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: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 09:44 PM
link   
ADMIN EDIT

Abusive post removed and posting ban applied to this member under our new "close scrutiny" policy for the 9/11 Conspiracies forum.



[edit on 13-6-2007 by SkepticOverlord]




posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

I called them and they checked for your stories in their data base. No stories matching alien bugs in carpet. I also had them check the month you said the stories appeared. Nothing matches.

Maybe you just pulled those stories out of your hat thinking nobody would check? I'm not trying to derail the thread. I am trying to check on your honesty. You stated that you had read 3 stories and then told us what the stories were. None of them check out.

You are accusing someone of making up a story about the alleged Boeing 757 crash or overflight of the Pentagon and here you are making up stories yourself to prove they are making up stories.

Get a grip Nick. Admit your attempted hoax and lets move on.





John

EVERYONE takes alien bugs in carpets seriously. It's no joking matter! To suggest that someone would exploit the people who have suffered from alien carpet bugs??? And Satan is no laughing matter either. We're talking some serious # here.

If it helps though:

www.rense.com...

And we know how reliable rense is. It's the gold standard is it not?


And as for someone else's comment that the northside proves the other evidence wrong. The other evidence also proves the north side wrong. It works both ways. I'm not saying northside is wrong, I am saying the scientific method is.



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Well no because there are no specific eyewitness accounts of the plane on the south side of the citgo station and Lloyd the cab driver's ludicrous account shows that the light poles were staged.




Wait a minute.

Didn't one of your own witnesses say that the he saw the plane hit the light poles?


perso.orange.fr...

Subject: 9-11
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:11:40 -0400
From: "Lagasse, William"
To: "'apfn@apfn.org'"


Dear Sir rest assured it was a Boeing 757 that flew into the building that day, I was on duty as a pentagon police sgt. I was refueling my vehicle at the barraks k gas station that day adjacent to the aircrafts flight path. It was close enough that i could see the windows had the shades pulled down, it struck several light poles next to rt 27 and struck a trailer used to store construction equipment for the renovation of the pentagon that was to the right of the fueselage impact point. The fact that you are insinuating that this was staged and a fraud is unbelievable. You ask were the debris is...well it was in the building..I saw it everywhere. I swear to god you people piss me off to no end. I invite you and you come down and I will walk you through it step by step. I have more than a few hours in general aviation aircraft and can identify commercial airliners. Have you ever seen photos of other aircraft accident photos...there usually isnt huge amounts of debris left...how much did you see from the WTC?...are those fake aircraft flying into the building. I know that this will make no diffrence to you because to even have a websight like this you are obviously a diffrent sort of thinker.



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 03:03 AM
link   
I can see where you would be confused about him saying he saw the plane hit the building. It's clearly up to interpretation such as this example from pentacon:


Lyte "Sgt Legasse, did you see the plane hit the Pentagon?"

Sgt Legasse "Yes."


So like it has been said in this thread, no one really saw the plan hit the building.



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   
We have never claimed that the citgo witnesses didn't believe the plane hit the building.

The claim we make is quite clear.

Their independently corroborated placement of the plane proves they were deceived.

Why is that so hard to understand?

It is impossible for a plane on the north side of the citgo station to have caused the physical damage.

If it is impossible for the plane where all the witnesses saw it to have caused the physical damage the implications are clear:

The plane was used as a psychological tool during a military sleight of hand illusion in order to FOOL people into believing it hit the building.

So to cite the fact that the witnesses were successfully deceived does not prove that they were incorrect in their placement of the plane.

To make such a claim is not only a logical fallacy but is blatant circular logic.

To realize this should only take the most rudimentary of critical thinking skills.



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   
LeftBehind,

In the email you posted Lagasse simply states that the light poles were clipped not that he SAW them get clipped.

If you had watched his testimony during our film you can see that he was quite clear about the fact that he did NOT see any light poles get clipped.

Sgt Brooks cleared this up for us as well. He had said in a past interview that he saw the light poles get clipped. However he clarified to us that he, like Lagasse, did NOT see any poles get clipped and merely deduced this after the fact from seeing the poles on the ground.

We have interviewed other famous witnesses who have said the same thing. Primarily Stephen McGraw and Joel Sucherman.

They refuse to claim that they saw the poles get clipped even though they were allegedly right in front of them.

Bottom line there is not a single confirmed witness account of someone actually SEEING the poles get clipped.


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



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Um... WHAT ??? They were NOT tricked as to what side the plane was on...but WERE tricked into seeing something that wasnt there??

"Yes Sarge you DID see the plane exactly where you said you did, but NO Sarge, the goverment pulled a David Copperfield and tricked you! You DIDNT see that plane hit the light poles and then hit the Pentagon....

oh Sarge... the evidence you SAW in the Pentagon. Yeah that was planted before it was blown up."

This does not add up at all to me.



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Um... WHAT ??? They were NOT tricked as to what side the plane was on...but WERE tricked into seeing something that wasnt there??



Why would they be deliberately tricked as to what side of the station the plane flew?

Who would do that? What would be their motive for doing that? How would they do that?

Watch this presentation from Penn & Teller explaining the secrets of pulling off a successful sleight of hand illusion:
www.youtube.com...

"Misdirection" is clearly key to pulling it off.

The explosion/fireball would be the misdirection in the sleight of hand that we suggest:



What could possibly misdirect all of them into seeing the plane on the complete opposite side of the station then it really was?



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   
My opening statement did not come out quite like i thought... trying to get the kids supper and all ... I meant that you believe that the guy sees the plane on the side of the Citgo that supports your claim...yet you DONT believe he saw the plane hit the Pentagon. From the letter he wrote you ...he seems to tell YOU that YOU have it wrong.

Come on Craig... i realize how hard you worked on this... More so than us Google Jockey's.... But man...think long and hard about what your saying. It just doesnt add up.... and Im not going to post the thousands of reasons why.. becasue its already been done. There will be no grand jury investigation into this...your video did not catch on like LC, Pandoras Box, Terror Storm.. etc. Because what you claim is not probable.

For every one Cter that buys your theory ...i would guess another 20 discredit it.

Sorry dude.



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 07:07 PM
link   
The officer also pointed to the wrong place for the light poles as well.


I think this is a great study and what has definitely been proven is that eyewitness testimony is not completely reliable. And of course there have already been many past tests done to show this, but this is a great applied example.



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 07:10 PM
link   
The officer also pointed to the wrong place for the light poles as well. As he had trouble remembering what pump he was at. And of course the testimony is all golden from them all, except when it doesn't support the theories of the presenters. Then it's OK to say they may have been mislead or made assumptions, or whatever it takes to skew the evidence to their pre-determined conclusion. That's a bit dishonest. Forgetting that the witnesses were also being lead, if things could have skewed their thinking they saw the plane impact and other things, it could also skew where they thought the plane actually was. Forget all the studies that have shown eyewitness testimony to often be faulty because people remember things wrong. But for instance, they could have heard a plane and seen a shadow on the ground because perhaps the canope blocked their view and thus they assumed the shadow was the location of the plane itself. Or who knows what other millions of possible factors could have been involved just like the claims psychological plane itself.


I think this is a great study and what has definitely been proven is that eyewitness testimony is not completely reliable. And of course there have already been many past tests done to show this, but this is a great applied example.



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

I meant that you believe that the guy sees the plane on the side of the Citgo that supports your claim...yet you DONT believe he saw the plane hit the Pentagon. From the letter he wrote you ...he seems to tell YOU that YOU have it wrong.


That email was not to me it was to Dick Eastman back in 2003. Long before I ever interviewed him. Way back then is when the fact that he saw the plane on the north side was revealed because he said he was on the "starboard" side of the plane. People made excuses as if he confused starboard and port.

But I just EXPLAINED to you how the fact that they ALL saw it on the north side is what PROVES they were deliberately deceived about the alleged impact with a sleight of hand illusion.

Why do you insist on using circular logic to dismiss the north side claim as invalid?



Come on Craig... i realize how hard you worked on this... More so than us Google Jockey's.... But man...think long and hard about what your saying. It just doesnt add up.... and Im not going to post the thousands of reasons why.. becasue its already been done. There will be no grand jury investigation into this...your video did not catch on like LC, Pandoras Box, Terror Storm.. etc. Because what you claim is not probable.

For every one Cter that buys your theory ...i would guess another 20 discredit it.


Listen to how hard you are trying with blatant straw man attempt to make this personal! You have no idea of the response we have received and it will only grow. The information we present is NOT theory it is hard evidence. We have no aspirations to make the next Loose Change. We are investigative reporters not filmmakers/radio personalities. Yes we hypothesize but that is secondary to the evidence we have uncovered which gives us a RIGHT to hypothesize.



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



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   
"But I just EXPLAINED to you how the fact that they ALL saw it on the north side is what PROVES they were deliberately deceived about the alleged impact with a sleight of hand illusion."


No it does NOT. How can you even make such a claim????

Again, perhaps you could have this peer reviewed and see how such claims as this one hold up.



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
The officer also pointed to the wrong place for the light poles as well. As he had trouble remembering what pump he was at.


Why should he remember where the light poles were knocked down when he told us that he DID NOT SEE THE LIGHT POLES?

Of course he would believe that the light poles/physical damage that he DID NOT SEE (or read reports on after the fact) would line up with the flight path of the plane that he DID SEE!


That only serves to prove how certain he is of where he saw the plane.

Obviously whether or not he was at the back or front pump has what he described as "no bearing" as to his placement of the plane on the north side which is obviously true.

Because he would not be able to see the plane through the building at all!

Remember when he said this?

"I do not have eyes in the back of my head!"

It is a logical fallacy to suggest that either of these mistakes by Lagasse affect the validity of the north side claim which is corroborated by everyone else.



And of course the testimony is all golden from them all, except when it doesn't support the theories of the presenters. Then it's OK to say they may have been mislead or made assumptions, or whatever it takes to skew the evidence to their pre-determined conclusion. That's a bit dishonest.


Since I have just proven how both of your claims are based on blatant logical fallacies I have proven that YOU are the one being dishonest.



Forgetting that the witnesses were also being lead, if things could have skewed their thinking they saw the plane impact and other things, it could also skew where they thought the plane actually was.


You are rattling off irrelevant nonsense incoherently.

You have not provided a single example as to the witnesses having been "lead" of course you meant led.




Forget all the studies that have shown eyewitness testimony to often be faulty because people remember things wrong. But for instance, they could have heard a plane and seen a shadow on the ground because perhaps the canope blocked their view and thus they assumed the shadow was the location of the plane itself. Or who knows what other millions of possible factors could have been involved just like the claims psychological plane itself.


That's where the important word corroboration comes into play.

Yes eyewitness testimony is unreliable but every time a specific detail becomes independently corroborated the probability that it is accurate exponentially increases. When it is corroborated 4 times and 2 of the eyewitnesses are cops, and ALL of the witnesses frequent the area daily, and the specific detail is as simple as what side of the station the plane flew, and it was an event as significant as this; the probability that their claim is accurate becomes certain beyond a reasonable doubt.




I think this is a great study and what has definitely been proven is that eyewitness testimony is not completely reliable. And of course there have already been many past tests done to show this, but this is a great applied example.


There are many studies like that. And I would even agree that this IS a good example in regards to some of the less simple details such as color, type, speed, and exact location of the plane down to the foot........BUT..........clearly in regards to the simple detail of the APPROXIMATE location of the plane and the very general detail of whether or not the plane was on the NORTH or the SOUTH side of the station it becomes apparent that this specific and single claim is accurate because of the extremely high level of corroboration without a single witness to directly refute it.

Dig?

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane was on the north side.


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



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
"But I just EXPLAINED to you how the fact that they ALL saw it on the north side is what PROVES they were deliberately deceived about the alleged impact with a sleight of hand illusion."


No it does NOT. How can you even make such a claim????

Again, perhaps you could have this peer reviewed and see how such claims as this one hold up.


Yes it does. That is the entire point that you have not refuted.

Peer reviewed!

Sure!

We want the entire world to review it.

It's quite obvious that the north side claim has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The hard part is getting people to understand why this is significant because virtually nobody understands the implications because, like Brooks and Lagasse, they haven't bothered to study all the details regarding the physical damage.


So that's our mission.

It might take a while but people will see.



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Yes it does. That is the entire point that you have not refuted.

Peer reviewed!

Sure!

We want the entire world to review it.

It's quite obvious that the north side claim has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The hard part is getting people to understand why this is significant because virtually nobody understands the implications because, like Brooks and Lagasse, they haven't bothered to study all the details regarding the physical damage.


So that's our mission.

It might take a while but people will see.


Refute it?????? Are you joking??

How about if I said them seeing the plane on the north side PROVES the moon is made of cheese. Care to refute that? It's an absurd comment and them thinking they saw the plane on the north side in NO WAY what so ever even remotely proves they saw an "illusion" of a plane hitting the building.

You can have the entire world review it. I would like to see some experts review it and see how your claims of "PROOF that they saw illusions" of the plane hitting the Pentagon.

This is what I am talking about with your complete lack of scientific method. You are using a week form of evidence to simply make # up. Just as you are making up the part about illusions, and bombs, and fly overs, etc. You don't have any proof of that what so ever. Everything you claim as proof is based on one thing. Those witnesses you claim say the plane was on the north side. And that is very faulty. And then when their testimony becomes inconvenient to the stuff you make up, you make excuses for it. but when it works in your favor, there are no excuses. It's completely hypocritical and dishonest.

I mean enjoy such delusions all you want, but you seriously think the scientific community will in any way take this seriously? You're gonna be waiting a long time. I would be more than happy to make wagers on that.



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy


Refute it?????? Are you joking??

How about if I said them seeing the plane on the north side PROVES the moon is made of cheese. Care to refute that? It's an absurd comment and them thinking they saw the plane on the north side in NO WAY what so ever even remotely proves they saw an "illusion" of a plane hitting the building.


Talking about the moon is an irrelevant analogy and therefore another straw man attempt on your part. A bad one at that.

The fact that they all saw the plane on the north side proves that the plane was on the north side.

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.

The notion that they are all so ridiculously incorrect in the exact same way is not plausible, logical, or a reasonable conclusion.




You can have the entire world review it. I would like to see some experts review it and see how your claims of "PROOF that they saw illusions" of the plane hitting the Pentagon.


You are using rhetoric to skew the facts. It is proof that the plane was on the north side of the station which proves a deliberate deception.

Sleight of hand is far from a natural "illusion". You are being disingenuous by using that rhetoric.




This is what I am talking about with your complete lack of scientific method. You are using a week form of evidence to simply make # up. Just as you are making up the part about illusions, and bombs, and fly overs, etc. You don't have any proof of that what so ever. Everything you claim as proof is based on one thing. Those witnesses you claim say the plane was on the north side. And that is very faulty. And then when their testimony becomes inconvenient to the stuff you make up, you make excuses for it. but when it works in your favor, there are no excuses. It's completely hypocritical and dishonest.


You are rambling again. I am not making up the north side claim.

It is what the eyewitnesses saw.

It's not my fault if you don't understand the fact that this implicates a deliberate deception but it does.

You have not provided a single shred of evidence or logic that demonstrates how all of these witnesses are likely simultaneously and ridiculously incorrect about this extremely simple claim.



I mean enjoy such delusions all you want, but you seriously think the scientific community will in any way take this seriously? You're gonna be waiting a long time. I would be more than happy to make wagers on that.


There is no delusion in the fact that all of the witnesses irrefutably place the plane on the north of the citgo station.

This is proven fact.

We welcome the scientific community and the global community's assessment on this data.

Attention will only continue to grow.

How much would you like to bet?



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Yes talking about the moon is absurd, as is your claim of illusions of a plane impact. That's the whole point.

For the 100th time, it does NOT prove the plane was on the north side. it proves you have some people who think it was. You have NOT proven it was in fact because all you have is eyewitness testimony and very shaky testimony at that.

If you STILL don't understand this then clearly you don't have the mental capacity to perform proper scientific analysis or even understand. Obviously you are simply trying to conclude your pre-determined conclusion and trying to make the evidence fit that rather than the other way around.

No one says they are any more innaccurate than you do. Oh they are completely accurate to you so long as they support what you want. but as soon as they say something that doesn't support what you want, then those parts suddenly are not accurate. Yes them seeing the plane to the north is completely accurate. but them seeing the plane hit the building isn't. It's called cherry picking and leading. This is very dishonest.

Once again you are using conjecture to skew facts and manufacture facts. You don't have facts here, you have some suggestive evidence. And EVERY claim of yours is based on that evidence which is shaky. It in no way proves a deception at all. it proves you have 4 people who think it flew over the north side. And using your argument we could say that the rest of the evidence proves you are being deceptive here. I am not saying you are, I am saying I can just as easily make the same arguments as you and it would be just as valid.

You're making claims of slight of hand and illusions and then accusing me of rhetoric? Seriously???

Nice try with the usual worn out claims of people who don't out the faults in your claims as "not understanding". But clearly it's You who does not understand your own faults. Because you aren't interested in truth here, you are simply interested in providing a conspiracy. Hence you're complete ignorance to the faults and not having any understanding of how anyone could even suggest such a thing. Hence you're not understanding why people have a problem with you claiming that some eyewitness testimony is solid proof and that it's also proof of all the rest of the assumptions you make.

You can claim it's 100% proof til the cows come home. But it simply is not. It's evidence just like the rest of the evidence that you keep claiming you don't dismiss, but obviously do as you claim it's all an illusion and a deception. HINT: That's dismissing. And you accuse others of being in denial? Seriously?

And I most certainly HAVE provided evidence. Now I know you are just going through the motions with that claim. But I have pointed out the flaws in your scientific method. No external sources needed here. It's science and investigation 101. What you have not done is proven that all the witnesses ARE 100% correct. I have pointed out the obvious which is already well know. That eyewitness testimony is never 100% accurate, not even if it's similar between multiple people.

The witnesses claims are questionable as some seem unsure and some seem to be lead on a lot. Plus there are over a million other possibilities that could skew their perceptions. This is why eyewitness testimony is not accurate. You can sit here and call it proven fact all you want. But it simply isn't. It's far from scientific and it completely violates scientific method.

I would bet pretty much anything. Have you taken this to some science and physics forums for some feedback? I would love to see that. I have no doubt that all the fans on the conspiracy sites XXX for truth (how ever many there are now) all agree as they will agre with anything that implies a conspiracy.

How come since this is such solid scientific research is it not on any credible new sources or being backed by the general scientific community? (HINT: I have already pointed out why).

No one is critisizing you for the heard work done. But if you're gonna sit here and boast about it being 100% proof and what not, prepare for a reality check. Great work, but proof it's not. Not by a long shot.



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Ok so you have managed to reply with exponentially more words while saying exponentially less.

I have to give you credit for that.

Nobody directly refutes the north side claim.

NOBODY!

Do you understand that?

So until you can counter this evidence with stronger evidence there is a much higher probability that north side claim is accurate.

End of story.



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 10:20 PM
link   
The DATA is..... Eye Witness Testimoney is NOT reliable!

What is your theory as to where the plane is... and the phone calls that were made from the flight 77? Do you know who Rene May is? . 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. She asked her mother to alert American Airlines. Nancy May and her husband promptly did so.


At some point between 9:16 and 9:26, Barbara Olson called her husband,Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States. She reported that the flight had been hijacked, and the hijackers had knives and box cutters. She further indicated that the hijackers were not aware of her phone call, and that they had put all the passengers in the back of the plane. About a minute into the conversation, the call was cut off. Solicitor General Olson tried unsuccessfully to reach Attorney General John Ashcroft.Shortly after the first call, Barbara Olson reached her husband again. She reported that the pilot had announced that the flight had been hijacked, and she asked her husband what she should tell the captain to do.Ted Olson asked for her location and she replied that the aircraft was then flying over houses. Another passenger told her they were traveling northeast.The Solicitor General then informed his wife of the two previous hijackings and crashes. She did not display signs of panic and did not indicate any awareness of an impending crash. At that point, the second call was cut off.
-911 Commission Report

I need to know where Barbra Olsen is...I'm sure Ted Olsen would like to know too. Also..I would like to know how ALL but ONE of the passengers were able to be identified by DNA and their loved ones were able to bury some body parts.

Where is that plane? Any witnesses to that flight actually landing?



new topics




 
7
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join