money, but the ideas involved. These guys are into deep IDEAS, and serious evidence of the 9/11 conspiracy. As Craig says...

Minimize the damage because of a "financial stake"?? You have got to be kidding! I guess you forgot what this is about. 9/11 truth/permanent global war/social justice/perpetual death etc.

Apparently you ALSO haven't noticed how both Nick AND CL have fully admitted to attacking us without valid reason.

Didn't you read the OP of this thread? Didn't you notice how CL actually took down his admittedly poor hit-piece against us?
[...]
They fully admitted they were wrong.

Yeah Pinko! Please try to pay attention. Didn't you see where - Wait... did I say that? I had no reason? Craig, please cite the various quotes you selectively scanned to contruct that "admission" flight path? I'm trying not to step on your toes, but please do not mischaracterize my position. I admitted that YOU felt it was deceptive and that I just didn't write it that well. NOT NEAR as bad as you make it sound, but some bad sentences and typos and whatnot. It was hasty. I had excellent reasons to write the piece, and then good enough reason to take it down until I feel like issuing any specific retractions I find worthy or you would like to suggest (for my cons.), and until I decide when I'm ready to do a new and better review.

And as far as averaging me and Nick together and saying "we" admitted we were wrong, weren't you just ripping on Pinkus for conflating you and JDX to make a non-accurate blanket statement?

Are you living in an alternate reality?

Apparently. We welcome you to join us when you're ready.